Jirard Khalil "The Completionist" has seemingly been committing fraud by pocketing charity donations

So this begins with Karl Jobst investigating the 'Open Hand Foundation', an organization started by Khalil and his family in honor of his late mother, and fundraised through the IndieLand charity streams.

This was meant to support dementia research, claiming to work with the University of San Francisco. Since apparently starting around 2014, they'd raised around $600K (as claimed by their website).

But then things get... sketchy. (first video)

And then just recently... they get even sketchier. (second video)

In nearly 10 years of filings, they've apparently never actually dispersed any donations as according to tax documentation.

The most generous person could give him the benefit of the doubt with the first video despite him still holding the charity drive after admitting that the money hasn't been donated but that second video, OOF

At least 70k just straight up missing from the golf tournament in 2021 alone and Jobst directly saying that people that donated should report the charity to the authorities... Yeah, he's fucked

Ohhhh this is just sad and disappointing to watch.

Hadn't heard of the guy until Karl did the exposé, but I couldn't help but notice our very own Lucy James is in the second video, because apparently she does a podcast with Jirard called Friends Per Second? Looking forward to her statement on the matter.

@axersia: Tam and Lucy were also both at the Indieland stream with Jirard this past year, where he once again claimed money was “going to” organizations. I don’t think there’s anything strictly illegal about what the charity is doing holding onto the money, but if no money is actually being distributed, it might be a crime to say that it is actively changing hands. I’m not an attorney or havr any experience in this kind of law, so I don’t fully know. Grubb was also pretty flip about this incident a few GMMs ago (something along the lines of “I don’t care, he’s still my friend). That is certainly Grubb’s right, but I found it disappointing.

Overall, I think these are disturbing accusations, but there has been a lack of corroboration beyond IGN verifying four years’ worth of tax records (based on me looking up stories so I didn’t have to watch the videos). Most of the reporting has been on Jobst’s videos, which feels… insufficient? I’m guessing part of it has to do with how games media has been gutted over the last several years, with the last 15 months being especially bad. It would be nice to have a journalist follow up on this story and track down the truth. At minimum, validate with Jirard that the alleged phone call in the videos indeed took place.

At any rate, I definitely would not recommend anyone give anything to Open Hand or its members until things become more clear. Trust has been broken, and it’s on them to win it back through their next actions.

A lot of people are getting lawyered up, and from what I hear everyone involved with Indieland is up for litigation. This is going to get really ugly. I would not want to be in Tam and Lucy’s shoes. People are very angry about this.

@allthedinos: I don't understand what you mean by "validate with Jirard that the alleged phone call in the videos indeed took place."

Both videos include clips of the Discord video call (which is what I think you're talking about.) Are you alleging that these might have been AI generated or something because they look legitimate. Of course things can be taken out of context but what's there is pretty damning, and you'd think if the call was faked Jirard would have at least said something about that.

I should note that I am an attorney, though this is not my area of expertise nor do I have any specific knowledge beyond what's public here, and I would advise everyone to just wait and see what the response is etc...

What's out there is pretty damning and there are a lot of legitimate questions that need to be answered, but a lot of the legal jumping to conclusions I've seen and how people think the law and lawyers operate has been extremely distorted or flat out wrong.

What we have so far are a lot of troubling questions and accusations. We have public filings that raise a lot of potential issues with compared with other evidence. What we do not have is clarity on what exactly happened or the statement from the other side. The potential explanations here range from the extremely bad (stealing money from charity) to the still not great but not nearly as bad (recordkeeping issues, improper storage of funds etc...)

We don't know which it is yet and people are leaping to various conclusions. Jobst's claims of "theft" are as yet unsubstantiated. There's certainly money that is not yet accounted for but that is not the same as it being stolen. There are a number of much less problematic explanations (such as being kept in a separate account and improperly recorded on the tax forms, but not being stolen, which is still bad but not nearly as bad.)

It's frustrating to have to wait for things to come out, and you are of course free to be mad at Jirard for the bad things he's done (and there's evidence of wrongdoing) but leaping to conclusions and assuming the worst just from silence is not the way to go.

The authorities have been alerted, hopefully they are investigating, and we'll see what Jirard says and how it all plays out.

