>>102986601>I'm arguing against mouse by using her own claims from her vshojo resignation videoWhich doesn't make sense, because you are believing her words in one instance but then not believing her in another instance without any evidence to suggest this is true.
>But here I'll give you point 1 the start of her subathon and the entire playlist. You could argue these are fake subs and no money existed sure, but that's obviously so beyond the cusp no one will side with you there.As is your entire theory.
>To point 2 ironmouse would be liable for defrauding her subscribers. She took money from them while saying part would go to a charity.Not if there was an agreement with Vshojo management that the money would be donated by them on her behalf. If she has fulfilled in good faith her obligations, they are liable. This is like saying if I participate in a charity event as a singer or something, if the proceeds of that event don't end up with charity that's somehow my fault. It's not, it's the people who have taken legally custody of those donations to do it.
>The whole situation is just very grey area because she collected the money but throws the ownership on donating to the company. How do you know she collected the money? Go back again to my example above. If those funds were directed to a different bank account for that period of time, which makes perfect sense to make it easier for everyone, then mouse didn't even see the money let alone was liable for it. You don't have any proof to suggest anything different.
If somebody who was collecting for charity, hands me the money with the agreements that I will get this money to the charity, the liability for that money now rests with me. If the bank just stole the money, is that my fault despite me promising donors it would go to charity? No, it's the bank's fault.
>There's too many hands in this pot when she should've just used tiltify if she cared so much about the idf.Or she could use her company who she had every reason to believe would act in good faith.
Nothing about your conspiracy theory makes any actual sense when you apply "what's the most obvious way this could have occurred?"
Either you believe IM conspired to defraud a charity out of hundreds of thousands of dollars despite being incredibly rich already then decided to try throw and someone else under the bus who would easily be able to defend their innocence, but hasn't and in fact GunRun has admitted to unknowingly embezzling the charity funds already if you read his statement. So either GunRun is just admitting to crimes to protect Mouse for some reason which you absolutely have to prove now, or she's telling the truth.
