They will probably move states.
Of course it is politically motivated. Many churches could be attacked along the same lines. That doesnt mean that there arent issues, of course there are issues otherwise they wouldnt start this.
Just to be clear, if a Rep in fucking NY sued to dissolve the NRA, is it possible that wouldn’t be political?
And to help me out, when Oliver North excoriated the organization’s leadership for corruption, was that similarly political?
It’s not that I don’t understand what you’re saying, or that I’m twisting it. It’s that what you’re saying is ludicrous.
From everything I’ve heard and read the LaPierre circle having a stranglehold on organizational leadership – Ollie North was forced out when he just would not provide cover, and they have had a lot of attrition of respected Board members – and having turned it into one more corporate Republican PAC, surrounded by quite a bit if corruption chatter, had already weakened the organization, with many Second Amendment Activists moving on to more focused groups like USCCA and GOA. However, whatever the merits of the case the projection (“to dissolve” instead of “to clean up”) and timing here are terrible since it can only create a circle-the-wagons effect even among dissident members and many of their would-be competitors are going to be in “is it me next?” mode. Tish James just became the NRA’s biggest and best fundraiser and handed the GOP a juicy talking point just as we thought everyone had forgot about Beto.
No, it’s more that you’re intentionally misrepresenting my position to further your agenda. I read the fucking article. I know what the allegations are. You apparently don’t grok the difference between allegations and facts.
Ha ha ha! So you don’t know if the allegations are true or not…
So therefore you concluded that this is “politically motivated”
Sorry, I’m not buying what you’re trying to sell here.
This is even better than the other comment.
“Meh, they’re all corrupt so who cares really.”
Good one.
I have no problem with private citizen, Tish James suing the NRA. But the Attroney General suing an organization smacks of fascism.
Attorneys General file suit every day against organizations. It’s part of their job description.
Let us assume all the allegations are 100% true. So Wayne LaPierre and others are crooks. That doesnt mean that the move to dissolve the NRA isnt political.
Both can be true.
Similarly, declining to move to dissolve the NRA could be political, if similarly corrupt but less politically-well-connected groups would be dissolved. (For example, to avoid the “circle the wagons” voting in the upcoming election among NRA supporters).
And yet you also claim you know for sure the prosecution is politically motivated. Without knowing the facts, you are sure that they didn’t decide to go after the NRA because the facts were bad enough that they had to do so to uphold the law, and thus political motivations would be irrelevant.
Your argument that it must be politically motivated because the New York AG is a Democrat, and Democrats are opposed to the NRA is poor logic. It’s clearly possible that the AG is just doing his job, same as when a conservative Supreme Court justice sides with the conservatives on teh issue. The only way to know if it is politically motivated is to look at the evidence.
Your statement, considered fairly, shows political bias. In fact, it’s the same bias that people show if they assume that the case is fair without looking at the evidence because they hate the NRA.
I for one don’t know if the case is politically motivated, and thus invalid. I merely hope it isn’t.
Only if the prosecution would not be done for a similar organization with the same facts. Or if someone with no opinion the NRA would not make the same choice.
For it to be politically motivated, the facts themselves must not be sufficiently motivated for the action. If the facts 100% warrant the action, then there is 0% left for there to be political motivation.
To say otherwise is to try to imply that “politically motivated” isn’t a claim that something improper is going on, when it very much is. There’s no reason to mention it otherwise.
Aye; that’s priceless.
Seriously? Your fallback position is “both sides do it”?
Or, if they actually read the accusations, maybe they’ll be so ticked off that individuals have apparently hijacked the NRA to enrich themselves that they’ll vote for people opposing the NRA.
It’s the NRA members’ money the LaPierres are accused of stealing. NY is actually trying to defend the NRA members (and I really, really doubt they’ve brought this case without some damned good evidence.)
Whether the news some of them are seeing will bother to mention that is, of course, another question.
I actually don’t think this particular lawsuit is politically motivated.
They aren’t making any allegations regarding the tactics the NRA used in fulfillment of their mission. The aren’t making allegations of illegal campaign contributions. They aren’t being accused of undisclosed funding of grassroots organizations. They haven’t been accused of assisting their members in breaking gun laws or intimidating anti-gun activists.
As far as I can tell, they are accusing the officers of the organization of egregiously embezzling from the organization and its membership for their personal enrichment. And stealing from taxpayers by embezzling tax-exempt money.
So, if this is political it’s only because there is a party-line disagreement as to whether or not blatant corruption is wrong.
That’s a convenient belief that absolves you of the obligation to care about any corruption.
I swear I’m not just JAQing off here, and I honestly have no idea of the answer (a quick Google search just gave a lot of pages about how a nonprofit can voluntarily dissolve itself): How common is it for a state attorney general to seek to dissolve a nonprofit organization? Not sue or even criminally prosecute the allegedly corrupt people in charge of the group who have been bilking the membership, but dissolve the organization itself?
Yeah, you don’t know. But you sure are ready to proclaim it politically motivated.