NRA and Russian Money

D

DaleA

New member
Re: NRA and Russian ties and the ABC 'News' report in post #21:
(https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nra...-russians-annual-convention/story?id=54932526)

For pity sakes!
My lame, stupid joke in post #18 is a more credible indication of NRA 'collusion' with the Ruskies than the ABC 'News' article above.

If you do go read the ABC article take a look at the comments to the story. About half the comments are trying to paint a Russian/NRA conspiracy and the contortions the commenters go thru to do this are worthy of a Cirque du Soleil performance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-1-gLv3aWs

Thank you Glenn for your post #21.
 
G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
Chuck Todd did an interview about the NRA/Russian conspiracy. It was pathetic. Even Chuck (an MSNBC guy) had to stretch a bit to find anything terrible in the vague blather beyond a life membership. He was rolling his eyes a bit and just moved on without promoting this as a great 'scandal'.

The Russian was a terrible guy who founded a gun rights organization in Russia and maybe was a friend of Vlad. Not that Putin is a great guy.

Maybe the Sturmgewehr Daniels story is more important?

But we shouldn't wander into other political issues. We know Hillary and Bill had Russian money galore in their past. Not our issue.
 
Z

zukiphile

New member
4v50Gary said:
How is this even an issue? If anyone received a lot of money from Russia, it's the losers of the last presidential election.
Click to expand...

Buzzcook said:
4V50 Gary: you got proof of that?
Click to expand...

Buzzcook said:
Zukiphile. FOX news, Snopes, and your original source the NYT pretty much say there isn't anything to the Uranium One deal. The story seems to be a zombie used to direct attention away from other stories.
Click to expand...

All those source confirm receipt of foreign donations, and the Snopes link includes an admission by the receiving Foundation that there was an omission in required reporting. They all support Gary's observation.

You may dispute the idea that the donations were improper, but none of the links dispute the idea that they occurred.
 
C

claydoctor

New member
Saw the headline on the magazine in a grocery store and thought, "that looks interesting".
Picked it up and saw the $6.99 cover price and decided it wasn't THAT interesting. I figure they need the dough to pay their lawyers' fees from the bogus UVA fraternity story.
 
B

Buzzcook

New member
Zukiphile. All the article say there was no quid pro quo. That is the money shot from all three sources.
The same can not be said of Russian money going to the NRA. We do not know how much (if any) of that money went toward the US election. Till that has been cleared up "what about" references are just a diversion.

Not surprisingly the NRA's political arm is a dark money organization, so donors are not revealed. I say not surprisingly because the NRA has spent money opposing campaign disclosure legislation, which would have made their donors public.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opini...e-about-its-russian-donors-because-ncna871216
 
Z

zukiphile

New member
Buzzcook said:
Zukiphile. All the article say there was no quid pro quo.
Click to expand...

In fact, they conclude that there is no evidence of a quid pro quo.

The assertion for which you requested proof was about foreign donations, not a quid pro quo.

It cannot be a diversion from an allegation of foreign donations to the NRA that foreign donations are often received by organizations. Where we've no evidence of foreign contributions finding there way into election campaigns through the NRA because the NRA segregates that spending, we've no evidence of the sort of reporting violation to which the Clinton foundation has admitted. If the NRA, failed to appropriately report donations, it should face similar repercussions.

No similarly situated organization is required to disclose donors, so the NRA's opposition to the compelled speech of donor disclosure doesn't bear on it's disclosure obligations. Those obligations aren't reduced for organizations that oppose compelled donor disclosure.

There are valid 1st Am. concerns in allowing government to compel an organization to publicly identify donors. We've seen donors in the recent past targeted for their donations. Free expression through political donation is protected by allowing donor anonymity.
 
5

5whiskey

New member
FWIW, snopes is not a reputable source gents. I don't know how they came to be some kind of gold standard, but I have cited sources here proving a particular snopes article flat out wrong.

They are notorious for saying something is false, when in fact they didn't prove the assertation false, they just documented that there is no hard evidence to prove it true. Especially in political matters.

Should anyone doubt me I can find the particular thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top