Sigh. Even AGs can’t get this right?
From The New Yorker investigative article:
The NRA needed formal investigation. This would not have been unknown to Letitia James.
DrDeth is implying she only went after them because they were on the wrong side. Unless he can demonstrate she has only gone after groups on the wrong side, his argument doesn’t hold water.
At no time did I imply that.
You did imply that, albeit more subtly than I described.
She is indeed making political points.
Is she doing her job correctly?
So as a cite for your unsupported assertion, you offer up an unsupported opinion? I don’t find that convincing at all. Got any facts?
I don’t know what was gotten right or wrong, but the state constitution may be getting referenced there. If it matters.
In the most trivially obvious sense, of course this is a political move. People who are elected into office are politicians. When they take actions, you can call those actions political. Especially when they’re fulfilling the goals that they campaigned on.
Our local sheriff campaigned on increasing restorative justice and other diversion campaigns in order to reduce jail populations. Whenever he does so, he’s being political, in this sense. Our governor promised to prioritize education. When he negotiates with the legislator to improve educational budgets, he’s being political.
In the sense that the AG is being political, it’s a laudatory role, central to the functioning of democracy.
What’s happening here is some classic equivocation. In one sense, this is trivially and obviously and laudatorily political. But it’s being called “political” as an insult, implying that it fits a much less praiseworthy definition of the word. When confronted on this, people are retreating to the laudatory definition.
Hahahahaha, you do realize that everyone can see how you selectively snipped that quote, right?
Uncommon, but not rare, is consistent with his claim.
No, that’s not true. His original claim was that this type of action (seeking to dissolve a corp rather than just suing individuals) was “generally” not done. He offered no cite for this assertion. Meanwhile, I have cited at least four cases in the last couple of years where this one AG’s office has done so; LHOD has cited several others.
Now, obviously the word “generally” can be interpreted with a large degree of variance, but as far as I’m concerned, the claim has been disproven. YMMV.
I’m curious what “reaction” means in this context.
It presumably means “recreation” got autocorrected.
I “generally” don’t drink coke with sugar in it. I have done so four times in 2020. It is uncommon, but not rare.
ETA that doesn’t mean he’s correct, just that his English is correct.
Do you actually disagree with her actions?
If not, then I fail to understand what your point is here.
If so, then explain what actions you disagree with, and why, rather than just casting aspersions.
You are correct IF:
One party’s political platform is that the AG should investigate any potential crimes when there are many red flags, insiders claiming crimes have been committed, and direct evidence shoved in your face that a charity is corrupt.
While the other party’s political platform is that the AG should ignore these red flags if the charity is doing things you like, such as funneling foreign money to your election campaign.
By this definition, then you are correct - the Democrat AG’s actions in upholding the law is “political”, because the other party’s politics puts their OWN well being ahead of the law.
I just made a post on how the NRA itself is not a charity although it is a non-profit - there are many different classifications of non-profits. A 501c4 “Social welfare organization” like the NRA is close to a charity, and one might say the only real difference between them and 501c3s is that 501c4s are able to lobby and contributions to them aren’t tax-deductible, so I guess there’s room saying that 501c4s are close enough, but only 501c3s should really be called charities.
The question is not whether nonprofits generally get dissolved by AGs. Of course they don’t. The question is whether nonprofits that are thoroughly riddled with corruption at the highest levels generally get dissolved by AGs; and it looks to me like that’s a fairly common remedy in this tiny subset of nonprofits.
To show otherwise, it’d be helpful to see some cases where nonprofits with analogous levels of corruption faced lesser penalties. I dunno, maybe that’s common; but given the lack of a single example of such, I’m unconvinced.
All right, let us take for granted that the NRA does have a few top officers committing fraud and defalcation. I think LaPierre is a crook myself, so i am willing to accept this.
Then why did the NY AG file a civil suit to dissolve the NRA instead of filing criminal fraud charges against LaPierre and cohorts?