First of all, I believe that everything she says is true (otherwise there's an easy denial), but I believe that every single gap in the story should be held against her given the friendliness and motivations of her and the forum in which she is telling the story. This is the same standard I hold Ted Cruz to when he talks to Fox News, for example. For a near-perfect comparison, gun nut Republicans do this with visits from the ATF (they like to own things like pistol braces and use these accessories in questionably legal ways).

The "Alex Jones" standard is a bit worse, I guess, since I would assume him to be lying about facts.

In general, I also believe that people doing work internationally (especially ones with a lawyer) almost certainly do know the rules and it's okay to hold them to those rules. I have personally done a lot of international travel, including to places that are rather unsavory, and it's not that hard to follow the rules. It is very hard to get them to bend the rules, which is what I assume she wanted to happen here.

Here's what I think of her story:

1. Denied a visa 3 times to try to work at a company that sells federally illegal products, and didn't go through the right channels to rectify that. Why not? Why go back to the same place that denied you multiple times and not to a consulate? Also, the "approved by the computer then denied at entry" has basically two possible causes: (a) some other past immigration problem like a visa overstay or (b) she didn't mention the denial when she applied. I am guessing (b) given that she probably got advice from her lawyer that going back to the border station 3 times was an acceptable course of action, when it is well known that it is nearly impossible to get a visa on entry after a previous visa denial (this happens for any country, and often for any denial).

2. I assume she was detained because her welcome in Mexico had run out or she otherwise refused to leave (no law breaking necessary). She cuts straight from "your visa is denied" straight to "you're not a bad person," and I'm sure there's a relevant detail missing there because there's a lot of specificity otherwise. I would also bet that given her use of exact quotes in this encounter, she remembers exactly what that statement was but decided to omit it.

3. For the whole time when they were trying to figure out what to do with her, she was "in shock" and doesn't remember anything they asked her. Unlike the above, I believe that she doesn't remember (she might be terrible at handling stress). However, that is exactly when you would expect them to ask her if she wants to set up her own flight out. What I think is likely is that she was still trying to position herself to enter the US, and she may have refused to get her flight back to Canada at this time.

4. They called her friend, and two days later she called her friend, and her friend did something? It was something big since lawyers and politicians were involved, but presumably it did not extend to calling border control and getting her on a plane because if someone had tried to do this it would 100% have been in the article.

5. Later, the normal deportation process starts and she's on the assembly line until the next convenient flight to Canada. She finally remembers tons of details about what people said at this point, now that none of those people are asking her if she wants to arrange her own travel back to Canada.

It's hard to imagine that the details that were omitted weren't at least a little inconvenient for her given the level of detail we have on the convenient facts. She remembers lots of things around that time period, but not the interviews or the deportation papers that she signed. We also haven't heard anything about the plan that her friends and lawyers enacted, which I assume was "find a way to get me into the US" not "find a way to get me out of ICE detention." Again, if the plan was the former, it would be an attempt to skirt the rules (unsympathetic) while the latter would be a very sympathetic cause and thus a detail that is conspicuously absent. An additional sign that this is what she wants to do is that she's emailing her future manager throughout the process about something unspecified.

Doing this at the Mexican border when you are not Mexican is also a good way to get the bad outcome. If she had done this from Canada, they would never have detained her.

Anyway, it's hard to take stories like this truly at face value when they have so many convenient details and so many other convenient holes. My best guess is that her 2-week prison stay was largely self-inflicted due to a series of poor strategic choices (ie trying to get the visa rather than trying to self-deport).