My thoughts are this:
First thing we know is that it is 100% politically motivated. She is left wing, and the NRA is one of the biggest targets on the right, so she wants to make a name for herself as the one who brought them down. This political bias overshadows everything she does, and the media is complicit in this as well. Using that as a basis of understanding, we must first recognize that everything we see, and everything we read, is being presented to us through that tainted lens.
For instance, I believe that every bit of 'data' that she presents, every bit of evidence she finds (or fabricates) will be because she also looks through that tainted lens. It's the old "Bush Can't Swim
" joke, writ large
. If, for instance, a trip were primarily business and while he was out there he also did some scuba diving, I truly believe she'd intentionally gloss over or omit any reference to the legitimate purpose and call it a 'diving vacation'.
Yes, I'm that cynical about this, but I figure it's best to expose my bias as well before going into the meat of the topic...
So, with that being said, let's assume there is some degree of truth to what she's saying. I personally believe there is some truth to it, because I've done it as well. I have well over two million miles of business air travel under my belt, and the vast majority of it was on an expense account. When I was in overseas, I was there to work and to earn lots of $$ for my employer, but that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy myself as well. I enjoyed good restaurants - some of them probably over the top when I was entertaining clients - and I visited local attractions every opportunity I could.
Think about how this situation could be presented: Once, I found I could save my client $4000 on air travel to Kazakhstan by taking a three-day layover in Istanbul instead of waiting a few days later and flying direct. I had a surplus of frequent flyer points so I thought," I can fly my wife over for a quick weekend getaway!" I presented the business case, and the client agreed to pay for our hotel and food in Istanbul, in return for saving a ton on my airline travel. I was transparent with them that I'd be taking a boondoggle on their dime, and they gladly accepted.
So how would this be presented? Well, the NY DA will investigate this story, and all we'd hear is, "VolTexan is living the high life on the company dime". But the reality was, "VolTexan was about to spend two weeks in the frozen tundra of backwater Kazakhstan without his family, and he found an enjoyable way to save the company money while maintaining his work / wife balance because he spends about 35 weeks a year away from home."
Using that as a proxy for what she says he's done, perhaps he went a bit over the top, perhaps not. Perhaps he found ways to optimize personal enjoyment while working his butt off, perhaps not.
But think about it...do you want his job? He is expected to raise millions of dollars per day
for the NRA. He does that in small bits through you and me, and he probably does it in large chunks by entertaining clients. Millions of dollars per day. That's a big pile of money, and a huge responsibility. And what does he get in return for it? He's a pariah. He is hated by half the country, and likely more than half of the world. His personal life, and the personal life of his family are fair game for some of the most vicious, most determined people on earth - the liberal media. He will never, ever, ever get another job after this one. Nobody will touch him with a 100-foot pole, irrespective of whether they agree or disagree with his basic ideology, simply because he is a lightning rod for any company that hires him.
We recognize that some people have become so uniquely identified with one aspect of their life that its impossible for anyone to see past that and treat them like a 'normal person'. For instance, could you imagine anyone hiring Monica Lewinsky as their head of HR? Probably not, because it would be a PR nightmare for them. Is that fair? No, it's not, because she's getting punished for the actions of a 22 year old in the presence of the US president. But it's still real, and so is LaPierre's nightmare. He'll never have a normal life again, and neither will his wife, and possibly his children in the modern 'cancel culture' age we live in. Since he has chosen to trade his family's peaceful existence for a job with such high financial expectations, his compensation package had better damned well be worth it. He should never need to work again, ever. He should be compensated generously for trading his life away.
Oh yeah, and the personal safety of his entire family is at risk, every day. He is one of the biggest targets out there in the private sector.
So he considers the yacht a 'safe place to do business'. Ok, so? Does the value he bring to the organization justify it? If so, then let him use it. If not, then they'd have gotten rid of him long ago.
Please note that none of what I'm saying here is a judgement on whether he did or did not do something illegal. I have no idea. I'm just trying to present a potentially different picture than we're going to hear from the prosecutor, or that we're going to see in the media. Perhaps he really has been taking too much from the till for too long - perhaps not. We may never find out. But I'm not willing to jump on the bandwagon just yet simply because he has a lavish lifestyle. I don't' want his job - you couldn't pile enough yachts on top of me to make it worth it.
And remember, it's not him he's after. It's the NRA. And the NRA is you and me. She doesn't want us to have a powerful voice, and this is her way of making it happen.