ABC reported this week that it had found evidence that the NRA had been very involved in plans for the group’s 2015 trip to Moscow and it was not an “unofficial” trip. An Oregon senator, Sen. Ron Wyden, told ABC, “It’s not credible for the NRA to claim that they played no official role in the 2015 Moscow trip." It said staffers had worked with Russian agent Maria Butina to coordinate the trip. Butina told them that when they got to the airport, “For your convenience, in our hands will be a big red sign saying Welcome NRA.”
The trip has come under suspicion because of Butina’s efforts to use the NRA as an instrument of influence in the U.S.
A lot of allegedly, reportedly and that in those articles. A more accurate headline for your thread would be nra allegedly (or apparently, or any other similar descriptor) not truthful.
And from you ABC link:
“When he became aware of the details of the trip, Wayne was personally opposed to it," Brewer told ABC News through a spokesman. The spokesman also noted that the group’s president at the time, Allan Cors, opted not to attend at LaPierre’s suggestion, and the NRA declined to send staff to Moscow with the group, as they had typically done on officially sponsored travel.
Just because the NRA may have offered help (as mentioned other places in the article) doesn’t mean it was an officially sponsored event.
A lot of “allegedly” in a lot of articles, but that doesn’t mean they’re not credible. And even if LaPierre didn’t attend, enough NRA members went on this trip to accurately say this wasn’t just a vacation.
And beyond the trip, there has been evidence of ties to Russia by the group. This Rolling Stone article, which came out three days before the ABC story I linked, has a big picture of LaPierra and Maria Bustina together in 2014. The NRA’s ties to Russia go beyond this trip. That picture is posted again here. It was posted earlier but removed for some unexplained reason.
The evidence certainly indicates that. The underlying question that hasn’t really been addressed – and there really isn’t enough evidence to scope it yet – is if there was election collusion was the NRA involved either wittingly or unwittingly.
Remember that for mainstream news organizations “allegedly” is applied very broadly – to describe any allegation until the point where it is either decided by a jury’s guilty verdict or a defendant’s guilty plea. Putting allegedly in front of every accusation protects the reporting organization from defamation suits.
We’ve gotten desensitized by political opinion slingers (some of whom masquerade as news sources) who freely announce who is guilty according their political whims.
In real news organizations “allegedly” means “not proven to a Constitutional standard” it does not mean “nothing to consider here.”
And that is why I said the title of the thread is deceptive. ABC is ALLEGING NRA wasn’t truthful. Title of the thread is ABC essentially has proof – and that’s not the case.
Read the title of the ABC web article again please. It states the evidence “appears” to indicate. That’s not an assertion of proof at all. You are trying to insist on a bias that just isn’t there.
Some flimity flam about picture replies needing a synopsis that didn’t seem to exist a very short time ago. There are thousands of pictures posted in reply with no synopsis. They are harmless and often rather humorous and/or succinct. A thousand words and all that.
And Russians love it when Americans assail the free press in this country because it gives the Russians ammunition for arguing that their controlled press is entirely fine.