@bigsocrates:

While i agree with all of your points, in the realm of criminality that is up for debate. In the realm of civil litigation it is absolutely going to be an issue moving forward. There is already precedent for culpability and liability with celebrity/influencer endorsements. Look not further than everyone involved in the FTX and Fyre Fest fiascos. I think it’s going to be even worse for the developers who went on record bragging about how Indieland helped their games get their games on more wishlists. Hindsight is 20/20, but having representatives of these companies claiming Indieland was a profitable venture for them is going to be a rough ride in court.

@wmoyer83: With all due respect and with the proviso that I have not researched this specific issue....while there certainly is the potential for civil litigation here (and I wasn't really talking about litigation; I think there's likely a case against Jirard for fraud based on his knowingly making false statements to solicit donations) I'm not sure I see how the developers are on the hook, assuming they did not know.

While there's plenty of precedent for litigation against celebrity and influencer endorsements in general that culpability is based around the idea that the person being sued either knew or should have known that the statements being made were false.

If you're talking about the crypto endorsement stuff that is somewhat different because of the nature of the claims being made, the for profit nature of the enterprise, and also the amount of money involved.

Here you have developers and other influencers who had reason to believe that their statements were accurate, and in the case of Jamie Lee Curtis someone who contributed from her own foundation to the cause. Most of the influencers did not derive any benefits themselves. When there were developers who did derive a benefit they generally sold something of value (a game) so it's not clear what the damages are exactly.

You also have the issue of needing a class action, which would be pretty difficult given the low amount of money we're talking about (yes $600,000 is not nothing, but it's peanuts for most class action attorneys) and in the case of individual developers you have a nightmare number of different classes because you can't sue Yacht Club if you bought a Team Cherry game.

Is it possible that we'll see civil litigation here? Yes, and I'd even say likely against Jirard and his family, TOVG, and the foundation.

Against the other developers and influencers involved? Eh, they might get dragged in but their exposure is pretty limited and many likely have good defenses. At the end of the day the numbers likely aren't big enough to make a huge complicated class action with a ton of different defendants wothwhile, at least in my opinion.

Why would that cause them trouble? So what if some indies got their games on more wishlists and sold more copies? Those indie developers aren't the ones running a non-profit enterprise. They have a perfectly reasonably expectation that participating in Indieland would drive more business. That's how most charity sponsorships work - a brand puts in money/time/celebrity to help run an event in the hope that they get more out of the process in good will and future sales than they put in.

@therealturk: While I don't actually think there's much risk to them for reasons explained above there are some plausible causes of action here under certain circumstances.

For example "Yacht Club Games induced me to donate to Indieland/buy something from Indieland by telling me it would contribute to charity. I relied on their statement and would not have done so if a developer I trusted had not told me the money was going to charity."

Then there are multiple questions like what Yacht Club Games' knew, what their duty was to know, how much of a purchase could be attributed to that statement (e.g. "I would have waited for a sale if not for this so I spent $20 more than I would have" etc...

It's very hard to prove, especially percentage of responsibility for developers, and damages are hard to calculate for things that were not just donations, but knowingly (or unknowingly if you had a responsibility or reason to know) inducing someone to buy something or donate money under false pretenses can be actionable.

I don't think it will be here for a variety of reason but there is a germ of something there, which I think people are running with because they're angry.

And of course in America anyone can sue anyone for almost any reason and defending lawsuits is expensive so there's always the risk of a lawsuit that won't be successful but will still cost a bunch of money.

Unless someone can make a material case that any guests/developers would have any personal responsibility for how IndieLand or Open Hand operated, there's nothing there to point at them unless there was some formal expectation that they'd have lawyers or accountants looking into these numbers beforehand.

@bigsocrates: Thank you for articulating points I was not able to in a 6 am post. To answer the specific question, I left out some context: the IGN article (can’t link, on mobile) made sure that they used language like “alleged”. My take on that is that someone, ideally the journalist who wrote the article, should reach out to verify that the conversation took place so they could remove that couched language. It turns the larger allegations into a contest of words, which contrasts greatly (as you noted) with people’s certainty in online forums.

Here’s the portion of the IGN article I was focused on:

“ Karl Jobst and SomeOrdinaryGamers also provided audio of what they claimed to be a call with The Completionist himself.

"I knew [the money] was sitting there at a certain point and that's what made me proactively go about it," the speaker, allegedly The Completionist, said. "I was made aware in 2021 that the money hadn't moved yet, and that's what made me go, 'that's not f**king cool' and that's when I got personally involved to move it and... not 2021, last year, 2022."

