NRA Was 'Foreign Asset' To Russia Ahead of 2016, New Senate Report Reveals

[GMDino]

In other news...

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/27/764879242/nra-was-foreign-asset-to-russia-ahead-of-2016-new-senate-report-reveals

Quote:The National Rifle Association acted as a "foreign asset" for Russia in the period leading up to the 2016 election, according to a new investigation unveiled Friday by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.


Drawing on contemporaneous emails and private interviews, an 18-month probe by the Senate Finance Committee's Democratic staff found that the NRA underwrote political access for Russian nationals Maria Butina and Alexander Torshin more than previously known — even though the two had declared their ties to the Kremlin.


The report, available here, also describes how closely the gun rights group was involved with organizing a 2015 visit by some of its leaders to Moscow.


Then-NRA vice president Pete Brownell, who would later become NRA president, was enticed to visit Russia with the promise of personal business opportunities — and the NRA covered a portion of the trip's costs.


The conclusions of the Senate investigation could have legal implications for the NRA, Wyden says.


Tax-exempt organizations are barred from using funds for the personal benefit of its officials or for actions significantly outside their stated missions. The revelations in the Senate report raise questions about whether the NRA could face civil penalties or lose its tax-exempt status.


Attorneys general in the state of New York and the District of Columbia are also conducting separate probes into alleged wrongdoing at the gun rights organization. 
These probes have a broader scope than the Senate report, which focuses on Russia.

Kremlin links were clear
The 77-page Senate report centers on Butina — a convicted Russian agent now in federal prison — and Torshin, a former Russian government official who has been sanctioned by the United States.


The report indicates that top NRA officials were aware of Butina's and Torshin's links with the Kremlin even as they sought to work more closely together under the banner of gun rights.


In an email later circulated to two senior NRA staff members, Butina wrote that a purpose of the 2015 Moscow trip was that "many powerful figures in the Kremlin are counting on Torshin to prove his American connections" by showing he could bring prominent NRA officials to Russia.



Exclusive: Documents Detail Meetings Of Russians With Treasury, Federal Reserve


At another point, Butina suggested to participants on the 2015 NRA trip to Russia that she might be able to set up a meeting between them and President Vladimir Putin, referring to him as "Russia's highest leader."


NRA facilitated political access
Despite these declarations about their ties to the Russian government, NRA officials paid for and facilitated Torshin and Butina's introduction into American political organizations.


Butina and Torshin received access to Republican Party officials at NRA events.


It was a explicit interest expressed by Butina: In one 2015 email to an NRA employee, Butina wrote, "is there a list of U.S. governors or members of Congress that might be present at some time during the [NRA] annual meeting?"


The employee responded with a list.


The NRA also helped them forge connections with other groups such as the Council for National Policy, the National Prayer Breakfast, the National Sporting Goods Wholesalers Association and Safari Club International.



Maria Butina Says She Was 'Building Peace.' That's Not How The Feds See It


"NRA resources appear to have been used to pay for membership and registration fees to third party events for [Torshin and Butina] as well as to arrange for transit to and lodging for many of those events throughout 2015 and 2016," the report states.


Report contradicts NRA denials
The Senate report notes that in 2018, then-NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch repeatedly denied that the group leaders' 2015 trip to Moscow was sanctioned by the gun rights group.


But in a letter obtained by the committee, then-NRA President Alan Cors wrote to Torshin on NRA letterhead after consulting with NRA staff and former NRA President David Keene.


Cors designated two NRA figures to lead the trip: "Dave Keene and [top NRA donor] Joe Gregory will represent the NRA and our five million members better than anyone else," he wrote.


During the course of the investigation, Brownell's lawyer also told the committee that Brownell believed the trip to be an official NRA event.


The NRA, Maria Butina And Trump


This view is further strengthened by the committee's evidence that NRA staff prepared itineraries, gathered briefing materials, applied for tourist visas, paid for some of the travel expenses, and provided the delegation with NRA gifts to give to Russian officials.


The Senate investigation also found evidence that the NRA tried to hide various payments related to the trip.


Brownell covered approximately $21,000 in expenses related to the trip; in June 2016, the NRA reimbursed Brownell just over $21,000.


After questions were raised about the trip in 2018, Brownell paid the NRA $17,000 — a transaction that Brownell's lawyer told the committee was requested by the NRA as a way of "getting the trip off the NRA's books."


NRA leaders sought business opportunities
The Senate investigation concludes that a number of NRA figures on the 2015 trip traveled to Russia "primarily or solely for the purpose of advancing personal business interests, rather than advancing the NRA's tax-exempt purpose."


Brownell, then a vice president of the NRA, is the CEO of a major firearms supplier bearing his last name.


In an email to a staffer at his business, Brownell described his trip as "an opportunity to be hosted in Russia to broaden our business opportunities ... to introduce our company to the governing individuals throughout Russia."

