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
gathers
information
on
hate
groups
through
informants.
On
top
of
that,
the
indictment
failed
to
even
properly
plead
the
elements
of
one
of
its
core
charges.
Just
an
all-around
clown
show.
But
this
week,
the
DOJ
took
another
stab
at
the
SPLC
case,
securing
a
superseding
indictment.
And
then
they
appear
to
have
promptly
leaked
it
to
right-wing
media
because
this
case
is
more
about
winning
points
on
Twitter
than
in
court.
Did
the
DOJ
fix
the
deficiencies
in
the
original
indictment?
Friends,
they
did
not.
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?
If
the
theory
of
the
case
—
that
a
civil
rights
group
secretly
finances
extremist
groups
—
makes
no
sense,
that’s
because
you
haven’t
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’s
case
enjoys
a
lot
of
popularity
with
the
Elon
Musk
types
who
want
to
convince
themselves
that
ripping
immigrant
children
from
their
parents
doesn’t
put
them
in
league
with
their
fellow
travelers
in
the
Klan
because
those
people
are
just
actors
paid
by
liberals.
It’s
the
same
organizing
myth
that
considers
January
6
an
FBI
and
Antifa
operation
AND
all
January
6ers
as
heroes
—
Schrödinger’s
insurrectionist,
if
you
will.
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.
The
superseding
indictment
manages
to
screw
around
and
fully
endorse
the
SPLC’s
defense:
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’s
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.
Right.
The
government’s
new
marquee
evidence
is
that
the
informants
were
genuinely
working
against
their
hate
groups
and
legitimately
feared
for
their
own
safety?
That’s…
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’s
lawyers
could
not
have
written
it
better.When
Todd
Blanche
unveiled
this
busted
criminal
case,
the
pitch
was
that
the
SPLC
was
bankrolling
hate
groups
—
either
intentionally
or
because
they’d
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.
The
DOJ
didn’t
need
to
add
these
details
about
the
informants.
For
their
purposes,
they
just
needed
to
say
Klan
members
got
cash
from
shell
organizations.
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
— 18
U.S.C.
§
1014 —
that
criminalizes
knowingly
making
false
statements
for
the
purpose
of
influencing
a
bank’s
action
on
an
application,
loan,
or
agreement.
The
first
indictment
read:
On
or
about
the
dates
listed
below,
the
following
false
or
misleading
statements
were
made
to
an
FDIC
insured
financial
institution.
This
misses
the
second
part
of
§
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’ve
amended
that
section
to
read:
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.
Bravo,
dipshits.
No,
you
do
not
allege
a
scheme
to
influence
a
bank
by
saying
“this
was
a
scheme
to
influence
a
bank.”
There
is
still
no
allegation
of
what
action
the
bank
was
being
induced
to
take
—
no
loan,
no
advance,
no
application,
nothing
the
statute
actually
contemplates.
They
threw
in
the
language
of
the
standard
like
it’s
a
legal
alchemy
transforming
their
nothing
into
something.
The
SPLC
had
already
moved
to
dismiss
the
original
charges
as
a
vindictive
prosecution.
The
DOJ
isn’t
beating
those
charges
based
on
this
superseding
indictment.
Add
in
that
SPLC’s
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.
This
superseding
indictment
made
the
DOJ’s
case
worse.
But
why?
Is
it
just
that
all
the
competent
lawyers
are
gone
and
they
just
don’t
understand
how
they’re
digging
themselves
deeper?
Or
are
the
lawyers
on
this
really
moles
trying
to
help
the
SPLC?
(Superseding
indictment
on
the
next
page…)
Earlier:
Trump
DOJ
Indicts
Civil
Rights
Group
For
Working
To
Take
Down
Hate
Groups
Justice
Department’s
SPLC
Indictment
Just
Got
Dumber,
Which
Seemed
Impossible
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.