Could be my interpretation. My apologies. No need to be snarky about it eh.
I only want the reader to be wary of claims (and the claimant) citing an obviously partisan source. A source that has been caught red-handed publishing disinformation provided by foreign state actors[1].
Although you sound well-intentioned, I'm just not interested in engaging when someone plays fast and loose with facts and sources. I'm just so incredibly tired of it.
[0] https://www.charityintelligence.ca/charity-details/82-we-cha... [1] https://www.thedailybeast.com/right-wing-media-outlets-duped...
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-troub... [1]https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-july-13-...
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.