Indictment of Southern Policy Law Center

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

I know I'm just repeating myself at this point, but the case has nothing to do with whether the SPLC can pay informants. That's not the issue.

[Anonymous]

"The indictment’s references to the '17 Unite the Right march in Charlottesville are positively perverse. It all-but explicitly blames SPLC for the men brandishing tiki torches chanting 'Jews will not replace us' & the car that plowed into counterprotesters & killed Heather Heyer. This is nonsense!"

https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-doj-will-avenge-the-kkk-by


So true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"The indictment’s references to the '17 Unite the Right march in Charlottesville are positively perverse. It all-but explicitly blames SPLC for the men brandishing tiki torches chanting 'Jews will not replace us' & the car that plowed into counterprotesters & killed Heather Heyer. This is nonsense!"

https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-doj-will-avenge-the-kkk-by


So true.

It’s hard to make that argument when the SPLC actually paid the guy who organized it and provided transportation to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The indictment’s references to the '17 Unite the Right march in Charlottesville are positively perverse. It all-but explicitly blames SPLC for the men brandishing tiki torches chanting 'Jews will not replace us' & the car that plowed into counterprotesters & killed Heather Heyer. This is nonsense!"

https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-doj-will-avenge-the-kkk-by


So true.

It’s hard to make that argument when the SPLC actually paid the guy who organized it and provided transportation to it.

I don't think the indictment says what the public notice piece claims.
I think it is the pundits that are implying that.

However, there is an easy solution for SPLC to redeem itself. Tell the public how paying those "informants" helped to stop the hate groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

I know I'm just repeating myself at this point, but the case has nothing to do with whether the SPLC can pay informants. That's not the issue.

Exactly.

One of the most disappointing aspects of the last several years is realizing how many progressives are as stupid as MAGA. I naively thought MAGA were uniquely dumb, but alas, I was wrong.

[Anonymous]

https://www.contrariannews.org/p/the-trump-regimes-heinous-attack

The DOJ alleges that the SPLC’s use of informants was part of a “scheme and artifice” to deceive donors. Acting U.S. Attorney Kevin Davidson alleges in the indictment that though SPLC’s “stated mission included the dismantling of white supremacy and confronting hate across the country” it was “unbeknownst to donors,” secretly using “donated money … to fund the leaders and organizers of racist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nation, and the National Alliance.”

However, the indictment utterly fails to explain how these payments to extremist leaders undercut the SPLC’s stated mission. Nor does it say how anyone working for the center intentionally deceived donors. Nor could it; if you surveyed donors to the organization, they have already stated or would almost undoubtedly say that investigating hate is exactly what they wanted to support and that these claims are reprehensible.

The DOJ’s entire case centers on the SPLC’s alleged payments to ten informants inside extremist groups. Our special report, which will be posted here at The Contrarian at noon today, details the facts regarding these informants. The report makes evident that not a one justifies the criminal charges brought against the SPLC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.contrariannews.org/p/the-trump-regimes-heinous-attack

The DOJ alleges that the SPLC’s use of informants was part of a “scheme and artifice” to deceive donors. Acting U.S. Attorney Kevin Davidson alleges in the indictment that though SPLC’s “stated mission included the dismantling of white supremacy and confronting hate across the country” it was “unbeknownst to donors,” secretly using “donated money … to fund the leaders and organizers of racist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nation, and the National Alliance.”

However, the indictment utterly fails to explain how these payments to extremist leaders undercut the SPLC’s stated mission. Nor does it say how anyone working for the center intentionally deceived donors. Nor could it; if you surveyed donors to the organization, they have already stated or would almost undoubtedly say that investigating hate is exactly what they wanted to support and that these claims are reprehensible.

The DOJ’s entire case centers on the SPLC’s alleged payments to ten informants inside extremist groups. Our special report, which will be posted here at The Contrarian at noon today, details the facts regarding these informants. The report makes evident that not a one justifies the criminal charges brought against the SPLC.

I do think it’s going to be hard to support the indictment through trial, but who knows what discovery will yield.

