ackerman mcqueen would pay for these non-contractual out-of-pocket expenses for mr.tives and pass those expenses through to the nra. these expenses would then be paid for by the nra without written approval, without receipts, without any supporting business purpose documentation. ackerman mcqueen would aggregate the expenses into a lump sum amount and then bill them to the nra without any details on the nature or purpose of the expense, completely in violation of state law. these expenses did not comply with irs requirements and as a result all such expenses should have been included by the nra in taxable personal income for mr. la pierre and other recipients. in 2017 and 2018 alone, just two yea years, ackerman mcqueen was paid more than $70 million. a significant amount of these funds included payments through this side agreement. when board members challenged mr. la pierre and the three other defendants over this lavish spending, their financial governance or their leadership of the nra, mr. la pierre retaliated and turned the board against those who attempted to

and ackerman mcqueen resisted doing so.a number of accusations came out that didn't come from the attorney general but came from different factions within the nra. 0n the one hand you have wayne lapierre the ceo for the nra for the past 29 years who's been a really effective leader for the nra in its own terms and has been quite popular among the board that governs the nra as well as the membership, but then the nra president at the time oliver north, the former reagan administration of iran contra fame, backed up by other well—known board members like ted nugent, the rock musician, as well as alan west who is now the chair of the texas republican party, all formed an alliance against lapierre and they began leaking accusations to the wall streetjournal that are exactly the same kind of information that letitia james is now going for. so i think she has quite a bit of evidence to pursue an effective case. and also the nra board last year when evidence of these financial dealings came to light, voted in the board to retroact

is long time advertising firm had a practice whereby ackerman mcqueen would pay for these non contractualut of pocket expenses for law for mr la pierre and other n.r.a. executives and passed those expenses through to the n.r.a. . these expenses would then be paid for by the n.r.a. without written approval without receipts without any supporting business purpose documentation ackermann macqueen would aggregate the expenses into a lump sum amount and then build them to the n.r.a. without any details on the nature or purpose of the expense completely in violation of state law. these expenses did not comply with i.r.s. requirements and as a result all such expenses should have been included by the n.r.a. in taxable personal income for mr la pierre and other recipients in 2017 and 2018 alone just 2 years ackerman ackerman mcqueen was paid more than $70000000.00 a significant amount of these funds included payments through this side agreement and when board members challenge mr la pierre and the 3 other defendants over this lavish spending their financial governance or their leadership of the n