LMCane said:

---

100% guarantee that in a few years we will find out that the left and the Islamists around the world

have paid Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens and Theo Von money to foment discord among the "conservative influencers"

---

I have not heard any weird stuff from Theo Von.

Link?

solishu said:

---

So, I would expect that this court case will hinge on whether these are "paid informants" or "paid agitators." I'm glad to see that nobody here has prejudged the case prior to the investigation and legal process playing out.

---

We aren't a. Jury of law.

Also it won't only depend on that.

What else would you predict it will depend on?

FTAG 2000 said:

---

reineraggie09 said:

---

Disagree. I bet their donations go up this quarter. Orange man bad

---

No one with any sense will attach themselves to a party under indictment by the Feds and putting themselves at risk of discovery and financial investigation.

---

I'll give you my favorite answer from business school. You are assuming rationality.

Counts 1-6: Wire Fraud. 18 USC 1343.

"The objective of the scheme and artifice was to obtain money via donations through materially false representations and omissions about what the donated funds would be used for."


If they took donations and never told people it was for informants that would be illegal. Do you think they told their donors "give to us we are going to place people inside the kkk"

I would guess They would have to show that all donors knew this or that separate money from a couple of donors who knew that's what they were donating for.

Not a lawyer but you can't take money and just spend it on something nobody knew about.

INDICTED people would be better.

backintexas2013 said:

---

Counts 1-6: Wire Fraud. 18 USC 1343.

"The objective of the scheme and artifice was to obtain money via donations through materially false representations and omissions about what the donated funds would be used for."


If they took donations and never told people it was for informants that would be illegal. Do you think they told their donors "give to us we are going to place people inside the kkk"

I would guess They would have to show that all donors knew this or that separate money from a couple of donors who knew that's what they were donating for.

Not a lawyer but you can't take money and just spend it on something nobody knew about.

---

I mean, they pretty clearly state that part of their work is, "Monitoring, exposing, and countering hate groups and extremist ideologies." I would think that paying informants to snitch on groups that they were a part of, or even paying contractors to infiltrate such groups would fall within that description. I'm not aware of any law that says that an NGO has to explicitly communicate every action that they take or method that they use in service to their stated goals.

As a tax exempt organization they have rules they must follow for donations and stated intent they are used for and it has to be specific

Tax exempt play by different rules.

Teslag said:

---

As a tax exempt organization they have rules they must follow for donations and stated intent they are used for and it has to be specific

---

LOL. You still believe that?

aggiehawg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

As a tax exempt organization they have rules they must follow for donations and stated intent they are used for and it has to be specific

---

LOL. You still believe that?

---

The DOJ does

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

"Monitoring, exposing, and countering hate groups and extremist ideologies."

---

If that is all they did, then they would not be in trouble.


The allegation is much more than that. From the Indictment:

Quote:

---

To carry out this scheme and artifice, the SPLC explicitly sought donations under the auspices that donor money would be used to help "dismantle" violent extremist groups. In the SPLC's solicitations for donations as outlined herein, donors were not told that some of the donated funds were to be used by the SPLC to pay high-level leaders of violent extremist groups and others, nor were donors ever told that some of the donated funds were used for the benefit of the violent extremist groups or that some of the donated funds would be used in the commission of state and federal crimes.

---

---

Right. So it seems like there are two ways they could take this: one is to prove that "but for" the funding that was provided by SPLC participants in extremist groups would not have participated in some activity. That seems like a high bar to clear. The other is to prove that SPLC incited someone to commit crimes as a part of an extremist group (essentially acting as undercover law enforcement without the legal authorization.) This certainly seems possible.

I'm pretty sure that communicating to their donors that funds are used to investigate groups that espouse ideologies they believe are dangerous or extreme is going to clear the legal disclosure threshold. I've participated in various non-profit organizations, and while funds have to be spent on mission, there was never any requirement to disclose in detail how those missions were accomplished. Of course if a donor inquired directly, "Do you spend funds on XY and Z?" and we answered that falsely, that would indeed land you in trouble.

Quote:

---

I've participated in various non-profit organizations, and while funds have to be spent on mission, there was never any requirement to disclose in detail how those missions were accomplished

---

In your various experience, were those funds used to perpetrate crime and pay leaders of criminal enterprises?

My first paragraph addressed that. Separate issues. Did they pay for crime is one issue (informant vs perpetrator/agitator). Did they adequately disclose how funds were spent is another. It's possible that they committed one or the other or neither or both of these. I'm quite skeptical that they could be found guilty of inadequate disclosure unless they were also found guilty of agitating criminal activity.

They are scum and were given way too much credibility.

They're circling the wagons.....

The Trump administration is waging a vindictive campaign against the organizations that safeguard our democracy.
 
Weaponizing the DOJ to indict long-standing watchdogs is a message: if you defend voting rights, fight white supremacy, or protect civil rights, you’re next.
 
This… https://t.co/iuGsGPR31e

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) April 22, 2026

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

They're circling the wagons.....

The Trump administration is waging a vindictive campaign against the organizations that safeguard our democracy.
 
Weaponizing the DOJ to indict long-standing watchdogs is a message: if you defend voting rights, fight white supremacy, or protect civil rights, you’re next.
 
This… https://t.co/iuGsGPR31e

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) April 22, 2026

---

"Democracy!"

