Anonymous #2 3w

They not only knew, they told their informants what to say during planning.

-1

Anonymous #2 3w

where did you hear that because I cannot find a reliable source

6

Anonymous #3 3w

https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1437146/dl First paragraph notes how the informant made posts about and coordinated transportation to unite the right under the supervision of SPLC

0

Anonymous #3 3w

He’s just parroting what right wing Twitter has been on about all day. None of that even comes from the already shoddy DOJ indictment. That’s all blue-check conjecture.

3

Anonymous #2 3w

Informants do in fact have to do the work of the groups they’re informing on, if they refuse to participate in the organization they’re spying on, that’s the quickest way to get fingered as a spy.

5

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 3w

That doesn't take away from the difference between being informed of what someone else is doing, and doing something yourself.

-1

Anonymous #2 3w

Yes, well, the US government is also claiming Tylenol causes autism and so do vaccines, so I wouldn’t treat them as a reliable source. Looking through that, it’s full of technically correct language (ex. This person was associated with white supremacist groups, while leaving out the fact that what they were being paid for was reporting on them to the authorities.) Do you have a different one?

6

Anonymous #2 3w

To be an embedded informant, you have to be trusted by the people you’re informing on. Do you think mobsters who flip and go witness just stop participating in crime? No. Because that would get them caught as an informant, and killed. Infiltration of an extremist organization is the same, they will make you do some fucked up shit to prove loyalty. If you wanna keep informing on them, you gotta do it.

9

Anonymous #2 3w

ok, and what they were doing was… things that their position would be expected to do? Like, the document doesn’t have any evidence that the money went to funding extremist groups other than “they gave these people some money”.

6

Anonymous #3 3w

That's the original source so I don't have one that doesn't cite it, but SPLC isn't a law enforcement agency. They weren't reporting it to police.

-1

Anonymous #3 3w

if I was the equivalent of an undercover cop I’d damn well hope I’d be being given money

6

Anonymous #2 3w

The SPLC had a tight relationship with the FBI until last October, when Kash Patel severed that tie. They were reporting their findings to law enforcement when applicable.

7

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 3w

They still aren't a law enforcement agency or a part of the court system so I wouldn't consider them "the authorities"

-1

Anonymous #2 3w

You don’t consider the FBI the authorities?

1

Anonymous #3 3w

I don't consider everyone who reports stuff to the FBI the authorities. The FBI themselves? Yes, obviously.

-1

Anonymous #2 3w

Ok, so if the SPLC- and by proxy, their informants- are reporting the information they gather to the FBI, uh… what’s the problem here?

9

Anonymous #3 3w

Man, this whole thing makes me like the SPLC more, actually. Reminds me of that guy that infiltrated a neonazi group solo and then passed everything to journalists

6

Anonymous #3 3w

The problem is the SPLC using that power to plan a rally which led to someones death

2

Anonymous #2 3w

“The SPLC had informants that were involved in the group enough that they were part of the group that coordinated transportation to a rally” is not equivalent to “The SPLC directed and planned a rally”, and it’s disingenuous to pretend that it is. Don’t argue in bad faith.

3

Anonymous #3 3w

You're right, those two framings are not equivalent. "The SPLC paid a planner of the rally $270k and was directly involved in advertising and transportation to the rally" fits a lot more neatly.

-1

Anonymous #2 3w

ok and were they paying him to plan the rally or to rat on them

6

Anonymous #3 3w

Seems that both were a part of his duties

-1

Anonymous #2 3w

where are you reading that “the SPLC said this guy should plan transportation to a rally, here’s $270k for it” because I’m not seeing it

2

Anonymous #2 3w

I mean, to be a good rat, you have to know what you’re ratting on. Means you have to be embedded and trusted in the group you’re ratting on. This is espionage 101 shit here man idk why you’re pretending not to understand it.

4

Anonymous #6 3w

Law enforcement agencies are not the only people allowed to buy information.

6

Anonymous #3 3w

Didn't say that was the only thing they were paying him for

-1

Anonymous #2 3w

ok bro What a beautiful hit piece by the Justice department here. Enough to imply things but not enough to easily prove they’re lying. Reminder that the FBI cut their relationship with the SPLC off because they were too hostile to right wing extremists and not enough to “left wing extremists”.

3

Anonymous #3 3w

Absolute masterclass in lying without lying. I’d be genuinely impressed if it wasn’t skeevy as hell.

5

Anonymous #2 3w

Your only source on any of this is Kash Patel’s FBI, an organization run by an unqualified political loyalist, who’s been shown to have a bone to pick with the SPLC, and is part of a political program which stands to benefit from minimizing the threat of white supremacist extremism. You seem deeply skeptical of the SPLC’s motives in a way that you are not showing towards the FBI and DOJ, which we know are fully captured organizations at this point.

3

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 3w

Not when you’re a nonprofit that’s required to be represented to donors. As well as the funding furthers illegal activity. Which is what the claims are

0

Anonymous #6 3w

I mean they should’ve told donors that infiltration work was part of their program. I’ll give you that point. But that’s not what I’m responding to. I’m responding to the right wing claiming that the SPLC *built* the movement it was spying on. Which is patently absurd.

4

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 3w

no, they’ve been doing infiltration since the 1980s, it’s known

4

Anonymous #3 3w

Well I didn’t really know that before today, but I’m not one of their donors, so I haven’t extensively researched all their methods. But yeah it makes sense that an organization aimed at hampering hate groups would have informants embedded within hate groups. Meaning they’re gonna have to pay members of those groups for information, because to inform on a group you have to be in that group.

5

Anonymous #3 3w

If I donate to Doctors Without Borders and a few weeks later am like “fuck, I don’t want them to go to [country]!” that’s obviously ridiculous, they go everywhere, it’s what they do

6

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 3w

Well if they’re secretly funding members of Nazi groups unbeknownst to donors, and under SPLC supervision help plan and provide transportation to an event that turned deadly at the hands of said Nazis, I would say hmmm yeah maybe this isn’t good. Oh, and also ILLEGAL

-1

Anonymous #6 3w

they funded informants, who continued to act as informants, while doing things that they would be expected to do breaking news. the DEA and undercover cops are responsible for cartels

6

Anonymous #3 3w

You’ve circled back to exactly where we started lol. We’re talking about the legality of these things. The SPLC is not a law enforcement agency and has separate rules to abide by than federal law enforcement

-1

Anonymous #6 3w

wasn’t a problem when the FBI was working with them which, you know, is when all this took place?

3

Anonymous #6 3w

So is your take that the DEA amd undercover cops ARE indeed responsible for cartels, but they’re allowed to be? And nobody else is allowed to go undercover on some shit for pay?

5

Anonymous #3 3w

The crimes the DOJ has brought against them are financial crimes. It doesn’t matter that they reported info they got from said informants, there are rules they need to abide by as a nonprofit if they’re going to do what they did

1

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 3w

My take is that it’s not ILLEGAL for the DEA to allocate funds towards informants when approved. It IS illegal for the SPLC to secretly give informants money for events that lead to crime without properly disclosing to donors

1