Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (18) |
Author: albaby1 SILVER
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 84361 
Subject: Re: SPLC indictment
Date: 04/22/26 1:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 1
For those who are interested, the indictment is here:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1437146/dl

FWIW, I think the wire fraud charges are the least supported. Basically, they appear to be premised on the SPLC's statements that they were working to dismantle hate groups, and argue that those statements were deceptive because the SPLC ended up paying informants for information and documents. I think that's going to be a heavy lift, once SPLC mounts a defense. They should be able to credibly argue that paying informants can be (and were) understood to be part of their efforts to dismantle the hate groups, such that they believed their statements were correct and accurate.

The other charges, though, are more difficult. They relate to making false statements to banks and money laundering. DOJ is claiming that they gave false information to the banks about whose money it really was, including false affidavits relating to the ownership and/or operation of the business entities. I think that's going to be far more problematic for SPLC. They have a good faith argument for why they weren't deceiving donors when they said the funds would be used for dismantling hate groups, but I don't see a readily apparent good faith argument that they weren't deceiving the banks.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to albaby1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (18) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community