Senate Panel Launches Bipartisan Probe Into Think Tank Linked To Butina, Torshin


"The NRA directly facilitated Brownell's effort to travel to Moscow early to explore business opportunities with Russian weapons manufacturers," the report concludes.


Another member of the trip, NRA donor and then-Outdoor Channel CEO Jim Liberatore, told the Senate committee through his lawyer that his participation in the 2015 Moscow trip was "purely commercial."


Wyden seeks IRS probe
Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said at the conclusion of his investigation that his staff had revealed information that shows that the National Rifle Association may have abused its tax-exempt status.


The next step, he says, is for the IRS to launch its own inquiry.



"The totality of evidence uncovered during my investigation, as well as the mounting evidence of rampant self-dealing, indicate the NRA may have violated tax laws," Wyden said. "The IRS needs to examine these findings and investigate other publicly reported incidents of potential lawbreaking."

[fredtoast]

I am gun owner.

I don't want to take away citizens guns unless they are violent criminals or mentally unstable.

But the NRA does not represent me or even a majority of gun owners. Their only interest are the support of gun manufactures, not gun owners. They only care about profits, not the safety of US citizens.

I wish there was another group that would actually represent the true interest of most gun owners.

[GMDino]

(09-27-2019, 12:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am  gun owner.

I don't want to take away citizens guns unless they are violent criminals or mentally unstable.

But the NRA does not represent me or even a majority of gun owners.  Their only interest are the support of gun manufactures, not gun owners.  They only care about profits, not the safety of US citizens.

I wish there was another group that would actually represent the true interest of most gun owners.

Based on the comments I read you are in the majority.

Not sure who is still paying the NRA other than diehards.

[fredtoast]

(09-27-2019, 12:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not sure who is still paying the NRA other than diehards.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nra-receives-millions-fro_b_848727?guccounter=1

since 2005 contributions from gun industry “corporate partners” to the NRA total between $14.7 million and $38.9 million.  

Among the NRA’s “corporate partners” who gave $25,000 or more to the organization are 22 that manufacture firearms, including such well-known gunmakers as: Arsenal, Inc.; Benelli; Beretta USA Corporation; Browning; DPMS Panther Arms; FNH USA; Glock, Inc.; H&R 1871, LLC; Marlin Firearms; Remington Arms Co., Inc.; SIGARMS, Inc.; Smith & Wesson Corporation; Springfield Armory; and, Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. 

Of the 22 gunmakers, 12 manufacture assault weapons. Also among the NRA’s “corporate partners” are numerous high-capacity ammunition magazine manufacturers or vendors.




This explains why the NRA opposes certain policies (like universal background checks on all gun purchases) that a large majority of its own members support.  The NRA is there for the gun makers, not the gunowners.  Criminals account for a large part of the demand for weapons in this country.  The NRA does not want to cut off that part of the market.

[*Nately120*]

(09-27-2019, 12:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This explains why the NRA opposes certain policies (like universal background checks on all gun purchases) that a large majority of its own members support.  The NRA is there for the gun makers, not the gunowners.  Criminals account for a large part of the demand for weapons in this country.  The NRA does not want to cut off that part of the market.

The more bad people the gun manufacturers arm, the more guns they can sell to good people who need to buy guns because bad people have them.  If only gun manufacturers had the balls to actually say "You need to buy more guns because we just sold a bunch of guns to bad guys."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

NRA members have been rather unhappy with the current leadership for some time now. This will probably be the, well deserved, nail in the coffin.

For those that care The Second Amendment Foundation is a great alternative for those wanting to support their 2A rights but have issues with the NRA.

[Dill]

(09-27-2019, 12:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This explains why the NRA opposes certain policies (like universal background checks on all gun purchases) that a large majority of its own members support.  The NRA is there for the gun makers, not the gunowners.  Criminals account for a large part of the demand for weapons in this country.  The NRA does not want to cut off that part of the market.

Just good business.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-27-2019, 11:38 PM)Dill Wrote: Just good business.

Just good propaganda.  No responsible gun owner wants guns in the hands of criminals.  Don't lie to try and make a point. 

[fredtoast]

(09-28-2019, 02:05 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Just good propaganda.  No responsible gun owner wants guns in the hands of criminals.  Don't lie to try and make a point. 

I am not talking about responsible gun owners.

I am talking about the NRA.  They fight tooth and nail to insure that criminals will not have to go through a back ground check to buy a gun while responsible gun owners don't agree with that.

[*Nately120*]

(10-01-2019, 11:37 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I am not talking about responsible gun owners.

I am talking about the NRA.  They fight tooth and nail to insure that criminals will not have to go through a back ground check to buy a gun while responsible gun owners don't agree with that.

That's what is so amazing about gun manufacturers...they fight to make sure they can sell criminals and the mentally ill guns so they can then sell more guns to law-abiding citizens so they can protect themselves from all the crazy bad guys that have guns.

