Discussion: ‘Scumbags’: Conservative Super-Lawyer Blasts Schiff, Media Over NRA-Russia Story

[demyankee]

The Pythons seem always to have been there first.

[jimbobuddy]

She seems nice.

[lchuco]

“a) I have not been involved with NRA since 2012 when my board term expired, b) there is ZERO chance that NRA was involved in any way with Russian money as NRA has always been 100% meticulous about what money is spent for what"

If (a) is true, then she has no personal knowledge on which to base (b).

Smoke (fill in the blank): a) and mirrors; b) -ing gun.

[gtomkins]

And she would tend to herself breach attorney-client privilege insofar as she makes assertions about NRA practice in complying with the law that she is claiming she helped oversee as a lawyer rather than a board member.

But my personal favorite here is this word use: “It is a complete fabrication by the left and their supplicants in the liberal media.” I’m not sure where any sort of supplication comes in here, except, please, please, super lawyer lady, please stop writing things that I have any chance of reading that make my sides hurt laughing at them.

[cervantes]

Can anybody explain how the NRA can be $46 million in the hole without being bankrupt?

From the top chart: Revenue ($366M) and Expenses ($412M).

Revenue minus expenses is a negative $46 million.

Sure, but these numbers (“Revenue” and “Expenses”) pertain only to FY2016. The organization could have had a bad year without being “in the hole” as a result, depending on the prior state of its finances.

Cash reserves could make up the difference.

No, cash reserves are already incorporated in the GuideStar numbers posted by @tiowally.

If you look at the organization’s latest 990, you see in Part X that the sum of “Cash–non-interest-bearing” ($0) plus “Savings and temporary cash investments” is $13,831,228. Per IRS instructions, this sum of $13,831,228 has already been incorporated in “Net Assets,” which is the $36,114,690 that you see in GuideStar’s numbers.

Per the 990:

.

As for this:

It’s not a disparity. You don’t understand Accounting 101.

and:

Elementary. Basic math, Watson.

Quite so, Sherlock.

[georgeh]

But my personal favorite here is this word use: “It is a complete fabrication by the left and their supplicants in the liberal media.” I’m not sure where any sort of supplication comes in here,

My guess is that she meant to say “sycophants.” Or maybe “supplements.” Or maybe “replicants.”

[wilecoyote]

Right. She does not know what the word means.

[cervantes]

But my personal favorite here is this word use: “It is a complete fabrication by the left and their supplicants in the liberal media.” I’m not sure where any sort of supplication comes in here

That’s because you’re not privy to the secret and unspeakably humiliating rituals we force upon the liberal media.

Love,
The left

[playitagainrowlf]

She’s either really confident of her position and the NRA’s position or really reckless. I am voting for reckless.

I would say she has the courage of her convictions. No, seriously, she’s already been convicted…

[borisjimbo]

You don’t need to be a member to contribute to the NRA.

[nwlefty]

This part of her denial "NRA has always been 100% meticulous about what money is spent for what " sounds like Trump saying he has no properties in Russia. We’re not concerned about money going that direction.

[juliagrey]

Their assets exceed their liabilities. They are therefore not “bankrupt.”

But yes, they are running a deficit in regard to that particular reporting period. If they keep it up, they might have to sell assets off to cover their liabilities, which could endanger their solvency over the longer term. (Given that they are probably a “non-profit” organization there may be rules about how much of a surplus they can run and retain in any given year anyway.)

It’s like the difference in terms between the national debt and any given year’s spending creating a deficit.

[bardi]

there is ZERO chance that NRA was involved in any way with Russian money as NRA has always been 100% meticulous about what money is spent for what

IANAL, but
Weird grammar implying that the NRA is only concerned with money spent whereas the problem, as I understand it, is that we are concerned with Russian monies that were spent on the NRA, who then, in turn, spent it on trump. She omits the possibility of laundering Russian money. Pretty convenient omission, IMHO.

[pmaroneyb]

Maybe Judge Dred?

[tiowally]

pertain only to FY2016. The organization could have had a bad year without being “in the hole”

And yet it was able to spend $55 million during the 2016 election cycle? Fishy. Maybe?

Hopefully we’ll soon learn where the NRA’s income is coming from. It only has five million members.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article177312006.html

[gtomkins]

Yes, autocorrect plus alcohol can be a deadly combination.

I don’t even want to know what word salad she typed that got corrected to “supplicant”. There’s enough horror in my life already.

[tiowally]

got corrected to “supplicant”.

Naw. She’s used to dealing with a bunch of sycophantic mommy boys. Even the worst dominatrix would agree, always call dickless brown-nosers “supplicants.” Then spank 'em with ever harder with a Forbes while demanding, “You didn’t look it up, did you?!”

Vocabulary can be very limited depending on your life-long occupation.

[not_so_fluffy]

her grammar sucks fuckingly…

[bodie1]

Silver tongued Solon if ever there was one.

[cervantes]

[quote=“tiowally, post:196, topic:69680”]
And yet it was able to spend $55 million during the 2016 election cycle? Fishy. Maybe? Hopefully we’ll soon learn where the NRA’s income is coming from.[/quote]

Yes.

It only has five million members.

I’d like to see, but have not seen, a breakdown by age.