Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the Biden administration had indicted the SPLC, I'd think there might be some substance to the accusations. But the Trump administration has zero credibility when it comes to charging political enemies with so-called crimes.
Now the SPLC will have to spend millions defending themselves. They will win, but meanwhile, their image has been tarnished, which is the aim of the Trump administration. The Trumpers want to use the DOJ to vanquish their enemies, ie those groups and people who care about equity and fairness and the rule of law.

The fact that an organization that fights hate crimes is a political enemy of the Trump Admin tells you all you need to know about MAGA.

I think the main issue here is that they don’t actually fight hate crime they just hype it up for more donations while funding it.

Anonymous wrote:DOJ is saying that SPLC should’ve informed donors that they were paying informants within the hate orgs.

What’s the actual crime here? A violation of nonprofit tax rules?

The problem runs much deeper than merely paying hateful people who turned informer.

The FBI itself used the SPLC as an unelected, unvetted intelligence wing of the federal bureaucracy. For years, the FBI didn’t just consult the SPLC; it adopted the group’s ideology as its threat assessments and other work products, then used those products to brand certain Americans as hateful or flag them as potential domestic violent extremists.

The FBI’s Richmond memo, better known as the anti-Catholic memo, showed exactly what that pipeline looked like in practice. The FBI used the SPLC’s analysis to define so-called “radical-traditionalist Catholics” by their opposition to abortion, LGBT ideology, and adherence to traditional family values.

Sen Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, revealed that one Richmond analyst produced a slide presentation that equated Catholic beliefs in “[c]onservative family values/roles” with ideas “[c]omparable to Islamist ideology.”

FBI officials themselves recognized the problem. In an internal FBI email exchange, one official asked, “Is anyone really asking for a product like this?” and complained that “[a]pparently we are at the behest of the SPLC.” Another FBI official admitted the FBI’s “overreliance on the SPLC hate designations is … problematic”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fidelity and Vanguard just shut SPLC down for charitable contributions based on the federal indictment.

Things are looking up!

Guess I’ll be moving my funds and telling my friends to do the same. But not before I vote down every director and pay package and vote for every bonkers shareholder proposal.

Don't. This is a standard step that financial institutions take in these circumstances. Failure to do this can put an institution at risk of being charged with money laundering. This should not be understood as Fidelity/Vanguard taking a stand on the legitimacy of the indictment.

Nope, it’s a rule they invented just now. They never applied that rule before.

Of course they have. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Name one instance, ever.

I prosecute fraud cases for a living. It happens in most bank fraud cases. Usually it involves (relatively) small time criminals, so there aren’t huge headlines, but here are a few examples documenting the phenomenon:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/08/your-money/bank-account-suspicious-activity.html?unlocked_article_code=1.gVA.XcuD.onU-iC6N5Y3m&smid=nytcore-ios-share

https://chambers.com/articles/the-unilateral-closure-of-bank-accounts-and-the-prevention-of-money-laundering-terrorism-financing

https://bpi.com/the-truth-about-account-closures/

Google AML compliance if you’re interested.

Anonymous wrote:So... the Justice Dept just walked back a public statement from Todd Blanche about the Southern Poverty Law Center

The SPLC alleged Blanche made "false statement" about lack of evidence the SPLC shared info w/ law enforcment

Here's the clean-up statement.. just filed in court

https://bsky.app/profile/macfarlanenews.bsky.social/post/3ml4wirf3ns2o

kinda undermines the case.

Todd Blanche didn’t make a false statement, in his view. He doesn’t think that that people convicted based on SPLC doing DOJ’s job were actually terrorists. They were just good ol’ boy Christian white nationalist patriots, you see.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fidelity and Vanguard just shut SPLC down for charitable contributions based on the federal indictment.

Things are looking up!

Guess I’ll be moving my funds and telling my friends to do the same. But not before I vote down every director and pay package and vote for every bonkers shareholder proposal.

Don't. This is a standard step that financial institutions take in these circumstances. Failure to do this can put an institution at risk of being charged with money laundering. This should not be understood as Fidelity/Vanguard taking a stand on the legitimacy of the indictment.

Nope, it’s a rule they invented just now. They never applied that rule before.

Of course they have. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

Name one instance, ever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And with that money, they stopped scores of terrorist acts. Exactly what is the problem here?

No - they FOMENTED terrorist acts by paying hate groups. What about that do you not grasp?

They worked with the DOJ to send terrorists to jail for planning terrorist acts.

The Attorney General would know this, if he paid any attention to his job instead of focusing all his energy on covering up the President’s sex trafficking ring.

Anonymous wrote:And with that money, they stopped scores of terrorist acts. Exactly what is the problem here?

No - they FOMENTED terrorist acts by paying hate groups. What about that do you not grasp?

And with that money, they stopped scores of terrorist acts. Exactly what is the problem here?

Just disgusting.

Blanche said the indictment details several examples of the SPLC paying individuals hundreds of thousands of dollars to infiltrate hate groups, including those affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan, National Socialist Movement, Aryan Nations, and other white supremacist groups.

"As the indictment lays out, after SPLC paid members of these extremist groups, it created work product that reported on these activities that the members participated in or contributed to, and to that end, it was doing the exact opposite of what is told its donors it was doing," Blanche said. "Not dismantling extremism, but funding it."

https://abcnews.com/US/southern-poverty-law-center-facing-justice-department-probe/story?id=132238304

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some serious issues here.

1. Absurdly large payments: $100K/yr to a single informant.

2. Violating KYC laws when creating bank accounts.

link, please

I'm a DP, but seriously? The PP is actually lowballing that figure.

One informant was paid more than $1 million between 2014 and 2023 while affiliated with the neo-Nazi National Alliance, the indictment said. Prosecutors say another informant was a member of the “online leadership chat group” that planned the 2017 white nationalist “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. The informant attended the rally at the direction of the SPLC, according to the indictment, and helped coordinate transportation for several others. That person was allegedly paid more than $270,000 between 2015 and 2023.

https://apnews.com/article/southern-poverty-law-center-criminal-investigation-db7fdcf9baa0d1b24b8f1e1f2cebc0be

Anonymous wrote:Y'all are really grasping at straws here. Racists gotta racist.

Clearly, the SPLC has been paying racists to be racist. Try and keep up.

Y'all are really grasping at straws here. Racists gotta racist.

Anonymous wrote:There are some serious issues here.

1. Absurdly large payments: $100K/yr to a single informant.

2. Violating KYC laws when creating bank accounts.

Could #2 be considered "structuring"?

That's illegal as hell.

SPLC started fake companies to send the cash to informants, like a photography company. At some point a bank noticed and filed a report with the government and closed accounts. Then SPLC executives assured the banks everything was in order and asked for the money, adding to the fraud.