I just wish they had the stones to run an advertisement with a bunch of actors playing armed criminals and saying "We just sold these dangerous criminals a bunch of guns...are you just going to sit there unarmed and hope for the best?"

[Dill]

(10-01-2019, 11:37 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I am not talking about responsible gun owners.

I am talking about the NRA.  They fight tooth and nail to insure that criminals will not have to go through a back ground check to buy a gun while responsible gun owners don't agree with that.

And, to complement your point, I was talking about gun manufacturers, the primary support of the NRA.

They know their market.

[ballsofsteel]

The NRA need to signup some new members. Anyone here interested? You'll receive a window sticker for your pick'em up truck. Wayne the frenchman needs a new guest house built behind his mansion.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-01-2019, 02:56 PM)Dill Wrote: And, to complement your point, I was talking about gun manufacturers, the primary support of the NRA.

They know their market.

How does that compliment any point?  Criminals don't purchase their guns legally.  They either steal them or buy them on the black market, neither of these will ever require a background check.

[Dill]

(10-01-2019, 11:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: How does that compliment any point?  Criminals don't purchase their guns legally.  They either steal them or buy them on the black market, neither of these will ever require a background check.

The question I addressed was whether criminals constituted a share of the market which could be affected by gun laws.

If they do, then gun laws limiting/ controlling purchase could limit profits. 

Black market or steal=False either/or.   "Straw purchases" anyone?  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-02-2019, 02:50 PM)Dill Wrote: The question I addressed was whether criminals constituted a share of the market which could be affected by gun laws.

The answer to this is, no. 

Quote:If they do, then gun laws limiting/ controlling purchase could limit profits. 

They don't, so it won't.

Quote:Black market or steal=False either/or.   "Straw purchases" anyone?  

Straw purchases are illegal, thus they fall under the black market.  The very first question on the NICS form is confirming that you are purchasing this firearm for yourself and no one else.  You raise a good point though, how about actually enforcing existing laws on illegal gun possession and purchases instead of proposing new ones that won't affect the murder rate at all?  Novel concept I know.

[fredtoast]

(10-02-2019, 04:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  You raise a good point though, how about actually enforcing existing laws on illegal gun possession and purchases instead of proposing new ones that won't affect the murder rate at all?  Novel concept I know.

Actually it is not a novel concept at all.  I address it every time that popular "speaking point" is used

It is impossible to enforce these laws without having guns registered to specific owners.

Police confiscate millions of weapons every year from criminals but they can't prosecute anyone for supplying them to criminals because there is no record of who is responsible for them.

[fredtoast]

(10-02-2019, 02:50 PM)Dill Wrote: The question I addressed was whether criminals constituted a share of the market which could be affected by gun laws. 

(10-02-2019, 04:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The answer to this is, no. 

So you are saying that there is not a huge black market making millions selling guns to criminals?

Requiring all guns to be registered to specific owners would put a huge dent in that market.

Isn't it funny how loud "responsible" gun owners squeal when you suggest they should be held "responsible" for their own weapons?

[GMDino]

(10-02-2019, 05:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So you are saying that there is not a huge black market making millions selling guns to criminals?

Requiring all guns to be registered to specific owners would put a huge dent in that market.

Isn't it funny how loud "responsible" gun owners squeal when you suggest they should be held "responsible" for their own weapons?

I just saw a news story on a poll that said a majority think vaping should be banned but they are afraid of the black market growing if that happened.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-02-2019, 08:17 PM)GMDino Wrote: I just saw a news story on a poll that said a majority think vaping should be banned but they are afraid of the black market growing if that happened.

Well, it is historically proven that banning something people want creates a black market for said something.  See prohibition for a rather salient example.  However, vaping is not a Constitutional right.  Additionally, there's the fact that the vast majority of criminals, who account for the vast majority of gun related homicides, acquire their firearms illegally already.  Why would adding more laws curtail that?  Again, actually enforce existing laws.  Aggressively prosecute those found in illegal possession of a firearm.  Aggressively prosecute straw purchasers.  Once you actually do that maybe we can then consider additional laws to curtail this criminal activity.  Maybe stop trying to impose further restrictions on those actually obeying the law prior to doing so?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-02-2019, 11:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, it is historically proven that banning something people want creates a black market for said something.  See prohibition for a rather salient example.  However, vaping is not a Constitutional right.  Additionally, there's the fact that the vast majority of criminals, who account for the vast majority of gun related homicides, acquire their firearms illegally already.  Why would adding more laws curtail that?  Again, actually enforce existing laws.  Aggressively prosecute those found in illegal possession of a firearm.  Aggressively prosecute straw purchasers.  Once you actually do that maybe we can then consider additional laws to curtail this criminal activity.  Maybe stop trying to impose further restrictions on those actually obeying the law prior to doing so?

How are straw purchasers identified?