Indictment of Southern Policy Law Center

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then why does it appear they were laundering the funds?

How effective were they in dismantling these organizations? Paying someone who was arranging transportation to events does not seem like a good policy to dismantle the organization.

What did they do to help get rid of hate organizations?
Name Turning Point as a hate group? Seems to me that could be construed as making themselves a hate group.
Moms for Liberty?

Anyone they disagreed with was on that list.

This is a somewhat atypical money laundering case. Normally, criminals launder money to disguise that the funds were the proceeds of a crime. A typical example: your friendly neighborhood drug dealer launders his money through a restaurant so he can actually make use of the proceeds of his drug dealing business.

In this case, DOJ is alleging that the SPLC laundered money to facilitate the fraud. The government's theory appears to be that the SPLC laundered donor funds by disguising the payments it made to the extremists and it did this because it couldn't let the donors know where the funds were really going.

The obvious counterargument is that SPLC has to conceal the payments to informants because the whole point of an informant is that...you know, the informant's status as an informant is not known to the organization that they're informing on. If everyone knows that the SPLC is paying Mr. Neo Nazi, he's going to end up face down in a body of water somewhere and won't have much value as an informant.

Do you want to be their new president and CEO?

They're advertising the job opening with a $500,000 starting salary today.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

I see maga is still having trouble understanding the concept of an informant. Did they know what they were prior to 2020? This kind of seems like newly acquired ignorance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see maga is still having trouble understanding the concept of an informant. Did they know what they were prior to 2020? This kind of seems like newly acquired ignorance.

Yes, we're not understanding your poorly thought-out cover stories, lies and BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see maga is still having trouble understanding the concept of an informant. Did they know what they were prior to 2020? This kind of seems like newly acquired ignorance.

Yes, we're not understanding your poorly thought-out cover stories, lies and BS.

Oh ffs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then why does it appear they were laundering the funds?

How effective were they in dismantling these organizations? Paying someone who was arranging transportation to events does not seem like a good policy to dismantle the organization.

What did they do to help get rid of hate organizations?
Name Turning Point as a hate group? Seems to me that could be construed as making themselves a hate group.
Moms for Liberty?

Anyone they disagreed with was on that list.

This is a somewhat atypical money laundering case. Normally, criminals launder money to disguise that the funds were the proceeds of a crime. A typical example: your friendly neighborhood drug dealer launders his money through a restaurant so he can actually make use of the proceeds of his drug dealing business.

In this case, DOJ is alleging that the SPLC laundered money to facilitate the fraud. The government's theory appears to be that the SPLC laundered donor funds by disguising the payments it made to the extremists and it did this because it couldn't let the donors know where the funds were really going.

The obvious counterargument is that SPLC has to conceal the payments to informants because the whole point of an informant is that...you know, the informant's status as an informant is not known to the organization that they're informing on. If everyone knows that the SPLC is paying Mr. Neo Nazi, he's going to end up face down in a body of water somewhere and won't have much value as an informant.

Do you want to be their new president and CEO?

They're advertising the job opening with a $500,000 starting salary today.

I don’t understand that response. I actually have very mixed feelings about the indictment. I’m not advocating for a position here, I’m just trying to share my experience as a former AUSA and explain the arguments that both sides will likely make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see maga is still having trouble understanding the concept of an informant. Did they know what they were prior to 2020? This kind of seems like newly acquired ignorance.

That’s not really the issue, though. No one, not even the DOJ, is claiming that nonprofits can’t pay informants. The central legal issue is whether the SPLC misled their donors about the use of informants because they believed that providing a more complete picture of their operation would discourage donations.

Again, I have no dog in this fight and I tend to think the case won’t be successful, but it’s important to understand what the issues actually are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then why does it appear they were laundering the funds?

How effective were they in dismantling these organizations? Paying someone who was arranging transportation to events does not seem like a good policy to dismantle the organization.

What did they do to help get rid of hate organizations?
Name Turning Point as a hate group? Seems to me that could be construed as making themselves a hate group.
Moms for Liberty?

Anyone they disagreed with was on that list.

This is a somewhat atypical money laundering case. Normally, criminals launder money to disguise that the funds were the proceeds of a crime. A typical example: your friendly neighborhood drug dealer launders his money through a restaurant so he can actually make use of the proceeds of his drug dealing business.

In this case, DOJ is alleging that the SPLC laundered money to facilitate the fraud. The government's theory appears to be that the SPLC laundered donor funds by disguising the payments it made to the extremists and it did this because it couldn't let the donors know where the funds were really going.

The obvious counterargument is that SPLC has to conceal the payments to informants because the whole point of an informant is that...you know, the informant's status as an informant is not known to the organization that they're informing on. If everyone knows that the SPLC is paying Mr. Neo Nazi, he's going to end up face down in a body of water somewhere and won't have much value as an informant.

Do you want to be their new president and CEO?

They're advertising the job opening with a $500,000 starting salary today.

I don’t understand that response. I actually have very mixed feelings about the indictment. I’m not advocating for a position here, I’m just trying to share my experience as a former AUSA and explain the arguments that both sides will likely make.

Oh don’t worry about that hyper partisan PP. Us normies understand what you are saying. The far left and MAGA here are both insane and you have to weed them out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see maga is still having trouble understanding the concept of an informant. Did they know what they were prior to 2020? This kind of seems like newly acquired ignorance.

That’s not really the issue, though. No one, not even the DOJ, is claiming that nonprofits can’t pay informants. The central legal issue is whether the SPLC misled their donors about the use of informants because they believed that providing a more complete picture of their operation would discourage donations.

Again, I have no dog in this fight and I tend to think the case won’t be successful, but it’s important to understand what the issues actually are.

+1

Also, it’s perfectly fine to be disturbed by the allegations and payment of informants as a donor even if you are skeptical of the merits of the case overall. I think it’s going to be hard to prove what is alleged but I’m also not happy to find out how my donations were used.

[Anonymous]

Why did they pay the informants? What did they use the information for? Did they do anything to prevent violence from the hate organizations--KKK affiliates? Did they report this information to the FBI?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see maga is still having trouble understanding the concept of an informant. Did they know what they were prior to 2020? This kind of seems like newly acquired ignorance.

+1 Does nobody remember that the Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio was an FBI informant? Has no one ever watched The Sopranos?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why did they pay the informants? What did they use the information for? Did they do anything to prevent violence from the hate organizations--KKK affiliates? Did they report this information to the FBI?

They paid people to create victimhood news headlines b/c the Racist! Racist! Racist! argument for the DNC to extract monetary concessions from everyone to POC was getting weaker and weaker.

The SPLC logo should have Juşsie Şmollette in it. They're just another evil affinity group of the DNC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why did they pay the informants? What did they use the information for? Did they do anything to prevent violence from the hate organizations--KKK affiliates? Did they report this information to the FBI?

Hypothetical. What if racism gets harder and harder to prove and the SPLC has less and less talking points on victimhood. Their mission essentially becomes defunct.

What happens to them and all the money flowing into those salaried employees?

The SPLC dries up and blows away. You think they're gonna let that happen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see maga is still having trouble understanding the concept of an informant. Did they know what they were prior to 2020? This kind of seems like newly acquired ignorance.

+1 Does nobody remember that the Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio was an FBI informant? Has no one ever watched The Sopranos?

OMG the comparisons to the FBI are genuinely stupid. I get that MAGA are dumb but these comments are at that same level.