In court, the NRA questions the old head about his luxury spending

During a dizzying day of legal action on Monday, a lawyer for the National Rifle Association confronted his longtime boss, Wayne LaPierre, about his lavish spending.

During his second day of testimony in a civil corruption trial in New York, Mr. LaPierre admitted under rapid questioning that many of his expenses had not been approved by the NRA board and violated the group's policies. But the legal fireworks appeared to be part of a strategy to bolster Mr. LaPierre and the NRA's claim that they have reformed governance and that regulatory intervention is unnecessary.

Mr. LaPierre, 74, is a defendant in the lawsuit filed in 2020 by New York Attorney General Letitia James. On the eve of the trial, he announced his resignation, which will take effect on Wednesday. The NRA itself is also a defendant, as are John Frazer, its general counsel, and Wilson Phillips, a former chief financial officer.

The state has provided many examples of Mr. LaPierre's extravagant spending, including more than $250,000 on suits at a Beverly Hills boutique. There were also trips where Mr. LaPierre and his family were hosted by NRA salespeople with lucrative contracts on a luxury yacht called Illusions. And huge expenditures were made on charter flights; Mr. LaPierre did not dispute that some flights were for family members only. One family trip to the Bahamas cost the NRA almost $38,000.

The NRA also sometimes paid more than $10,000 per session for hair and makeup for Mr. LaPierre's wife, Susan, who used a stylist who had also worked on Hallmark films.

Before Mr. LaPierre was questioned, Sarah B. Rogers, one of the NRA's lawyers, asked the judge, Judge Joel M. Cohen of the State Supreme Court in Manhattan, to give her broader leeway because Mr. LaPierre and the organization has different interests. Any money recovered from Mr. LaPierre will be returned to the NRA

During her questioning, Mr. LaPierre admitted that many of his expenses were inappropriate, and that he did not authorize some lavish expenses, such as hair styling and makeup for his wife, or the use of rental cars and private planes by his family and friends . .

“That was wrong, and it shouldn't have happened?” Ms. Rogers asked Mr. LaPierre several times. And Mr. LaPierre typically answered, “Yes.”

But Mr. LaPierre has led the NRA for more than three decades and has hired the legal team that represents the organization. Ms. Rogers' questions quickly turned to changes in the board that were implemented at Mr. LaPierre's direction, on the advice of her firm. Mr. LaPierre said that “my operating expense process has changed.” He also said he has made good financially and had paid back about $300,000 to the NRA by April 2021.

“When I look through the expense reports, look through the NRA ledgers, look through every other record I can find, I have paid them all back to the NRA with interest,” he said.

The attorney general's office has viewed these efforts as too little, too late. The NRA only began its reform efforts after it became clear that it could face regulatory action in New York. The state has unique jurisdiction over the NRA, which was founded there as a nonprofit in 1871. Ms. James is seeking financial sanctions and an injunction against defendants working for any nonprofit organization operating in New York.

Much of Mr. LaPierre's testimony questioned by the state focused on the details of his spending habits. He did try to justify some of the expenses by saying that he made a habit of buying suits from an expensive Beverly Hills boutique, Zegna, only because a contractor told him to, claiming that the suits were just “costumes that I put on TV carried'.

He also often said he did not know what was happening in the organization under him. He said he did not know who had authorized some of the charter flights, or whether a top official had received a seven-figure payment from a contractor the official had managed. Mr. LaPierre also had a close aide even after he discovered she had stolen tens of thousands of dollars.

Much of the criticism of Mr. LaPierre during the case has come from his own top lieutenants. Jonathan Conley, a lawyer with the attorney general's office, asked Mr. LaPierre about one of them, Joshua Powell, a former top deputy who had reached a tentative settlement.

Mr. LaPierre said he removed Mr. Powell from his position after receiving complaints that he was abusive to staff. But he admitted that Mr. Powell had received a promotion and pay increase. Mr. LaPierre said he did not know how the pay increase was approved, despite being Mr. Powell's supervisor.

“I'm having a hard time following this,” Mr. Conley said.

“Me too,” Mr. LaPierre replied.