Means nothing.

BusterAg said:

---

LMCane said:

---

100% guarantee that in a few years we will find out that the left and the Islamists around the world

have paid Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens and Theo Von money to foment discord among the "conservative influencers"

---

I have not heard any weird stuff from Theo Von.

Link?

---

Nearly every podcast he talks about how Israel is controlling all of the world events and that they committed atrocities on Palestine. Last week he was on Joe Rogan spouting this stuff and Joe told him to calm down and lay off of social media a little bit more.

I don't disagree, but if "rule of law" has become code for that gobbledygook, then what term would you suggest to communicate the principle that no person is above the law and that all individuals, including government officials, are equally subject to and accountable under a consistent set of publicly disclosed laws?

Who?mikejones! said:

---

1. Leftist group creates org to blame the right/white people
2. Claims white supremacy is the biggest problem we face
3. Get grants to research said claim
4. Creates the stats it needs to verify claim
5. Works with fed gov, fbi, other govts etc to push white supremacy hoax, using the stats they fabricated
6. Gets more grants

Cycle continues

The "white supremacy" or "far right" talking point has always been bunk (at least since the death of the 3rd iterationof the kkk anyway), and everyone knows that it was and continues to be bunk; that its relative threat is small compared to say, radical islam or radical leftism. Yet, every time there was a violent protest or terror attack all we heard was the far right/supremacist are the real problem.

So obvious. So dumb.

Same book, different chapter as anything else the left does.

---

You mean leftists fabricate data and lie?

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

They're circling the wagons.....

The Trump administration is waging a vindictive campaign against the organizations that safeguard our democracy.
 
Weaponizing the DOJ to indict long-standing watchdogs is a message: if you defend voting rights, fight white supremacy, or protect civil rights, you’re next.
 
This… https://t.co/iuGsGPR31e

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) April 22, 2026

---

If Justice pulls at the thread they might actually be able to get Soros, Eisen, and Chuck. Not surprised the Dems are freaking on this one. Tells me SPLC was way more connected to DNC than previously expected.

I don't think 'we' should surrender the term 'rule of law' (nor 'democracy') to their divisive, cynical political usage and employment of it, but it needs to always/very often be differentiated imho vs. what the Democrats-communists intend to convey. Just my two cents.

Lefties are whining about people supporting Ye's new tour because he's a Nazi, but are also defending this group for giving money directly to the KKK and other hate groups.

Thanks.

Used ai to help compile a quick list of organizations that use splc stats and ratings to discriminate:

Groups/companies that, based on reporting or official documents, **used SPLC designations or lists to apply labels or take action**, including debankingstyle cutoffs.[1][2][3][4][5]

## Direct "we won't work with SPLClisted groups" type actions

- **Bonterra Tech** Internal email shows Bonterra refused to work with Ruth Institute explicitly because it was on the SPLC "hate group" list; also dropped several other conservative nonprofits on that basis.[8]
- **MobileCause** CEO stated MobileCause has "a corporate practice of not working with organizations on the SPLC list" and terminated Family Research Council's fundraising agreement after discovering SPLC's "hate group" label.[1]
- **Benevity** Corporate giving platform that screens nonprofits against SPLC's "Hate Map" and list; corporate clients' employees can't direct matched donations to SPLClisted organizations.[2]
- **Guidestar / Candid** Added SPLC "hate group" flags to charity profiles (later removed after backlash), effectively labeling those nonprofits in a way seen by donors and institutions.[9]

## "Online service providers" denying infrastructure based on SPLC/ADL

- **Class of online service providers (Slack, Eventbrite, Bonterra, etc.)** Senate Commerce Committee report says these providers "often rely on leftwing groups, like SPLC and ADL, when deciding which users to deny access or services," and documents terminations of conservative organizations' access to essential software and infrastructure.[3]
- **Bonterra** again is named in followon reporting as an example of this "new playbook" of weaponizing terms of service using SPLC labels.[8]

## Banks and debanking context (with SPLC influence in the mix)

- **Bank of America** A documented case: Indigenous Advance Ministries and a supporting church had accounts closed; a legal advocacy group links this to broader "debanking" of Christian organizations and criticizes SPLC for dismissing such patterns while, at the same time, encouraging banks to treat SPLClabeled groups as too risky.[4]
- **Nine large U.S. banks (OCC debanking report)** OCC found inappropriate debanking policies at:
- JPMorgan Chase
- Bank of America
- Citibank
- Wells Fargo
- U.S. Bank
- PNC Bank
- Capital One
- TD Bank
- BMO Bank[5][6]

The OCC report doesn't say "SPLC" by name, but it documents banks using ESG / "values"based screens to cut off perfectly legal industries and political actors, which is the same riskscreening ecosystem that advocacy groups (including SPLC) try to feed into.[3][5][6]

## Governmenttobank "hate list" channel

- **PostJan. 6 federal outreach to banks** Reporting says the Biden administration sent a list of "hate groups" to U.S. banks as part of postJan. 6 financial surveillance; that tally drew on external "hate group" compilers, i.e., entities like SPLC.[7] This effectively pipes private labels into bank compliance and transactionmonitoring systems.[7][3]

And they got multiple indictments it's glorious. That's the rule of law and I hope these scum rot.