‘Something weird happened with the NRA in 2016’

[floridafan]

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Monday examined the intersection of the National Rifle Association, Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, and accused Russian spy Maria Butima — who has reportedly been flipped by prosecutors and intends to plead guilty as part of a plea agreement.

“The National Rifle Association — the NRA — is thought of, and has long been thought of, as a powerhouse in Washington and American politics when it comes to lobbying and influence and especially money in elections,” Maddow noted

“The NRA does spend a ton of money every election cycle, and especially every presidential year, but clearly something weird happened with the NRA in 2016. For some reason, in 2016, the NRA just exploded its previous spending records,” Maddow reported. “And importantly, they made sure that most of that money came out of an arm of the NRA that doesn’t disclose anything about its donors.”

“That $30 million they spent on Trump, that is triple what they spent the last time around in the last presidential election on Mitt Romney — almost three times what they spent on Romney,” she explained. “Why did the NRA go off the charts for him in a way they never had for any other candidate in any other election?”

“The NRA money 2016 campaign just doesn’t make much sense given the history of the NRA and given the campaign,” she concluded.
Maddow wondered what we could learn if Butina is cooperating with investigators.

“Could the resolution of Maria Butina’s case finally give us a window into what has been going on here?” Maddow asked. “If the FBI has been investigating, among other things, the possibility that the NRA was used as a large-scale conduit for Russian money into the effort to elect Trump president, will the Maria Butina case give us a window into that investigation and it’s potential conclusions?

 

[Abatis]

“The NRA money 2016 campaign just doesn’t make much sense given the history of the NRA and given the campaign"

Puzzling statement given that the difference between the two candidates on the RKBA. There is no mystery why the NRA and other gun rights groups took spending and political action to record levels . . . Hillary promised to appoint SCOTUS justices that would reverse the "decided in error" Heller decision (and I would assume reverse McDonald and Caetano v. Massachusetts too) and Trump promised to appoint Originalists / Constitutionalists that would adhere to the Constitution and foundational principles and protect the RKBA.

There was no greater issue in 2016 for gun rights people than the appointment of judges and Justices in the federal courts. I know I donated a lot of money to various gun rights groups, at least 4 times what I have done in prior general cycles. Would it be a shock if the same were true for other citizens and gun corporations?

“Could the resolution of Maria Butina’s case finally give us a window into what has been going on here?” Maddow asked. “If the FBI has been investigating, among other things, the possibility that the NRA was used as a large-scale conduit for Russian money into the effort to elect Trump president, will the Maria Butina case give us a window into that investigation and it’s potential conclusions?

We will see. I'm content to allow the process to complete; speculation really doesn't serve a purpose but it seems to be MSNBC's on-air talent's bread and butter for discussing Trump.

 

[floridafan]

Puzzling statement given that the difference between the two candidates on the RKBA. There is no mystery why the NRA and other gun rights groups took spending and political action to record levels . . . Hillary promised to appoint SCOTUS justices that would reverse the "decided in error" Heller decision (and I would assume reverse McDonald and Caetano v. Massachusetts too) and Trump promised to appoint Originalists / Constitutionalists that would adhere to the Constitution and foundational principles and protect the RKBA.

There was no greater issue in 2016 for gun rights people than the appointment of judges and Justices in the federal courts. I know I donated a lot of money to various gun rights groups, at least 4 times what I have done in prior general cycles. Would it be a shock if the same were true for other citizens and gun corporations?



We will see. I'm content to allow the process to complete; speculation really doesn't serve a purpose but it seems to be MSNBC's on-air talent's bread and butter for discussing Trump.

You are making monumental excuses and nothing more. Lets leave it up to the Mueller team to see just where that money came from. Its gonna be eye opening.
You really couldn't care less about the constitution.

 

[LV426]

You are making monumental excuses and nothing more. Lets leave it up to the Mueller team to see just where that money came from. Its gonna be eye opening.
You really couldn't care less about the constitution.

I believe that the extent of Russian influence will be far greater and deeper than most realize.

I think the Russian rot goes all the way down to state and local GOP, and is present in every single Conservative institution there is; from the GOP to Fox News to the NRA to Evangelical Christianity.

 

[Abatis]

You are making monumental excuses and nothing more.

??? I'm just offering my opinion on what Retchall said. How is that "making monumental excuses"?

