Indictment of Southern Policy Law Center

[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?

Prevent violence? No, they accelerated 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?

I don't think the indictment is related to the donors, but to the money laundering payments. However, it certainly has opened for more speculation in lots of directions.

Very troubling.

I went to their website and looked for what results they may have had. Looks like they are spending more time suing school systems over transgender issues. Not sure what they are doing about "hate groups" except to pick and choose who falls in that category according to SPLC. Troubling.

[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?

How could they? They didn’t know about it. It was hidden, particularly the extent of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m a donor and I’m upset about this. I didn’t donate for this, I think it’s profoundly wrong, and I’m unhappy.

I know you are in such a cult that you are going to claim I’m MAGA now because that’s the only way your world view functions, but I voted for, donated to, and supported Harris all the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m a donor and I’m upset about this. I didn’t donate for this, I think it’s profoundly wrong, and I’m unhappy.

I know you are in such a cult that you are going to claim I’m MAGA now because that’s the only way your world view functions, but I voted for, donated to, and supported Harris all the way.

I am a donor too, and I just don't see the big deal. There is only one way to flush these people out. Sorry you can't see that and you are upset.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Prevent violence? No, they accelerated it.

Keep telling yourself that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m a donor and I’m upset about this. I didn’t donate for this, I think it’s profoundly wrong, and I’m unhappy.

I know you are in such a cult that you are going to claim I’m MAGA now because that’s the only way your world view functions, but I voted for, donated to, and supported Harris all the way.

I am a donor too, and I just don't see the big deal. There is only one way to flush these people out. Sorry you can't see that and you are upset.

Who did they flush out at Unite the Right? How did they use the information to prevent growth of the group?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m a donor and I’m upset about this. I didn’t donate for this, I think it’s profoundly wrong, and I’m unhappy.

I know you are in such a cult that you are going to claim I’m MAGA now because that’s the only way your world view functions, but I voted for, donated to, and supported Harris all the way.

lol, I don't believe you're a donor at all. Not for a second.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m a donor and I’m upset about this. I didn’t donate for this, I think it’s profoundly wrong, and I’m unhappy.

I know you are in such a cult that you are going to claim I’m MAGA now because that’s the only way your world view functions, but I voted for, donated to, and supported Harris all the way.

lol, I don't believe you're a donor at all. Not for a second.

We already knew you were a cultist. No need to provide more evidence for the class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m a donor and I’m upset about this. I didn’t donate for this, I think it’s profoundly wrong, and I’m unhappy.

I know you are in such a cult that you are going to claim I’m MAGA now because that’s the only way your world view functions, but I voted for, donated to, and supported Harris all the way.

I am a donor too, and I just don't see the big deal. There is only one way to flush these people out. Sorry you can't see that and you are upset.

What good did this exactly do? As far as I can tell, it did no good at all. And, it’s sleazy and dishonest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m a donor and I’m upset about this. I didn’t donate for this, I think it’s profoundly wrong, and I’m unhappy.

I know you are in such a cult that you are going to claim I’m MAGA now because that’s the only way your world view functions, but I voted for, donated to, and supported Harris all the way.

I don't understand what you're upset about. I'm not even a donor but have been following SPLC and their work for years. They have been investigating and exposing extremist networks for decades. It's what they do. Paying informants for info is one of the tools in the toolbox. That is how many investigative organizations operate. How could anyone not understand that or be shocked by it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m a donor and I’m upset about this. I didn’t donate for this, I think it’s profoundly wrong, and I’m unhappy.

I know you are in such a cult that you are going to claim I’m MAGA now because that’s the only way your world view functions, but I voted for, donated to, and supported Harris all the way.

I don't understand what you're upset about. I'm not even a donor but have been following SPLC and their work for years. They have been investigating and exposing extremist networks for decades. It's what they do. Paying informants for info is one of the tools in the toolbox. That is how many investigative organizations operate. How could anyone not understand that or be shocked by it?

Give me a break. What did they do to stop Unite the Right?
For heavens' sake, they put Ben Carson on their hate list.
Moms for Liberty, etc.

No one has yet said what they did with the information they got from their "informants."

And, yes, decades ago, they did great work. That does not excuse what they have been doing for the last couple of decades or more.

[Anonymous]

For almost 6 decades, the Southern Poverty Law Center has been one of the country’s most visible civil‑rights litigation organizations. Founded in 1971, it built its reputation by using civil lawsuits to dismantle violent white supremacist networks, winning major judgments that bankrupted and destroyed multiple Ku Klux Klan factions and neo‑Nazi groups. Its Intelligence Project became one of the most widely cited resources on domestic extremism in the United States, and its research has been used by journalists, academics, and law‑enforcement agencies for decades. Alongside its legal work, the SPLC created Learning for Justice, a national anti‑bias education program used in schools across the country.

The SPLC’s investigations have historically focused on civil accountability, with its most famous outcomes as landmark civil judgments rather than arrests. Its lawsuits helped shut down groups responsible for assaults, murders, and organized racial violence, and its public reporting shaped national understanding of extremist movements from the 1980s onward. While the organization is currently facing legal scrutiny over its long‑running informant program, that controversy does not erase the scale of its earlier impact: for more than fifty years, the SPLC played a central role in exposing extremist networks, documenting hate‑group activity, and using civil litigation to hold violent organizations financially liable for the harm they caused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m a donor and I’m upset about this. I didn’t donate for this, I think it’s profoundly wrong, and I’m unhappy.

I know you are in such a cult that you are going to claim I’m MAGA now because that’s the only way your world view functions, but I voted for, donated to, and supported Harris all the way.

I don't understand what you're upset about. I'm not even a donor but have been following SPLC and their work for years. They have been investigating and exposing extremist networks for decades. It's what they do. Paying informants for info is one of the tools in the toolbox. That is how many investigative organizations operate. How could anyone not understand that or be shocked by it?

Give me a break. What did they do to stop Unite the Right?
For heavens' sake, they put Ben Carson on their hate list.
Moms for Liberty, etc.

No one has yet said what they did with the information they got from their "informants."

And, yes, decades ago, they did great work. That does not excuse what they have been doing for the last couple of decades or more.

What is it that you think they are doing now that is so different from what they always did?
They go after groups and individuals who espouse bigotry. Same as always. If you think what they are doing now is using donor money to "create fake extremist groups and do false flags" then I have a big red clown nose to go with it. If you think what they do now is go after people for merely being conservative then I have a pair of oversized clown shoes as well.

[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.

Well, what the court docs say and what maga idiots say are two different things. Many are still claiming not to understand what crime Trump was found guilty of committing, because it was too confusing. It’s literally plain as day in the court docs. They’re just willfully ignorant.