I also think SPLC has a major PR issue on their hands, whether the case succeeds or not. Their behavior may not have been (probably wasn’t) criminal. But it was certainly very sleazy and unethical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.contrariannews.org/p/the-trump-regimes-heinous-attack

The DOJ alleges that the SPLC’s use of informants was part of a “scheme and artifice” to deceive donors. Acting U.S. Attorney Kevin Davidson alleges in the indictment that though SPLC’s “stated mission included the dismantling of white supremacy and confronting hate across the country” it was “unbeknownst to donors,” secretly using “donated money … to fund the leaders and organizers of racist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nation, and the National Alliance.”

However, the indictment utterly fails to explain how these payments to extremist leaders undercut the SPLC’s stated mission. Nor does it say how anyone working for the center intentionally deceived donors. Nor could it; if you surveyed donors to the organization, they have already stated or would almost undoubtedly say that investigating hate is exactly what they wanted to support and that these claims are reprehensible.

The DOJ’s entire case centers on the SPLC’s alleged payments to ten informants inside extremist groups. Our special report, which will be posted here at The Contrarian at noon today, details the facts regarding these informants. The report makes evident that not a one justifies the criminal charges brought against the SPLC.

I understand why people keep saying this, but this really is not the issue and it reflects a misunderstanding of the allegation. The SPLC isn't charged with using donor funds for an impermissible purpose. The allegation is that the SPLC failed to tell prospective donors that it used donor funds to pay extremist informants because it believed that disclosing this information would discourage donations. It is a subtle but important distinction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.contrariannews.org/p/the-trump-regimes-heinous-attack

The DOJ alleges that the SPLC’s use of informants was part of a “scheme and artifice” to deceive donors. Acting U.S. Attorney Kevin Davidson alleges in the indictment that though SPLC’s “stated mission included the dismantling of white supremacy and confronting hate across the country” it was “unbeknownst to donors,” secretly using “donated money … to fund the leaders and organizers of racist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nation, and the National Alliance.”

However, the indictment utterly fails to explain how these payments to extremist leaders undercut the SPLC’s stated mission. Nor does it say how anyone working for the center intentionally deceived donors. Nor could it; if you surveyed donors to the organization, they have already stated or would almost undoubtedly say that investigating hate is exactly what they wanted to support and that these claims are reprehensible.

The DOJ’s entire case centers on the SPLC’s alleged payments to ten informants inside extremist groups. Our special report, which will be posted here at The Contrarian at noon today, details the facts regarding these informants. The report makes evident that not a one justifies the criminal charges brought against the SPLC.

I do think it’s going to be hard to support the indictment through trial, but who knows what discovery will yield.

I also think SPLC has a major PR issue on their hands, whether the case succeeds or not. Their behavior may not have been (probably wasn’t) criminal. But it was certainly very sleazy and unethical.

In a criminal case, discovery basically only flows from the prosecution to the defense. The prosecution doesn't get to seek discovery from the defense like in a civil case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.contrariannews.org/p/the-trump-regimes-heinous-attack

The DOJ alleges that the SPLC’s use of informants was part of a “scheme and artifice” to deceive donors. Acting U.S. Attorney Kevin Davidson alleges in the indictment that though SPLC’s “stated mission included the dismantling of white supremacy and confronting hate across the country” it was “unbeknownst to donors,” secretly using “donated money … to fund the leaders and organizers of racist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nation, and the National Alliance.”

However, the indictment utterly fails to explain how these payments to extremist leaders undercut the SPLC’s stated mission. Nor does it say how anyone working for the center intentionally deceived donors. Nor could it; if you surveyed donors to the organization, they have already stated or would almost undoubtedly say that investigating hate is exactly what they wanted to support and that these claims are reprehensible.

The DOJ’s entire case centers on the SPLC’s alleged payments to ten informants inside extremist groups. Our special report, which will be posted here at The Contrarian at noon today, details the facts regarding these informants. The report makes evident that not a one justifies the criminal charges brought against the SPLC.

