Anonymous wrote:SPLC pleaded not guilty today.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Precisely. I’m wondering how much “hate crime” could have been avoided had the SLPC not paid informants millions to produce.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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: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: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?

Anonymous wrote:

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: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?