This week, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman interviews me about what it was like in the courtroom as New York’s civil trial against the NRA and its leaders reached closing arguments.
Thanks to the support of Reload Members, I’ve been able to cover much of the case from inside the Manhattan court where it’s happening. This is vital because there is no live stream of the proceedings and the transcripts aren’t made available until well after the events of the day, if at all. So, spending the resources to be up there is vital to understanding what is actually happening in a case that will affect the future of the nation’s largest gun-rights group, which has received only modest coverage from major media outlets.
Jake asked me about how the closing arguments went. I did my best to summarize what the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, the group’s top lawyer, and its former treasurer put up as their defense. And how the office of Attorney General Letitia James tried to rebut those arguments.
I did my best to explain, but the answer went on for a while, and I wasn’t able to hit every point. I probably could have talked for another several hours on how the case unfolded over the course of six weeks or even just the closing arguments, which went on for eight hours.
Jake also asked me to predict the outcome of the case based on everything I saw in court. I don’t think it’s possible to predict exactly how the jury will rule on the many, many questions they have to resolve. But I did think significant parts of the jury instructions make an overall win for the NRA, LaPierre, and others very difficult to imagine.
After going over my time at the NRA trial, we discussed my on-the-ground experience during Donald Trump’s speech at the Great American Outdoor Show. The rally took place in Pennsylvania, a key state in what’s looking like an inevitable rematch between Trump and President Joe Biden. But it wasn’t as newsworthy as I’d expected it to be since the NRA didn’t actually announce its endorsement of Trump.
Instead, it was much more akin to a normal Trump rally. Trump made some specific promises about gun policy, but none of them were new.
The lack of an endorsement felt especially odd since the political speech was a new component of the event, and no other politician was invited, including Trump’s remaining Republican opponent, Nikki Haley. And the speech was run like a rally, with the NRA repeatedly heaping praise on Trump and calling for him to be president again.
The rally also featured moments where the crowd was encouraged to yell their shared disdain at the media in the room in what has been a staple of Trump rallies for years but which also fell more ominous after the events of January 6th. The crowd was energetic at points, cheering and laughing at Trump’s now-familiar routine. But they also quieted down through long stretches of his stream-of-consciousness asides and the venue that started nearly full of Trump supporters was about half empty by the time he wrapped up an hour and 15 minutes after he’d arrived.
Plus, I interviewed Jake about what happened to the rebranded effort to ban AR-15s and other guns in New Mexico.
You can listen to the show on your favorite podcasting app or by clicking here. Video of the episode is available on our YouTube channel. Reload Members get access on Sunday, as always. The episode will go public on Monday.
4 Responses
That was a great conversation. Appreciated the comparison to other non-profits that found themselves in trouble. The Trump case is relevant not only for being a political target of Ms. James, but also because the org has a monitor/overseer appointed. This monitor has the power to hire staff on behalf of the organization and the enterprise has some pretty specific complaints about the position, perhaps not least of which is the sizable drain on OpEx.
I suppose with the NRA, any money spent on or by a monitor will give members better value than Wayne going wild in a suit store. The point though is that Trump’s monitor predicament may give us some insight into how the monitor may or may not work in the NRA. I don’t get the sense that the monitor which Trump’s judge appointed is apolitical in intent and execution, though I also don’t get the impression that the NRA’s judge is quite the political animal as Mr. Engoron. Maybe the NRA will have better luck with the appointment.
Thanks for going to the trial and reporting on these things. Really appreciate your first-hand account and thoughts.
Thanks! I think there definitely could be value in seeing how the Trump monitor operates. If a monitor is appointed, it will be incredibly important for that person’s decisions to be monitored to ensure they are working in the group’s best interest.
I’m sure you keep an eye on nraindanger, but they posted links to the jury instructions and verdict forms yesterday, hosted by State of NY website. Pretty fascinating reading..
Question 1: Did the Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the NRA failed to properly administer the organization and its assets at any time between March 20, 2014 and May 2, 2022?
The standard of guilt in a civil trial is brought into focus, along with the cut-and-dry question about the juror’s perception of what happened.
Yea, I was in court when the instructions were read. They seem fairly straightforward, which I think is a bad sign for the defendants. Other than the charges the judge already tossed and some of the smaller related party transactions (like the hair and makeup for Susan LaPierre at an NRA event), I would expect the defendants to lose.
The bar of proof is lower in a civil suit (preponderance of the evidence), and the verdict doesn’t have to be unanimous (you just need 5 of 6 jurors). So, it’s an uphill battle for defendants compared to criminal trials. And the facts of the case aren’t very favorable to the defendants either.
You never know how a jury will come out, though.
I think the NRA’s defense was more designed for the second stage of the case where the judge will determine what resolutions are appropriate because a lot of what they argued was focused on the internal reform effort. So, that seems like more of an argument against a court-appointed monitor than anything else. We should find out what happens soon. Perhaps tomorrow.