The speaker added: "I assumed that it was all going to a charity and I assumed incorrectly." Despite this, The Completionist said again in a 2023 stream that the Open Hand Foundation was contributing to various organisations, which is after Karl Jobst and SomeOrdinaryGamers allege he knew otherwise.”

This feels like a central point of what would come up in any court case, granted I have absolutely no training in law. As you pointed out in a later comment, if he indeed was aware the money hadn’t been distributed but then stated exactly the opposite thing during Indieland (on camera, much easier to validate), Jirard is probably in some level of trouble. I don’t think there is necessarily any criminal activity here, but it’s tough to see how Open Hand Foundation recovers from this breach of trust. I would expect them to suddenly find an acceptable organization for their funds, but I don’t know how any pending legal action / counteraction will affect that.

@allthedinos: I think the absolute best case is if it's just like "Yeah, seems like Open Hand is really sloppily run" as opposed to willfully and maliciously committing fraud.

But if they have a false document of "thanks for the donation" from a former USFC head, that's a baaaad look.

@shaanyboi: Also if big donors like local pepsi and coke and frito lay distributors find out that their donations weren't actually donated

@shaanyboi: What you're talking about here is essentially their duty to know before making the claims that they made. And I...mostly agree with what you're saying, though I note it's not a particular issue I have researched so I'm not fully confident in this.

However you are leaving out a critical point that I mentioned elsewhere, which is that while they may not have had a duty to know it is possible that they DID know or should have known based on information provided. For example Jirard may have told them that they money hadn't been donated yet but they were looking for an organization. Do I think he did? Probably not. But it's possible. It's also possible that they were sent or downloaded tax filings and looked at them. If they have actual or "constructive" knowledge

If they knew or should have known there's still a potential cause of action. I have no specific reason they did, but that's what discovery is for (at least if you can survive an MTD, which you may well not here.)

@allthedinos: My understanding is that this was a video call, and some of the video was shown. I find it very unlikely this was manufactured and that Jirard would not release a statement if it had been. I think we can take it as almost certainly verified based on the facts at hand, though of course it would need greater authentication in court.

My educated but entirely speculative guess as to why they haven't donated yet is that their lawyers are trying to clear such a donation with the appropriate authorities before it is made. No lawyer worth his or her salt is going to say "panic and get rid of all the money" in a situation like this. Either you do the research to make sure your client is in the clear and make a donation plan, or you work with the appropriate authorities to come up with a proper donation plan (assuming that it's even safe to do so based on civil risk.)

If you donate all the money and then get sued by people who want their money back and lose you have a problem. Likewise if you donate all the money and then the attorney general comes investigating and says "I wish you wouldn't have done that chief..." you have a problem.

Donating the money is what you do as part of or the end of a carefully constructed plan of action, not a panic move at the beginning.

And that's assuming they actually have the money to donate.

The guy that started Jobst's look into Jirard posted a new video too. He's the one that was actually on the call with Jirard

@allthedinos: I agree that it's a disappointing stance to take. If I found out my best friend's charity (let's call him Bill) had held onto all the money it raised, my response would be more like, "That's really messed up. I hope that there is some kind of mistake, or Bill put someone in charge of sending the money and they never did. However, if it turns out that Bill is just keeping that money, eff him."

I'm all for giving a benefit of the doubt to initial news. I know nothing about how charities work. I could see a situation where I setup a charity and put someone in charge and they told me they were doing a good job. If I found out that they were lying, I would get a lawyer and want to release a press announcement ASAP to the lines of, "I put someone I trusted in charge. Ultimately, this is my charity and it's not doing what it is supposed to do. I am deeply sorry and we will get to the bottom of this."
If it turns out Jirard has been pocketing this money (including the missing funds), no one should trust him with charities again.

@ginormous76: Lawyers do not like to put out statements until they know both the facts and, sometimes, the posture that regulators are taking. The most likely statement a lawyer would tell Jirard to make right now would be something like "My lawyer has told me I cannot talk about Open Hand. I understand people are frustrated but more information will be released at the appropriate time."

But that statement doesn't really get you anywhere. SAying things like "I put someone trusted in charge" creates a substantive record, and you do not want to do that prematurely.

My guess is that the lawyers are still trying to figure out what's going on, and nobody wants to make a pointless statement that won't answer anything.

Most of the time when organizations make statements it's because they have to (because they need media attention) or after they have been charged. Nobody needs to respond to Youtube videos and it's not in their legal interest to do so. Is it in their business interest? Only if they have something to say, which they seem not to yet.

