{"id":153841,"date":"2026-06-04T14:59:03","date_gmt":"2026-06-04T22:59:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/06\/04\/new-splc-indictment-has-us-wondering-if-the-doj-is-trying-to-lose\/"},"modified":"2026-06-04T14:59:03","modified_gmt":"2026-06-04T22:59:03","slug":"new-splc-indictment-has-us-wondering-if-the-doj-is-trying-to-lose","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/06\/04\/new-splc-indictment-has-us-wondering-if-the-doj-is-trying-to-lose\/","title":{"rendered":"New SPLC Indictment Has Us Wondering If The DOJ Is Trying To Lose"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Man, the Department of Justice used to be a serious institution. <\/p>\n

Back in April, the Department of Justice indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center<\/a>, asserting that the civil rights organization misappropriated donations to secretly fund hate groups. The fraud theory of the case never made much sense since every genuine donor knew that the SPLC gathers information on hate groups through informants. On top of that, the indictment failed to even properly plead the elements<\/a> of one of its core charges. Just an all-around clown show.<\/p>\n

But this week, the DOJ took another stab at the SPLC case, securing a superseding indictment<\/a>. And then they appear to have promptly leaked it to right-wing media<\/a> because this case is more about winning points on Twitter than in court. Did the DOJ fix the deficiencies in the original indictment?<\/p>\n

Friends, they did not. <\/p>\n

But they did manage to make it worse, forcing us to ask the question: are the prosecutors on this case trying to lose or just stupid?<\/p>\n

If the theory of the case \u2014 that a civil rights group secretly finances extremist groups \u2014 makes no sense, that\u2019s because you haven\u2019t let your brain rot be indulging in the sort of right-wing fever dreams that cast George Soros as the central architect of wokeness. The DOJ\u2019s case enjoys a lot of popularity with the Elon Musk types<\/a> who want to convince themselves that ripping immigrant children from their parents doesn\u2019t put them in league with their fellow travelers in the Klan because those<\/em> people are just actors paid by liberals. It\u2019s the same organizing myth that considers January 6 an FBI and Antifa operation AND all January 6ers as heroes \u2014 Schr\u00f6dinger\u2019s insurrectionist, if you will. <\/p>\n

After the indictment, the SPLC explained that paid informants are part of its legendary intelligence gathering efforts on extremist organizations. And it routes the payments through fictitious entities so the moles do not get, you know, murdered<\/em>. <\/p>\n

The superseding indictment manages to screw around and fully endorse the SPLC\u2019s defense:<\/p>\n

\n

F-31 and F-32 were members of a Ku Klux Klan organization in their area. In or about 2010 F-31 and F-32 feared for their safety from other Klan members and wanted out of the movement. F-32 had seen media coverage about how the SPLC helped an individual leave an extremist organization and how the SPLC paid for this individual\u2019s tattoo removals. This media coverage prompted F-32 to reach out to the SPLC, unsolicited, and ask the SPLC for help to get F-31 and F-32 out of the movement.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

Right. The government\u2019s new marquee evidence is that the informants were genuinely working against their hate groups and legitimately feared for their own safety? That\u2019s\u2026 the whole SPLC argument. The indictment adds even more allegations about moles wanting to quit or fearing for their personal safety or both. The SPLC\u2019s lawyers could not have written it better.<\/p>\n

When Todd Blanche unveiled this busted criminal case, the pitch was that the SPLC was bankrolling hate groups \u2014 either intentionally or because they\u2019d been duped by white supremacists taking SPLC money to fund cross burnings. Now the superseding indictment tells the tale of unnamed informants working to undermine extremist groups at tremendous personal risk. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The DOJ didn\u2019t need<\/em> to add these details about the informants. For their purposes, they just needed to say Klan members got cash from shell organizations.<\/p>\n

What the DOJ did need to do, to fix this case, was plead some sort of scheme to defraud a financial institution. The government brought charges under the bank deception statute \u2014\u00a018 U.S.C. \u00a7 1014<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 that criminalizes knowingly making false statements for the purpose of influencing a bank\u2019s action on an application, loan, or agreement.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The first indictment read:<\/p>\n

\n

On or about the dates listed below, the following false or misleading statements were made to an FDIC insured financial institution.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This misses the second part of \u00a7 1014 entirely, which posed a problem for them since the Supreme Court already held that merely alleging false or misleading statements is not enough to make a crime. So this time they\u2019ve amended that section to read:<\/p>\n

\n

On or about the dates listed below, the following false or misleading statements were made to an FDIC insured financial institution for the purpose of influencing the actions of that financial institution.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Bravo, dipshits.<\/p>\n

No, you do not allege a scheme to influence a bank by saying \u201cthis was a scheme to influence a bank.\u201d There is still no allegation of what action the bank was being induced to take \u2014 no loan, no advance, no application, nothing the statute actually contemplates. They threw in the language of the standard like it\u2019s a legal alchemy transforming their nothing into something.<\/p>\n

The SPLC had already moved to dismiss the original charges as a vindictive prosecution<\/a>. The DOJ isn\u2019t beating those charges based on this superseding indictment. Add in that SPLC\u2019s counsel, Abbe Lowell, claims the DOJ handed the unsigned copy of this superseding indictment to friendly media before the court unsealed it and the case for this being a vindictive prosecution case looks even more compelling.<\/p>\n

This superseding indictment made the DOJ\u2019s case worse. But why? Is it just that all the competent lawyers are gone<\/a> and they just don\u2019t understand how they\u2019re digging themselves deeper? Or are the lawyers on this really moles trying to help the SPLC?<\/p>\n

