Southern Poverty Law Center Indicted

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by Lantern2814

I shouldn't waste time on you partisan hacks who are ignorant of reality and don't read. CNN is a left leaning Anti-Trump network. Hence their OPINION is slanted and YOU are guilty of confirmation bias. Yes you do lose, as you STILL have not offered one shred of evidence to counter the documents and payments shown to have been made. Left leaning "experts" are all you go to. As usual. Just to embarrass you further, perhaps you lefties should open a book. It wasn't the RNC that got known as the Klanbake one year. That pathetic, debunked lie of "the parties switched" and "the racists are Republicans" falls apart under any scrutiny of UNBIASED sources. The left embarrassing themselves again by going after people trying to eliminate fraud that costs US taxpayers a LOT of money.

Originally Posted by pxmcc

Lantern, read this post by a senior level former prosecutor. the feds literally have no case.

https://www.justsecurity.org/137171/...w-center-splc/

Lantern, I respectfully ask that you read the analysis provided by pxmcc. It’s quite informative and convincing. It refutes all the elements of the indictment.

Here is some specific examples from the article.

The government’s theory of the case, necessary (though not sufficient) to establish the first bucket of charges, is that the Center was secretly promoting racist organizations. The fraud was taking money from donors who were intentionally led to believe that the Center was fighting such groups.

The precise theory of the DOJ indictment against the Center: That it did not tell its donors that it was promoting hate groups when it paid money to informants to get data about the groups. That is a possible fraud only if the Center actually was seeking to promote – as opposed to dismantle – such groups. That the Center is known to have provided information about such groups to the FBI so that the government could take action against the groups will be powerful, if not dispositive, proof against the government’s theory. Indeed, the indictment itself says the Center’s informant stole boxes of documents form one alleged hate group and then the Center used the documents to publicly hurt that group (Indictment, Paragraph 11b). The Center would need to establish only reasonable doubt that it had not sought to promote such groups, but here there appears to be no doubt whatsoever that it sought to weaken these alleged hate groups.

And what makes this so much worse is that the DOJ (and its FBI component) know all this, as they received from the Center itself the negative information about these groups. The Department were doing so at least until the beginning of the second Trump administration when Patel terminated the Bureau’s receiving such information from the Center. That proof is now going to be a weapon that the Center can wield against the Department’s indictment.

…

It is useful to compare the Center indictment to that brought against the “Build the Wall” defendants, where Steven Bannon and others were convicted of defrauding donors. There the federal charges specifically alleged that the donors were told that their funds would not be used for paying salaries and the like; instead, the donations would all go to the Wall. The indictment alleged that the defendants, knowing this, nevertheless used the money for such personal purposes. The indictment included quoted statements to donors, such as the leader “would not take a penny in salary or compensation” but, as the indictment alleged, he and others then took hundreds of thousands of dollars as personal compensation, after raising $25 million based on such alleged falsehoods. They were convicted.

Here, such quotations or even specific allegations are conspicuously absent from the indictment (and from the press conference). Now one would think, if they existed, that the DOJ would have cited written fundraising communications to prospective donors to support the charges (there are typically myriad such communications from organizations). None have been cited. Or the government could have alleged that certain donors told the government about such misrepresentations, but again no such allegations have been made. Given that this DOJ has smeared people in the past to lessen the public’s view of them, it is more than reasonable to conclude that no such information exists.

But there is more. The indictment speaks about millions of dollars being used to pay informants for information, and suggests a scheme awash with donor money for almost a decade, from “2014 to 2023” (Paragraph 10). But when you get to the actual wire fraud charges, the amounts dwindle to a combined total of a paltry $13,905 on a single day in 2023. Yet, a federal criminal case has been brought against a storied civil rights group defending black Americans for that lowly sum on a single day. No explanation has been given by Blanche, Patel, or others for the huge discrepancy between the introductory language (which is not the gravamen of the criminal charges) and what is actually charged. The Build the Wall defendants, by contrast, were alleged to have collectively netted from their fraud well over a million dollars. (And one of them, Bannon, was later pardoned by Trump.)


Click the link provided by pxmcc above to see the full article.

