05-12-2021, 07:35 PM
(05-12-2021, 04:42 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I'm honestly not following your bias argument here SSF. What is the NET effect of her 'bias' on this case? That she brought it at all? Her previous comments don't give her the ability to work outside of the legal framework previously established. She has an obligation to prosecute malfeasance of this nature, plain and simple.
I've explained earlier in the thread, but I'll reiterate. I have zero issue with bringing charges against NRA board members who broke the law. In fact, I highly support it as the current NRA leadership is bad for the organization (mind you I'd support prosecution of them if they were great for the organization but broke the law). What I do not support, and see as a bridge way too far, is the AG's attempt to dissolve the NRA as an organization because of the actions of some board members. This is not some fly by night scam non profit. This is the oldest civil rights organization in the United States. Whether you support their cause or not they represent and defend millions of members who care about their gun rights. I've seen the argument made that dissolution doesn't really mean anything as they can just reform in another state. If it doesn't mean anything then why is it being pursued? Why not just prosecute the members engaged in criminal conduct and let the organization reincorporate in Texas? That's where the AG's obvious bias comes in. She's not just out to punish law breakers in the NRA, she's out to destroy the NRA and her previous statements about the NRA provide all the information a logical person needs to determine why. And that is a classic example of biased prosecution.
Quote:The way I am interpreting your position (forgive me if I'm wrong), is that she has the power to determine which cases are egregious enough to prosecute and that her determination to pursue charges was driven by that bias. Her 'bias' has been informed by the NRA's own actions though, both political and organizationally.
I think I addressed this above. Let me know if you need further clarification.
Quote:If I'm missing something here, let me know. I just do not appreciate holding organizations, corporate entities and their leadership to a different standard based solely on their pocketbooks ability to absorb increased legal expenses. If they ****** up, they ****** up. Seems to me that they've put all their chips in on fighting the legal and PR battle rather than owning up and paying the restitution; an ante that will probably cost them much more in the long run (creative accounting aside). I'd be willing bet that decision was made by the guy who many members already want to see removed from his position. This is his little bighorn.
Oh, I agree about LaPierre. He's the reason I let my membership lapse and I won't be reupping until he's gone. But, again, his poor decisions and alleged criminal conduct does not irrevocably taint the entire organization. Bottom line is this AG has an obvious, publicly stated, personal bias against the NRA. She should not be involved in a case in which the attempted resolution is the dissolution of the NRA as she has a clear and obvious bias against the organization.
I once moved a case as one of the suspects involved was a member of a family that a friend of mine was friends with. I didn't know those people at all, but I could see how an outsider could see the potential for bias or favoritism. It's always better to move such cases to people in which no possible conflict of interest can be perceived or exist. Failure to do so sows doubt as to the impartiality of the process. One of the cornerstones of our judicial system is an unbiased process carried out by unbiased individuals. The New York AG tainted herself irrevocably in regards to the NRA and the fact that she wouldn't recuse herself or her office from this prosecution speaks volumes about her lack of integrity and IMO, is further evidence of her bias.