I understand why people keep saying this, but this really is not the issue and it reflects a misunderstanding of the allegation. The SPLC isn't charged with using donor funds for an impermissible purpose. The allegation is that the SPLC failed to tell prospective donors that it used donor funds to pay extremist informants because it believed that disclosing this information would discourage donations. It is a subtle but important distinction.

There is no way of knowing that. Frankly, I have no issue with what they did to expose these bigots. The only people upset about it are the bigots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.contrariannews.org/p/the-trump-regimes-heinous-attack

The DOJ alleges that the SPLC’s use of informants was part of a “scheme and artifice” to deceive donors. Acting U.S. Attorney Kevin Davidson alleges in the indictment that though SPLC’s “stated mission included the dismantling of white supremacy and confronting hate across the country” it was “unbeknownst to donors,” secretly using “donated money … to fund the leaders and organizers of racist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nation, and the National Alliance.”

However, the indictment utterly fails to explain how these payments to extremist leaders undercut the SPLC’s stated mission. Nor does it say how anyone working for the center intentionally deceived donors. Nor could it; if you surveyed donors to the organization, they have already stated or would almost undoubtedly say that investigating hate is exactly what they wanted to support and that these claims are reprehensible.

The DOJ’s entire case centers on the SPLC’s alleged payments to ten informants inside extremist groups. Our special report, which will be posted here at The Contrarian at noon today, details the facts regarding these informants. The report makes evident that not a one justifies the criminal charges brought against the SPLC.

I do think it’s going to be hard to support the indictment through trial, but who knows what discovery will yield.

I also think SPLC has a major PR issue on their hands, whether the case succeeds or not. Their behavior may not have been (probably wasn’t) criminal. But it was certainly very sleazy and unethical.

In a criminal case, discovery basically only flows from the prosecution to the defense. The prosecution doesn't get to seek discovery from the defense like in a civil case.

Yes, true, but in this case, I suspect there will be witness testimony that may be surprising. Maybe not, but I think there will be more surprises than usual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.contrariannews.org/p/the-trump-regimes-heinous-attack

The DOJ alleges that the SPLC’s use of informants was part of a “scheme and artifice” to deceive donors. Acting U.S. Attorney Kevin Davidson alleges in the indictment that though SPLC’s “stated mission included the dismantling of white supremacy and confronting hate across the country” it was “unbeknownst to donors,” secretly using “donated money … to fund the leaders and organizers of racist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nation, and the National Alliance.”

However, the indictment utterly fails to explain how these payments to extremist leaders undercut the SPLC’s stated mission. Nor does it say how anyone working for the center intentionally deceived donors. Nor could it; if you surveyed donors to the organization, they have already stated or would almost undoubtedly say that investigating hate is exactly what they wanted to support and that these claims are reprehensible.

The DOJ’s entire case centers on the SPLC’s alleged payments to ten informants inside extremist groups. Our special report, which will be posted here at The Contrarian at noon today, details the facts regarding these informants. The report makes evident that not a one justifies the criminal charges brought against the SPLC.

I understand why people keep saying this, but this really is not the issue and it reflects a misunderstanding of the allegation. The SPLC isn't charged with using donor funds for an impermissible purpose. The allegation is that the SPLC failed to tell prospective donors that it used donor funds to pay extremist informants because it believed that disclosing this information would discourage donations. It is a subtle but important distinction.

There is no way of knowing that. Frankly, I have no issue with what they did to expose these bigots. The only people upset about it are the bigots.

This is just silly and makes you look ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.contrariannews.org/p/the-trump-regimes-heinous-attack

The DOJ alleges that the SPLC’s use of informants was part of a “scheme and artifice” to deceive donors. Acting U.S. Attorney Kevin Davidson alleges in the indictment that though SPLC’s “stated mission included the dismantling of white supremacy and confronting hate across the country” it was “unbeknownst to donors,” secretly using “donated money … to fund the leaders and organizers of racist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nation, and the National Alliance.”