Lets leave it up to the Mueller team to see just where that money came from.

Which is what I said.

Its gonna be eye opening.

You speculate it will be eye opening, I speculate it will be mouth closing.

You really couldn't care less about the constitution.

Now you are just talking out of your ass.

 

[floridafan]

??? I'm just offering my opinion on what Retchall said. How is that "making monumental excuses"?



Which is what I said.



You speculate it will be eye opening, I speculate it will be mouth closing.



Now you are just talking out of your ass.

I am sure you, like most every republican, said nothing when Trump offered to go around the 14th amendment and cancel its benefits.

 

[Abatis]

I am sure you, like most every republican, said nothing when Trump offered to go around the 14th amendment and cancel its benefits.

I believe the time is ripe to review the policy of birth-right citizenship. The argument that the framers of the 14th Amendment DID NOT INTEND for birth right citizenship to be afforded simply because any pregnant woman's feet were on US soil at time of birth, has merit (specifically what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" really means).

So, while I'm opposed to a President exceeding Executive authority I would support Trump using his pen to alter that policy because it would be the quickest path to that review (of both birth right citizenship and the extent of executive authority).

 

[Anarchon]

This just in...politicians are crooked. Film at eleven.

 

[floridafan]

I believe the time is ripe to review the policy of birth-right citizenship. The argument that the framers of the 14th Amendment DID NOT INTEND for birth right citizenship to be afforded simply because any pregnant woman's feet were on US soil at time of birth, has merit (specifically what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" really means).

So, while I'm opposed to a President exceeding Executive authority I would support Trump using his pen to alter that policy because it would be the quickest path to that review (of both birth right citizenship and the extent of executive authority).

I am please to hear that YOU know exactly what the framers of the Constitution actually meant. There are legal ways to change the constitution, and what Trump threatened to do was not one of them, nor was your excuse for his action.

 

[Abatis]

I am please to hear that YOU know exactly what the framers of the Constitution actually meant. There are legal ways to change the constitution, and what Trump threatened to do was not one of them, nor was your excuse for his action.

Well, we are not talking about "what the framers of the [1789] Constitution meant", we are talking what the framers of the 1868 14th Amendment meant when they qualified / limited the granting of citizenship to only those who were, "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]". It is vitally important what that term meant to those lawmakers in the 1860's and that meaning does not support the granting of birth-right citizenship as it is awarded today.

The writers of the 14th Amendment did define the meaning of this pretty explicitly:

>> John Bingham: “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

>> Sen. Trumbull: "The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."​

So, a simple reading of the framers allows us to definitively say the intent of the 14th was to legally ignore any birth to parents here on vacation and planning on returning to their native land or births to migrant/transient workers. Citizenship of the child is entirely dependent upon the national attachments/allegiances of the parent.

Now if the granting of US citizenship does have certain specific exclusions and is absolutely not absolute, my position that birth-right citizenship needs to be examined and the question of who exactly is to be granted citizenship needs to be decided, is unquestionably reasonable.

But to be sure, that's a subject for another thread.

We could discuss why the left reads the 2nd Amendment and sees all manner of qualifications and conditions and restrictions on the rights of CITIZEN'S -- but then can ignore explicit qualifications and conditions on non-citizens where they are expressly stated.

I could ask, WASSUWIDDAT?! but we already know, it is just the leftist practice of perverting and mutating words and misconstructing laws to serve the leftist agenda.

Which brings us back to my first post in this thread speaking to why so much money and energy was spent by gun rights people to elect someone who promised to select judges and Justices to uphold the Constitution and reject / defeat the person promising to destroy what are considered fundamental rights of citizens.

.

.

 

[Irish Exit]

Given Trump's opponent passed the first assault weapons ban, it would be natural for gun supporters to more strongly oppose her in 2016. It is no different than David Geffen throwing his support behind Obama over Hillary in 2008 because of his hatred for Don't Ask Don't Tell, etc. That said, on this particular issue, it appears as if Kushner and Donnie Jr were possibly in on it. That doesn't create guilty knowledge or consent by POTUS Trump by default, but it puts him in a bad position. I suspect the Friends/Family of The Donald who didn't know crap about election law were running loose with the rules and are probably going to pay the price for it. Daddy can barely pay attention to himself, so I doubt he really personally knew it was going on at the time.