The SPLC moved to dismiss the DOJ indictment for "vindictive prosecution," claiming that the Trump admin was targeting the leftist group for its free speech.
Here's why that doesn't work, according to the DOJ.
First, a motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution often occurs when the government files a new indictment in an existing legal case. That's not the case here. "At bottom, this is a standard white collar fraud prosecution."
🧵2/12
The cases the SPLC cites in its own defense actually cut against its argument.
"The defendant does not even allege facts that would fit a recognized claim of vindictive prosecution."
🧵3/12
"The fact that an entity or person has engaged in... First Amendment protected activities cannot immunize that entity or individual from criminal prosecution on unrelated matters."
The SPLC faces wire fraud charges unrelated to its criticism of the Trump admin.
🧵4/12
The SPLC cites Trump admin attacks on the SPLC, but "an administration’s criticism of... a defendant is not de facto objective evidence that a subsequently returned indictment against the defendant by a fair and impartial grand jury is vindictive prosecution."
🧵5/12
Motions to dismiss for vindictive prosecution are not usually granted pre-trial.
🧵6/12
The SPLC noted that the Biden admin declined to bring charges, then charges came under Trump. But admins have different priorities. The Trump admin "publicly and aggressively prioritizes stamping out fraud."
🧵7/12
The DOJ notes that "many of the core facts" are "not in dispute."
The SPLC acknowledged paying informants & that it didn't share the use of informants "broadly."
They key debate isn't primarily about the facts, it's about the SPLC's motivations.
🧵8/12
The DOJ says the SPLC is "unlikely to contest that its employees created and then utilized a series of fictitious entities to funnel donors’ money through multiple bank accounts to the leaders of violent extremist organizations."
🧵9/12
The SPLC's "claim that its prosecution for these financial fraud offenses is actually a disguised attack on its [free speech] should be viewed for exactly what those arguments are—attempts to distract, deflect, and win over the media and public before trial."
🧵10/12
The DOJ makes a strong case that the court should reject the SPLC's motion to dismiss.
🧵11/12
Reminder: here's what the case is actually about. The SPLC stands accused of wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy to conceal money laundering for funding members of the KKK and neo-Nazi groups. It's not about SPLC's political speech.
How does corporate America blacklist conservatives? Companies don't do it outright. Instead, they outsource it: to the very same leftist "hate watchdog" that allegedly paid for KKK hoods and cross burnings😲
Meet Benevity. This software companies connects nearly 1K companies to 513K nonprofits, managing $16B in grants and 99M employee volunteer hours. It's the middleman between companies and the charities they voluntarily support.
🧵2/16
But Benevity also systematically excludes mainstream conservative and Christian nonprofits. Its former CO bragged about using the Southern Poverty Law Center's "hate list" to "vet" nonprofits.
Today, Society for the Rule of Law moved to file an amicus brief in U.S. v. SPLC, suggesting the DOJ engaged in vindictive prosecution. I can't help but wonder, what sort of conservative group takes the SPLC's side?
🧵1/15
The society claims it wants to protect prosecution from "political influence." The group says it "has not always concurred with" the SPLC's rhetoric, action, or tactics, but "opposes vindictive prosecution of any target."
🧵2/15
The society notes: @FBIDirectorKash condemned the SPLC as a "partisan smear machine" (it is), @Jim_Jordan asked the AG to examine the SPLC's influence under Biden, Pam Bondi was fired reportedly in part for not being aggressive enough, and Trump attacked SPLC.
Reminder: the SPLC raises money by claiming it exists to "dismantle white supremacy," but DOJ says the SPLC was actually propping up the hate it told donors it aimed to destroy. SPLC paid "field sources," whom SPLC says were merely informants.
🧵2/20
Yet the field sources used the SPLC's $ to:
1⃣Attend extremist rallies
2⃣Host rallies
3⃣Grow existing chapters
4⃣Create new chapters
5⃣Recruit individuals
6⃣Donate to extremist leaders
7⃣Purchase cross-burning material
8⃣Create racist paraphernalia
9⃣Pay living expenses
What if I told you an EPA lawyer who is also a union leader signed a document explicitly stating that she is "opposing this administration’s policies," but still seems to have kept her job?
On June 30, 2025, Cantello signed a "Declaration of Dissent," condemning the Trump "administration’s focus on harmful deregulation, mischaracterization of previous EPA actions, and disregard for scientific expertise."
🧵2/5
As a citizen, she has every right to take this stand. But as an executive branch employee, she needs to follow lawful orders from the president on down.
This mentality captures the essence of the deep state—opposition to the president's agenda from within the gov't.
The SPLC, which now faces a federal indictment for allegedly funding members of the hate groups it claims it exists to oppose, is once again attacking @donoharm for the sin of disagreeing with the SPLC's transgender and CRT agenda.
🧵1/6
SPLC is trying to shame Google into blacklisting Do No Harm from its grants program (available to most 501(c)(3) nonprofits). The SPLC demonizes "'detransitioner' rehtoric" as if people like @ChloeCole are not real victims of "gender-affirming care."
🧵2/6
But it gets worse! @DoNoHarm rightly opposes CRT in medicine, but the SPLC claims its efforts are rooted in "white supremacist conspiracy theories." Do No Harm is concerned about high standards in medicine, but the SPLC claims it's only about "white people's health."
The New York Supreme Court's ethics commission refused to investigate NJ Gov. Mikie Sherrill—because she hasn't been convicted of a crime. Neither had @RudyGiuliani... So the watchdog group that filed the complaint is appealing.
In March, @SecureUSA filed a complaint against Sherrill, claiming that she had violated the ethics code for NY attorneys when she claimed @Jack4NJ "went on to kill tens of thousands of people in New Jersey, including children."😲
Sherrill also urged Garden State residents to report on ICE activity—which the Center to Advance Security in America claimed amounted to combatting the lawful detention of illegal aliens.