However, the indictment utterly fails to explain how these payments to extremist leaders undercut the SPLC’s stated mission. Nor does it say how anyone working for the center intentionally deceived donors. Nor could it; if you surveyed donors to the organization, they have already stated or would almost undoubtedly say that investigating hate is exactly what they wanted to support and that these claims are reprehensible.

The DOJ’s entire case centers on the SPLC’s alleged payments to ten informants inside extremist groups. Our special report, which will be posted here at The Contrarian at noon today, details the facts regarding these informants. The report makes evident that not a one justifies the criminal charges brought against the SPLC.

I understand why people keep saying this, but this really is not the issue and it reflects a misunderstanding of the allegation. The SPLC isn't charged with using donor funds for an impermissible purpose. The allegation is that the SPLC failed to tell prospective donors that it used donor funds to pay extremist informants because it believed that disclosing this information would discourage donations. It is a subtle but important distinction.

Then wouldn't it be up to the donors to sue, or stop donating, if they had an issue with it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.contrariannews.org/p/the-trump-regimes-heinous-attack

The DOJ alleges that the SPLC’s use of informants was part of a “scheme and artifice” to deceive donors. Acting U.S. Attorney Kevin Davidson alleges in the indictment that though SPLC’s “stated mission included the dismantling of white supremacy and confronting hate across the country” it was “unbeknownst to donors,” secretly using “donated money … to fund the leaders and organizers of racist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nation, and the National Alliance.”

However, the indictment utterly fails to explain how these payments to extremist leaders undercut the SPLC’s stated mission. Nor does it say how anyone working for the center intentionally deceived donors. Nor could it; if you surveyed donors to the organization, they have already stated or would almost undoubtedly say that investigating hate is exactly what they wanted to support and that these claims are reprehensible.

The DOJ’s entire case centers on the SPLC’s alleged payments to ten informants inside extremist groups. Our special report, which will be posted here at The Contrarian at noon today, details the facts regarding these informants. The report makes evident that not a one justifies the criminal charges brought against the SPLC.

I understand why people keep saying this, but this really is not the issue and it reflects a misunderstanding of the allegation. The SPLC isn't charged with using donor funds for an impermissible purpose. The allegation is that the SPLC failed to tell prospective donors that it used donor funds to pay extremist informants because it believed that disclosing this information would discourage donations. It is a subtle but important distinction.

There is no way of knowing that. Frankly, I have no issue with what they did to expose these bigots. The only people upset about it are the bigots.

This is just silly and makes you look ignorant.

Point to a donor who is upset about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.contrariannews.org/p/the-trump-regimes-heinous-attack

The DOJ alleges that the SPLC’s use of informants was part of a “scheme and artifice” to deceive donors. Acting U.S. Attorney Kevin Davidson alleges in the indictment that though SPLC’s “stated mission included the dismantling of white supremacy and confronting hate across the country” it was “unbeknownst to donors,” secretly using “donated money … to fund the leaders and organizers of racist groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nation, and the National Alliance.”

However, the indictment utterly fails to explain how these payments to extremist leaders undercut the SPLC’s stated mission. Nor does it say how anyone working for the center intentionally deceived donors. Nor could it; if you surveyed donors to the organization, they have already stated or would almost undoubtedly say that investigating hate is exactly what they wanted to support and that these claims are reprehensible.

The DOJ’s entire case centers on the SPLC’s alleged payments to ten informants inside extremist groups. Our special report, which will be posted here at The Contrarian at noon today, details the facts regarding these informants. The report makes evident that not a one justifies the criminal charges brought against the SPLC.

I understand why people keep saying this, but this really is not the issue and it reflects a misunderstanding of the allegation. The SPLC isn't charged with using donor funds for an impermissible purpose. The allegation is that the SPLC failed to tell prospective donors that it used donor funds to pay extremist informants because it believed that disclosing this information would discourage donations. It is a subtle but important distinction.

Then wouldn't it be up to the donors to sue, or stop donating, if they had an issue with it?

Not necessarily. Criminal prosecution and civil suits aren't mutually exclusive.