(Superseding indictment on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: Trump DOJ Indicts Civil Rights Group For Working To Take Down Hate Groups<\/a>
Justice Department\u2019s SPLC Indictment Just Got Dumber, Which Seemed Impossible<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post New SPLC Indictment Has Us Wondering If The DOJ Is Trying To Lose<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Man, the Department of Justice used to be a serious institution. <\/p>\n

Back in April, the Department of Justice indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center<\/a>, asserting that the civil rights organization misappropriated donations to secretly fund hate groups. The fraud theory of the case never made much sense since every genuine donor knew that the SPLC gathers information on hate groups through informants. On top of that, the indictment failed to even properly plead the elements<\/a> of one of its core charges. Just an all-around clown show.<\/p>\n

But this week, the DOJ took another stab at the SPLC case, securing a superseding indictment<\/a>. And then they appear to have promptly leaked it to right-wing media<\/a> because this case is more about winning points on Twitter than in court. Did the DOJ fix the deficiencies in the original indictment?<\/p>\n

Friends, they did not. <\/p>\n

But they did manage to make it worse, forcing us to ask the question: are the prosecutors on this case trying to lose or just stupid?<\/p>\n

If the theory of the case \u2014 that a civil rights group secretly finances extremist groups \u2014 makes no sense, that\u2019s because you haven\u2019t let your brain rot be indulging in the sort of right-wing fever dreams that cast George Soros as the central architect of wokeness. The DOJ\u2019s case enjoys a lot of popularity with the Elon Musk types<\/a> who want to convince themselves that ripping immigrant children from their parents doesn\u2019t put them in league with their fellow travelers in the Klan because those<\/em> people are just actors paid by liberals. It\u2019s the same organizing myth that considers January 6 an FBI and Antifa operation AND all January 6ers as heroes \u2014 Schr\u00f6dinger\u2019s insurrectionist, if you will. <\/p>\n

After the indictment, the SPLC explained that paid informants are part of its legendary intelligence gathering efforts on extremist organizations. And it routes the payments through fictitious entities so the moles do not get, you know, murdered<\/em>. <\/p>\n

The superseding indictment manages to screw around and fully endorse the SPLC\u2019s defense:<\/p>\n

\n

F-31 and F-32 were members of a Ku Klux Klan organization in their area. In or about 2010 F-31 and F-32 feared for their safety from other Klan members and wanted out of the movement. F-32 had seen media coverage about how the SPLC helped an individual leave an extremist organization and how the SPLC paid for this individual\u2019s tattoo removals. This media coverage prompted F-32 to reach out to the SPLC, unsolicited, and ask the SPLC for help to get F-31 and F-32 out of the movement.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

Right. The government\u2019s new marquee evidence is that the informants were genuinely working against their hate groups and legitimately feared for their own safety? That\u2019s\u2026 the whole SPLC argument. The indictment adds even more allegations about moles wanting to quit or fearing for their personal safety or both. The SPLC\u2019s lawyers could not have written it better.<\/p>\n

When Todd Blanche unveiled this busted criminal case, the pitch was that the SPLC was bankrolling hate groups \u2014 either intentionally or because they\u2019d been duped by white supremacists taking SPLC money to fund cross burnings. Now the superseding indictment tells the tale of unnamed informants working to undermine extremist groups at tremendous personal risk. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The DOJ didn\u2019t need<\/em> to add these details about the informants. For their purposes, they just needed to say Klan members got cash from shell organizations.<\/p>\n

What the DOJ did need to do, to fix this case, was plead some sort of scheme to defraud a financial institution. The government brought charges under the bank deception statute \u2014\u00a018 U.S.C. \u00a7 1014<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 that criminalizes knowingly making false statements for the purpose of influencing a bank\u2019s action on an application, loan, or agreement.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The first indictment read:<\/p>\n

\n

On or about the dates listed below, the following false or misleading statements were made to an FDIC insured financial institution.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This misses the second part of \u00a7 1014 entirely, which posed a problem for them since the Supreme Court already held that merely alleging false or misleading statements is not enough to make a crime. So this time they\u2019ve amended that section to read:<\/p>\n

\n

On or about the dates listed below, the following false or misleading statements were made to an FDIC insured financial institution for the purpose of influencing the actions of that financial institution.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Bravo, dipshits.<\/p>\n

No, you do not allege a scheme to influence a bank by saying \u201cthis was a scheme to influence a bank.\u201d There is still no allegation of what action the bank was being induced to take \u2014 no loan, no advance, no application, nothing the statute actually contemplates. They threw in the language of the standard like it\u2019s a legal alchemy transforming their nothing into something.<\/p>\n

The SPLC had already moved to dismiss the original charges as a vindictive prosecution<\/a>. The DOJ isn\u2019t beating those charges based on this superseding indictment. Add in that SPLC\u2019s counsel, Abbe Lowell, claims the DOJ handed the unsigned copy of this superseding indictment to friendly media before the court unsealed it and the case for this being a vindictive prosecution case looks even more compelling.<\/p>\n

This superseding indictment made the DOJ\u2019s case worse. But why? Is it just that all the competent lawyers are gone<\/a> and they just don\u2019t understand how they\u2019re digging themselves deeper? Or are the lawyers on this really moles trying to help the SPLC?<\/p>\n

(Superseding indictment on the next page\u2026)<\/em><\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: Trump DOJ Indicts Civil Rights Group For Working To Take Down Hate Groups<\/a>
Justice Department\u2019s SPLC Indictment Just Got Dumber, Which Seemed Impossible<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

1<\/strong> 2<\/a>Next \u00bb<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Man, the Department of Justice used to be a serious institution. Back in April, the Department of Justice indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center, asserting that the civil rights organization misappropriated donations to secretly fund hate groups. The fraud theory of the case never made much sense since every genuine donor knew that the SPLC […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-153841","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153841","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=153841"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153841\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=153841"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=153841"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=153841"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}