[fd-guy]

Originally Posted by Lantern2814

I shouldn't waste time on you partisan hacks who are ignorant of reality and don't read. CNN is a left leaning Anti-Trump network. Hence their OPINION is slanted and YOU are guilty of confirmation bias. Yes you do lose, as you STILL have not offered one shred of evidence to counter the documents and payments shown to have been made. Left leaning "experts" are all you go to. As usual. Just to embarrass you further, perhaps you lefties should open a book. It wasn't the RNC that got known as the Klanbake one year. That pathetic, debunked lie of "the parties switched" and "the racists are Republicans" falls apart under any scrutiny of UNBIASED sources. The left embarrassing themselves again by going after people trying to eliminate fraud that costs US taxpayers a LOT of money.

The Klanbake. Bold choice from someone who keeps invoking "unbiased sources."

Especially amusing coming from someone who previously dismissed CNN, law professors, the Alabama Reflector, and peer-reviewed research as "left-leaning" — while presenting an incomplete account as unvarnished truth. The audacity of accusing others of confirmation bias while living it out in real time is truly remarkable.

What the "unbiased" version somehow omitted: at the 1924 Republican National Convention, held just weeks earlier, an anti-Klan plank never even made it to a floor vote. Killed before delegates could debate it. Because in the 1920s, three to six million Americans were card-carrying Klan members. It was embedded in both parties because it was embedded in the country.

And then — as previously established, with sources dismissed as too left-leaning by virtue of being accurate — the Southern Strategy happened. Counties with active Klaverns in the 1960s shifted measurably and lastingly toward Republican voting across five consecutive presidential elections.

The Klan was born in the Democratic Party. It moved. Where it ended up is a matter of historical record.

Half a history lesson isn't history. It's a talking point with the inconvenient chapters torn out.


Oh, and feel free to stop "wasting" our time.

[Lantern2814]

As far as wasting time, you should quit doing that here and in Upstate NY (where NBT and others embarrass you daily). CNN will continue to be dismissed as a left leaning Anti-Trump source because that is exactly what they are. Deflecting from the fact that you still haven't proven that those payments didn't happen. That paying hate groups (that you hilariously claim are all right wing, including people fighting for women's rights and parents at school board meetings) to keep them going so the SPLC can keep getting money. The audacity to cry about other people while you ignore and encourage the fraud going on right in front of you.

[pxmcc]

^^where's the fraud?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

I’m going to reiterate: This indictment has no basis in fact or reality. It truly sounds like a drunken right wing masturbatory fantasy. It appears to me that the FBI and the Justice department is manufacturing a case against the SPLC to justify their own jobs to the President who wants them to persecute his political enemies.

Ok txdot, step down off your soapbox. Let's talk facts and evidence.

Here is what the DOJ's 11-count indictment alleges:

"Starting in the 1980s, the SPLC began operating a covert network of informants who were either associated with violent extremist groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan, or who had infiltrated violent extremist groups at the SPLC's direction. These informants were referred to by some individuals within the SPLC as the "field sources" or the "Fs."

F-37 was a member of the online leadership chat group that planned the 2017 "Unite the Right" event in Charlottesville, Virginia and attended the event at the direction of the SPLC. F-37 made racist postings under the supervision of the SPLC and helped coordinate transportation to the event for several attendees. Between 2015 and 2023, the SPLC secretly paid F-37 more than $270,000.00."

If the DOJ produces at trial this informant (F-37) who testifies under oath that he was instructed by the SPLC to make "racist postings" - it will be extremely damaging evidence. Then the DOJ can easily introduce into evidence some of the fund-raising letters mailed out by the SPLC in the wake of the 2017 Charlottesville rally. Everyone agrees the SPLC's donations soared in response to those mailings.

Still wanna call it a "manufactured" case that has "no basis in fact or reality"? Please keep in mind that F-37 is just one of many informants cited in the DOJ indictment.

The indictment goes on to say:

"To secretly funnel donated money to the Fs, individuals at the SPLC... opened a series of bank accounts... in the name of various fictitious entities. These fictitious entities were never incorporated, had no bona fide employees, and conducted no actual business."

