Not when I click on it.
I suspect you’re misreading something.
But if he fully cooperates, if he enthusiastically cooperates and goes above and beyond the call of duty, then you can count on Democrats like Schiff to release testimony (assuming he’s allowed in the hearings) and you can count on Mueller to be interested in what he has to say. A part of me has always wondered if Bannon saw this train wreck a mile away and positioned himself accordingly.
And now, a new legal concept: Invoking executive privilege for when Trump was running for President!
Not linked to Trump (as of the moment), but it looks like there was a large quantity of suspicious payments by the Russian embassy in 2016 that Mueller is investigating:
Building on this thought, we’re now a good 2 weeks or so post-Fire and Fury and it’s clear that Steve Bannon is a wolf without a pack. He knows Trump would cut off his right nut before pardoning him (if it’s even a factor). Mueller knows Bannon has all the motivation in the world to start singing like a canary.
FBI Investigating NRA for Russian money laundering.
What a sweet thing if this pans out to be true. The phony patriots of the NRA take illegal foreign donations to benefit a political campaign. Lock them up!
Wayne LaPierre in handcuffs doing the perp walk? Oh please oh please oh please!
TPM points out that the NRA raises a shit-ton of money legitimately from American sources, so it would be odd if they were getting money from Russia. Why bother? I don’t put it past them. And, I’d love to see the NRA go up in flames (figuratively). It just seems like a lot of risk, when they have legal sources of cash.
Never mind. I think it’s clicked with me. It’s not that the NRA needed the money, but that it was an obfuscated method for the Russians to prop up Trump without being noticed (if true). The NRA isn’t required to disclose donors or expenditures, so the Russians give them cash to spend on Trump, and no one’s the wiser.
If we’re lucky, he’ll put the “you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands” idea to the test.
I don’t see how that answers your question.
You’ve explained what’s in it for the Russians, but your question was about what’s in it for the NRA. If the NRA had enough money to spend, as you suggested, why would they stick out their necks just so that the Russians could also get a piece of the action?
If you’re now assuming that the Russians added a significant amount of funds that the NRA couldn’t have come up with, then that answers your question on its own.
I feel like the fact that someone leaked about the Veselnitskaya meeting the morning of the day Trump was set to meet with Putin at the G20 dinner implies that the investigators already knew what had been discussed at the meeting by that time, preceding the raid on Manafort’s house.
I’ll call it now: They have further and better evidence than Manafort’s notes about GOP contributions, as regards that meeting.
My guess is that the NRA feels that the more they spend on ads, regardless of where the money comes from, the more beholden the candidates they promote will be to them.
Depending on how the organization is run, it also just might not have made it up to the central organization. Or, possibly, someone was running interference inside the organization. Russia had their own branch within Deutsche Bank for a few years, after all. Compromising figures within organizations like this that can launder money over to politicians seems like a pretty straightforward goal for a foreign power.
Who won’t take more money?
It is not as if it would be illegal for them to take money from the Russians, (I don’t think), and that they don’t have to disclose the source of their funds means that they don’t really care where they come from either.
I have no idea if these allegations are true, of course. But if they are, another reason the NRA might go for it is just to curry favor with the president in a way other than throwing cash at him. Since the NRA spends a ton of cash, and has a political operation, they’re in a unique position to shuffle more in with what they’re already doing. The Russians tell Trump, “We have 50 million dollars burning a hole in our pocket, how do we get it to you?” Trump goes to the NRA and says, “Guys, can you help me out with this little favor?” NRA figures, “Why not? You can never have too many chips to call in.”
I dunno. I’m just speculating. Hopefully Mueller will end this suspense soon.
It seems as simple to me as “money good, more money better”. I mean, I already have enough money for my needs, too, but if someone offered me a bunch more, you can bet I’d take it.
The premise of Bayard’s question was that the NRA already had quite a lot of money, and the question was therefore whether the additional money was worth the risk of getting involved in facilitating illegal actions.
Sure, most people would take it if offered a bunch of money. But if you were contemplating shoplifting something worth $100, it would probably make a big difference whether you were a homeless person or a multi-millionaire.
We’re not just talking about incrementally “more money.” They spent a LOT more money. Triple on Trump what they spent on Romney.
From original McClatchy article:
ETA: Also - the Russian figure at the center of the NRA story - Alexander Torshin - is the deputy governor of Russia’s central bank and is known for his close relationships with both Russian President Vladimir Putin and the NRA. He’s also in the past bragged about a personal relatinship w/ Donald Trump.