4 ms·

> For instance, WE Charity is NOT a "for-profit" charity[0] as you claim. I could go on, but I have no desire to engage on specifics when the overall assertion

> For instance, WE Charity is NOT a "for-profit" charity[0] as you claim. I could go on, but I have no desire to engage on specifics when the overall assertion is mostly true. Actually your own cited source challenges this. You didn't dig far enough.[0,1] WE Charity transferred 7% of its revenue to Me to We, a for profit company that did the payouts to Trudeau's family. Charity Intelligence themselves found this very unusual. Unlike every other charity that they monitor, in fact. I guess it's okay for a not for profit to operate a for profit company to get around the rules then? This isn't even a partisan thing, this is on WE Charity's wikipedia page. [0]https://www.canadaland.com/we-charity-was-in-financial-trouble-before-covid-says-charity-watchdog/ https://www.canadaland.com/we-charity-was-in-financial-troub... [1]https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-july-13-2020-1.5647242 https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-july-13-...

mthoms 6y ago
>Actually your own cited source challenges this. No, my link does not challenge this. WE is a registered charity (as designated by CRA). It's public information, you can look it up. I initially chose not to bring this up precisely because it detracts from the fact that there is likely corruption (as you point out). I only brought it up when pressed for why I endorsed the gist of the parents comments, but not the stated details. You know, it is possible for someone to believe that corruption occurred but also believe that getting the surrounding facts correct is important. That's all I was advocating for. You've totally misinterpreted this entire thread.