If paying informants at the hate groups they told their donors they were working to "dismantle" is kosher and appropriate and above-board and defensible, maybe you can explain why they found it necessary to conceal this activity by laundering the payments through dummy companies?

Here's the actual indictment:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1437146/dl

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by fd-guy

The KKK was founded by Confederate veterans who were, at the time, Democrats. Yes. Here's what goes unmentioned: Richard Nixon's own strategists documented the Southern Strategy in writing — a deliberate plan to absorb racially resentful white Southerners who abandoned the Democrats after the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Counties with active KKK chapters in the 1960s showed a lasting shift toward Republican voting across five consecutive presidential elections. The Klan's political heirs followed the Southern Strategy straight into the Republican Party.

It's taught in undergraduate history courses.

It's revisionist nonsense, as I have pointed out many times. It's also off-topic, so I'll just refer you to Dinesh D'Souza's rebuttal here:

https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=106...8&postcount=51

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by lustylad

The indictment goes on to say:

"To secretly funnel donated money to the Fs, individuals at the SPLC... opened a series of bank accounts... in the name of various fictitious entities. These fictitious entities were never incorporated, had no bona fide employees, and conducted no actual business."

If paying informants at the hate groups they told their donors they were working to "dismantle" is kosher and appropriate and above-board and defensible, maybe you can explain why they found it necessary to conceal this activity by laundering the payments through dummy companies?

Here's the actual indictment:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1437146/dl

Presumably when you cultivate an informant in a hate group it’s easier to get them to give you the information you want if they think you believe in the same ideology as them.

If you were to incentivize them to turn over their information for money then presumably the origin of those funds shouldn’t be able to be tracked back to the SPLC. That’s just common sense when working undercover.

[ICU 812]

"Informant". or agent prolocuture . . . .eventually the truth will come out in court.

I suspect that the PLC investigations are just one thread of corruption. There are likely to be other threads that will lead investigators to other organizations on the progressive left. . . .and other areas of the left's "resistance", in California, Minnesota, Illinois and other deep blue bastions of progressive corruption.

But that is just speculation on my part . . . .perhaps only wishful thinking.

[fd-guy]

Originally Posted by Lantern2814

As far as wasting time, you should quit doing that here and in Upstate NY (where NBT and others embarrass you daily). CNN will continue to be dismissed as a left leaning Anti-Trump source because that is exactly what they are. Deflecting from the fact that you still haven't proven that those payments didn't happen. That paying hate groups (that you hilariously claim are all right wing, including people fighting for women's rights and parents at school board meetings) to keep them going so the SPLC can keep getting money. The audacity to cry about other people while you ignore and encourage the fraud going on right in front of you.

It's comical and desperate to reference a different thread where anonymous posters apparently embarrass themselves with immature writing and grammar skills daily. Devastating stuff.

Let's pause and reflect on what's actually being claimed here: the SPLC — a legitimate organisation with $822 million in assets — intentionally finances hate groups to manufacture its own relevance. No source. No evidence. Nothing approaching either. Just the allegation, stated emphatically, as though repeating it loudly enough makes it true.

The payments were made to confidential informants working inside white supremacist organisations — the KKK, Aryan Nation, National Alliance. As Case Western Reserve law professor Cassandra Burke Robertson noted, this is something "federal law enforcement does as a matter of course." Standard counter-extremism practice. The revelation that intelligence agencies use informants is, apparently, the scandal.

The CNN report was factual, well-sourced, and corroborated by the Alabama Reflector, two law professors and the court documents themselves. "Anti-Trump" is not a rebuttal to a source. It's what you call yourself when you don't have one.

The list of things asserted without evidence continues to grow considerably longer than the list of things demonstrated. That second list, for the record, stands at exactly zero — not a single source offered, not a single accurate claim made, nothing but the dismissal of sources provided by others.

That's not a debate. That's a loss dressed up as confidence. Yours.

[1blackman1]

Stephen Miller was cited by the Southern Poverty Law Center for extremist and white nationalist emails with Breitbart. I’m sure that has nothing to do with this “investigation” and “indictment”. We all know this is garbage, about like D’Souza’s dumbness. Some people will believe anything, and claim they are Smart MAGA.

