MSNBC | Oliver North steps down as president of NRA, won't serve second term

CNN | Oliver North: 'Informed' I will not be renominated NRA president

NRA | NRA President to Step Down as New York Attorney General Investigates

WAPOO | NRA ousts president Oliver North after alleged extortion scheme against chief executive

NBC News | NRA President Oliver North stepping down as infighting roils the gun-rights group

VANITY FAIR | N.R.A. President Oliver North steps down amid "clear crisis" of leadership

POLITICO | NRA announces North's resignation on-stage as 'crisis' hits gun lobby

REUTERS | Oliver North steps down as NRA president amid dispute over 'damaging' information

INDIANAPOLIS (Reuters) - [Immunized felon] Oliver North will step down as president of the National Rifle Association, North said on Saturday, adding he was being forced out due to his allegations that NRA leaders engaged in financial improprieties.

Butina admitted as part of her plea that she began working with former Russian official Alexander Torshin in 2015 to create a back-channel of communication between U.S. political figures [?] and Russia, a mission that she carried out by infiltrating [!] the powerful National Rifle Association.

[U.S. District Judge Tanya] Chutkan found that Butina's efforts were undertaken for the benefit of Russia at a time when the country was actively interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

That [Maria Butina] failed to register as a foreign agent made her all the more likely to establish the connections that she did, the judge added.

The government has conceded that Butina was not a spy in the traditional [?] sense, but says her clandestine work to collect information valuable to the Russian government nevertheless posed a national-security threat.

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia handled Butina's prosecution, not special counsel Robert Mueller. Her name appears nowhere in the 448-page report Mueller produced summarizing the results of his investigation.

"It's important to show her willingness to carry on conversations [?!]," said Richard Rodriguez, a national board member of Our Revolution, who met with Bustos Thursday. "I'm sure she is also feeling some political pressure."

He pointed out that the meeting coincided with news that more than 40 College Democrats chapters had joined a boycott  of the DCCC over the vendor [sic] policy.

reference
FEC FORM 3X DNC Services Corp./Dem. Nat'l Committee, financial statements
FEC FORM 3X Republican National Committee, Inc., financial statements
DOJ | PRICE FIXING, BID RIGGING AND MARKET ALLOCATION SCHEMES

archived free trade
House Democratic Leadership Warns It Will Cut Off Any Firms That Challenge Incumbents
"This is the first time that they are ever making [antitrust violations] open policy."
Welding et al. v. DNC Services Corp., d/b/a Democratic National Committee
final order Aug 2017
Welding et al. v. DNC Services Corp., d/b/a Democratic National Committee
complaint May 2017

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

It is unusual for committee [attorneys] to question a witness. But committees can generally make their own rules, and other panels have made similar exceptions. In a confirmation hearing for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh last year, for example, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee hired an outside prosecutor to question a witness who had accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault.

archived
House Judiciary Committee subpoena
Conspiracy by Democrats Falls Flat
Schumer claimed the hearings are "not a criminal trial"


Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

[Complainants] say the law that is scheduled to take effect in Oct. 1 - about a year out from the 2020 presidential election - is vague, violates First and 14thAmendment rights and hands down draconian civil and criminal penalties for any group found violating its provisions.

archived
Gerrymandering is unlawful and illegal in the USA.
because this is America
What surprises me is that anyone on the planet looks to the USA to be a paragon of "democratic processes."
Shelby vs. Holder

On June 25, 2013, the United States Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional to use the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act to determine which jurisdictions are subject to the preclearance requirement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013). The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Section 5 itself. The effect of the Shelby County decision is that the jurisdictions identified by the coverage formula in Section 4(b) no longer need to seek preclearance for the new voting changes, unless they are covered by a separate court order entered under Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act.