It appears the donation of $600,000 has been made.

Also, as a friend put it, it is important to note that Karl Jobst has zero issue talking about the GoldenEye records of somebody who has seriously talked about the "Jewish question" in online settings.

I kind of hate how this situation is leading to many people flocking to him as a journalist.

@bigsocrates: That all makes sense. It's been weeks now though, and given the speed of the internet, that feels like an eternity without a response.

@zombiepie: Oof. That sounds rough.

@zombiepie: Being a Nazi is pretty bad but what if the Nazi is like REALLY good at an old video game. Like REALLY good. Doesn't that kind of prove the master race idea at least a little?*

Jobst is a jerk, as is his compatriot, but that doesn't make them wrong. Jobst has also to my limited knowledge not really endorsed anything too heinous, he's just the kind of privileged person who can brush off other people's heinous beliefs if they don't affect him (which is its own kind of bad, but somewhat different.) That's to my knowledge, though. I've been aware of him for years but not a devoted follower.

I liked Jirard before all this happened but at the very least he was grossly irresponsible and at the worst he was a lot worse than that. There still appears to be some money unaccounted for (this year's Indieland and the golf money.)

You can dislike Jobst for good reasons but considering Jirard asked his subscribers to donate it was a public service to let everyone know what was going on with the publicly solicited money.

*I should note here that I'm Jewish.

From what I know of Jobst he seems more on the annoying internet edgelord side of things than the Actual Monster side that we have to contend with more and more often.

So like... yeah he kinda sucks but he still made a good (and useful) video on a topic that needed to get out there.

@bigsocrates: Is it funny that this changes almost nothing about whether a crime was committed? If anything, it might complicate the situation for the Khalils for the reasons you mentioned a few days ago. But it’s almost impossible to read this as anything but a reaction to the Jobst et al videos. All I can think of is that it addresses the implied allegation that Open Hand was pocketing the money for personal use, but there’s still some money unaccounted for. And it doesn’t change what Jirard said at Indieland not aligning with the facts of the time, which resulted in him soliciting donations for a family-run organization that had yet to cut a check. Either way, it’s funny we discussed how they would potentially handle it two days after this donation was made.

I hope this situation pans out well, but I don’t think anyone should take Jirard at his word going forward. And definitely don’t trust Open Hand with your money; hell, you can go straight to the AFTD with donations now that several years of research have gone into finding them. Looking forward to the 6 hour hbomberguy video on streamers and charities in 2025.

@allthedinos: First of all it's good that they donated the money. I don't even mean it relects well on them, rather that it's good for the people who contributed and the recipients.

I think it's obvious this donation was a reaction to being called out. Jirard more or less said as much in the call.

I also think Jirard's credibility is shot. Maybe he can rebuild an audience of some sort, especially if the rest of what comes out isn't that damning and it turns out this was all massive incompetence and not theft or malice, but his image as a squeaky clean nice and sincere guy has taken an enormous hit. He lied, and not about something silly like how long it took him to complete a game but about charitable donations made in his mother's name. You don't come back from that easily and he'll never be as big as he was. His company will have to slim down a lot if it survives. Best case scenario this is an enormous hit to him and his brand. Worst case scenario is much worse.

So far we haven't really learned much except that the money they put on the tax filings seems to have existed, which is good. But there's a lot more to this story.

Interesting story. A popular online gamer accused of fraud, and a white supremacist reporter breaking the news. I only remember the guy as one of the host of X-Play before they went belly up, again. It seems things worked itself out in the end, but I don't think people will be trusting this Jirard again guy anytime soon. I just hope that the story of Grubb and Lucy standing by him isn't true, if he really did commit a crime.

@av_gamer: I wouldn't say things are worked out yet

The golf money is still unaccounted for

People are irate and I don't really get it. Jirard's family is to blame, not him. That's rough. And "pocketed the money" in this context means hasn't spent it yet which A) is a lot better then spending it on themselves and B) a lot better than spending it against the marginalized groups' interests like with Autism Speaks.

This feels overblown and just a desperate grab at manufacturing outrage and drama until the next news item. It's like all these Boogiewhatever videos YouTUbe keeps showing me that are like 5 hours of "Do you know what this guy spends his money on???" Who cares. People need to get a life. If I gave money to Open Hands, I really wouldn't even be that upset unless A/B prove to be true in this case. May be best choice to sit on donation money until can do the most good, yeah?