[Lantern2814]

Originally Posted by fd-guy

It's comical and desperate to reference a different thread where anonymous posters apparently embarrass themselves with immature writing and grammar skills daily. Devastating stuff.

Let's pause and reflect on what's actually being claimed here: the SPLC — a legitimate organisation with $822 million in assets — intentionally finances hate groups to manufacture its own relevance. No source. No evidence. Nothing approaching either. Just the allegation, stated emphatically, as though repeating it loudly enough makes it true.

The payments were made to confidential informants working inside white supremacist organisations — the KKK, Aryan Nation, National Alliance. As Case Western Reserve law professor Cassandra Burke Robertson noted, this is something "federal law enforcement does as a matter of course." Standard counter-extremism practice. The revelation that intelligence agencies use informants is, apparently, the scandal.

The CNN report was factual, well-sourced, and corroborated by the Alabama Reflector, two law professors and the court documents themselves. "Anti-Trump" is not a rebuttal to a source. It's what you call yourself when you don't have one.

The list of things asserted without evidence continues to grow considerably longer than the list of things demonstrated. That second list, for the record, stands at exactly zero — not a single source offered, not a single accurate claim made, nothing but the dismissal of sources provided by others.

That's not a debate. That's a loss dressed up as confidence. Yours.

I'll refer you to lusty's post above that spells things out for you. CNN is by NO means a credible source. The fraudsters at the SPLC are not law enforcement either. So you lose again. But keep denying the evidence. You continue to make yourself look bad.

[fd-guy]

Originally Posted by Lantern2814

I'll refer you to lusty's post above that spells things out for you. CNN is by NO means a credible source. The fraudsters at the SPLC are not law enforcement either. So you lose again. But keep denying the evidence. You continue to make yourself look bad.

Lusty's posts land in the void — on ignore — so that reference goes nowhere.

As for the rest: CNN dismissed, law professors dismissed, Alabama Reflector dismissed, court documents dismissed — not one counter-source offered in return. It failed to land the first time. Repetition hasn't improved it.

The only embarrassing thing happening in this thread is YOU complaining loudly about everyone else's sources while failing to produce a single one of your own. That's not a rebuttal. That's a tantrum with footnotes. And for the record — that's not winning. That's you losing, loudly.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by fd-guy

Lusty's posts land in the void — on ignore — so that reference goes nowhere.

Lol!

Nice to see fd-guy has me on ignore. Probably a good idea. Poor guy knows he can't counter my arguments or handle a real, nitty-gritty debate.

Anyone care to bump my post #50 so it's visible to him?

Thanks in advance!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Presumably when you cultivate an informant in a hate group it’s easier to get them to give you the information you want if they think you believe in the same ideology as them.

Your logic escapes me. SPLC had no business "cultivating informants" at the hate groups it was dedicated to eliminate. And why would you need to pay people at all if they think you're an ideological compadre?

Did you notice the faux names of the fictitious companies the SPLC used to open the bank accounts used to conceal and launder donor funds paid to informants? Here's a sampling:

a. Center Investigative Agency
b. Fox Photography
c. North West Technologies
d. Tech Writers Group
e. Rare Books Warehouse

Just for fun, does anyone want to suggest other faux company names the geniuses at the SPLC could have dreamed up?

How about Klavern Protectors Llc? Or Unite the Right Snitches? Or Feed the Aryan Bros?

There was a time, not too long ago, when the SPLC successfully sued and bankrupted the Klan and other hate groups.

What made the SPLC do a complete volte face and decide it was a good idea to start subsidizing those very same hate groups instead of putting them out of business? We'll find out at trial!

[pxmcc]

^^if the DOJ is the Plaintiff, we can watch them go 0 for 10 on their bs political indictments producing a conviction..

i might like the SPLC, but i aint risking my safety or using up my time for free. Trump made sure we got plenty of inflation so i need a dang paycheck for my efforts..

and i don't want their logo on my paychecks either..

how is putting the KKK remnants on blast to the FBI using an undercover op the same as "subsidizing those very same groups"?