It absolutely raises as many questions as it answers, not least the suspicious timing!
She‘s seized on to a couple of pieces of wording - “asset locked” and “not for profit” - as if they are absolute proof that she‘s unquestionably above board, but there’s a long way to go before she’s proven anything of the sort, as
@Seaford Haggington says. And if she does manage to clear the bar of “OK, she hasn’t made off with the loot”, there’s still a gulf between that and “is running an enterprise that provides a decent and appropriate level of support to its beneficiaries” that she still very much has to bridge, too.
I can’t imagine any worse way of running anything than letting it be governed by the whims of facebook drama llamas and huns
duck me, there’s some absolute whallopers there!