@lonelyspacepanda: Jirard lied, repeatedly. He said that Open Hand was one of the biggest funders of a program they never gave a dime to. He said that Open Hand had given money to charities all over the world. He was also a director of the charity so it's not just on his family. He has known for at least a year that no money was given (and should have known earlier) and he continued lying.

There is still money unaccounted for.

Maybe you think lying repeatedly to solicit donations is a "tee-hee" little nothing, but it's not manufactured outrage.

@lonelyspacepanda: Assuming the most charitable version of events, where Jirard genuinely, somehow, did not know how his family was failing to disburse the funds until a year ago... he's still pretty culpable. You can't spend a decade urging people who trust you to donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to a charitable organization where you have a leadership position, and then plead ignorance when they're not using those funds as promised. "Sorry, I was too busy completing video games to pay the bare minimum shred of attention to the financials." If you're invoking your name and reputation to ask people to send money to an organization you co-founded, then whether or not you run the day to day, you absolutely have a moral duty to do some level of due diligence to see whether that money is actually being used responsibly. If—and again, this is the most charitable version—he did nothing for ten years to ask where those donations were going, all while assuring donors they were funding dementia research, that's pretty outrageous.

And frankly, pretty unbelievable. He cares enough to organize annual fundraisers for a decade touting the foundations good works, but never in that time—apparently until a year ago—cares to ask about all the great programs his fans are underwriting? Never thought to seek out an example of the good those donations are doing, if only to tout it at the next fundraiser? Never wondered why his family had never come to him to discuss the grants they were considering making? I'm sorry, but much as he comes across as a nice guy in his videos, that's just not credible to me.

Jirard has responded

The only good thing from the video was him stepping down from his role, and Indieland no longer fundraising for Open Hand. Whether Jirard was really trying to pull a fast one and got caught before he could pocket the money, or he really was ignorant to how things were working behind the scenes, we may never know, unless more investigations happen. I don't think this story is over yet.

@av_gamer: I think the idea that the plan was to pocket the money doesn't make sense. Nobody waits 10 years to steal money like that. It's still possible that someone stole money at some point or improperly paid themself, but the money they said was there was paid out so I'm inclined to believe whatever happened it was always the plan to donate.

This doesn't absolve Jirard from waiting that long or for lying.

The video was clearly at least partially written by a lawyer and if they are any good then all the statements made were factual. That's not to say that nobody crossed a line or there is no inappropriate activity here, but a lawyer wouldn't let Jirard publicly tell obvious lies at this point. The explanations made sense to me and the critical point to the story is that Indieland and the golf tournament seem to have accounted for their expenses prior to distributing the money to Open Hand.

That does raise the question of what Open Hand spent all that money on but that's for a later discussion.

I agree this is not over yet since there may still be lawsuits and of course Karl and Muta will likely respond, but I think after this I am pretty convinced that Jirard was just irresponsible and did not intend harm. I could be wrong, of course, since all we have is his word for it, but I doubt a lawyer would write that statement if the worst possibilities were true.

The Completionist just put up a video called "My Response". Not gonna watch it myself to avoid contributing to the view count.

edit: Oh god I'm blind. BLIND!

yet another one for the "don't trust people are good just because they make content you like" pile

Sure could have been handled better but this is everything wrong with the internet: Some chucklehead "journalist" does an investigation, people take it as gospel, and never think once if they should trust when not actually filtered through input from actual lawyers like an actual journalist would do (not base conclusions off Wikipedia searches and guess work).

Charities are hard. I've been close enough to several autism charities across the nation to see how much they struggle to reflect the wishes of people they serve, cover admin costs, and continue to exist at all. Can't excuse how Open Hand operated but it's far from the train wreck people are suggesting. Again, feels like outrage for sake of outrage. Yes, would be nice if my money has impact on people from day one but as said in video they also want to find balance of getting most value of those donations. Is that really enough to deserve all this outrage? That's subjective but for me no.

Think main issue is Jirard tries to do too much: G4 host, produce and star in own G4 tv show, produce and star in Super Beard Bros content, produce and star in Completionist, manage own company that overlooks several employees, and now apparently co-host in some Gamespot-related podcasts. If focused on less, I bet wouldn't be in this boat. Mostly, I feel bad for SBB since Alex, Brett & Ted rule so hard and now have to suffer the blowback as well.

Oh hey he donated the money, that was fast.

I can't say what he planned or whether he ever intended any actual malice but I do feel pretty confident that this money would still be limbo now and who know for how long had Karl and Muta not come in and made such a public stink about it.

Which again is not outrage for outrages sake. It's somebody going hey what the fuck is going on here? and then a bunch of people rightly saying Yeah what IS going on here??

@lonelyspacepanda: If the chuckleheads hadn't done the investigation the money would still not have been donated yet. This mess is on Jirard and Open Hand, not the people calling them out.

Although I do agree they could have been more responsible with some of their accusations, especially in the second round of videos.

I also think that there is plenty of real stuff to be outraged about here. Jirard lied, repeatedly, about what was happening with donations. He may have lied when he said that they weren't going to pay event expensed out of donations (that's a more complex issue.) He lied after he admits he knows the truth. Lying to silicit donations is...bad.

Did he do it out of malice? I don't think so. I think he had a spiel and he stuck to it. Laziness is probably the better explanation. But I also don't think "Oh, Jirard's too busy" is the reason or a good excuse here. I think he was over ambitious and likes talking big about himself and he overpromised and underdelivered. Does that make him a thief? No. But it's still a pretty big series of mistakes and his video doesn't really own up to them even if it admits them vaguely (probably lawyers' advice.)

Hate to pile on, but I agree with the two post above. Regardless of what motives you think they may have had, Karl and Muta did end up calling out and bringing attention to a legitimate problem, which likely would not have been acted on if they remained silent. And Jirard is not out of the woods yet. Just because he made an (agreed lawyer advised) video explaining himself and giving his so-called evidence, doesn't mean he is suddenly innocent. Many fraudsters, under lawyer advisement, released an "official" statement, claiming no wrong doing, only for the evidence to eventually show that they did do something illegal. Will this be the case with Jirard, time will tell. But like the old saying goes: Where there is smoke, there is fire. I hope, for his sake, it really was him just being in over his head. Sometimes people give their support to a group, ignorant of the fact the group or company is a house of cards. That happened recently with FTX.

Comparing this to FTX is ridiculous.

My thing is that this is area people talk about without having any understanding of how new charities operate and what is realistic. People want things to be easy and simple when they are not. Jirard did a good job lying to encourage more donations and paint project in best light possible but that is still lying and crosses a line especially as a content creator you want to trust.

I remain mostly indifferent and think this only got attention due to demand of internet drama all the time, not people actually understanding and caring about charity.

For those unable or unwilling to watch this video rebuttal, here's the best textual summary I was able to find:

Also, some have pointed out that Jobst is using the current wave of new viewers and subscribers to redirect users into sponsorships that he signed and made as a result of this.

Personally, I don't see the issue. On YouTube this is simply how content creators make most of their money. This is the "hustle" you have to do if you want to be in this ecosystem full time.

I don't think Karl or Muta ever outright stated that they were using the charity money as they didn't show any evidence that that was the case, but i've no doubt a lawyer could cherry pick parts of their videos and claim it was insinuated as part of a defamation lawsuit.

The question is which is worse, not donating charity money for years or exposing someone for not donating charity money for years.

@lonelyspacepanda: Sam Bankman-Fried was a so-called genius who created a crypto company, FTX. He claimed that all the money he was making, he'd donate to different charities to show that rich people should work to help the poor and unfortunate. He was called a great, trustworthy guy because of this. A lot of celebrities and even financial insiders were telling people to invest in FTX because of this. I could go on, but you know the result. The situation with Open Hand and Jirard have a lot of similarities to me. The only difference is that Bankman-Fried was eventually proven a fraud and convicted for it, and there was a lot more money at stake. I'm not saying the same thing will happen to Jirard. Only time will tell about that. And it has nothing to do with internet drama. Jirard put himself in this situation, which at least you accept. I hope he is innocent at the end of the day, but I'm not going blindly say he is, until he is officially declared so by the upcoming investigation that will likely happen, which Jirard himself has pointed out.

This is sort of ancillary drama but the Completionist subreddit is now private, presumably just for now. But still, the whole discourse is a real dumpster fire right now.

@lonelyspacepanda: I'd like to hear what charities you've worked on. Mostly to know what charities to avoid, but also because you seem to be lying my dude. Granted, I don't know how American charities work but I've worked for Finnish charities and NPOs and if they actually did not donate any of their funds, that'd be highly illegal.