Southern Poverty Law Center Hearing

Jim Jordan (06:11):

Committee will come to order without objection. The chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing on the Southern Poverty Law Center. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Nehls to lead us all in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Troy Nehls (06:24):

Please stand and join me in honoring our nation's flag.

Group (06:29):

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Jim Jordan (06:42):

Thank you. Thank the sheriff for leading us. We'll begin with opening statements. The chair is recognized for an opening statement. They called them field sources. Individuals, the Southern Poverty Law Center paid to gin up hate the very hate they told their supporters that they were fighting. Field source number 37. F-37 coordinated transportation and attended the 2017 rally in Charlottesville.

(07:10)
The Southern Poverty Law Center paid him $270,000. $270,000 to the guy who helped put together the event where a young lady was killed. Field source number nine. He got $1 million over nine years. F unknown. We don't know what number this guy was, but we do know he was the imperial wizard of the Klan, whatever that means. And he was on the Southern Poverty Law Center payroll.

(07:37)
F-27 Southern Poverty Law Center paid him $300,000 in six years. And what did he do? He ran the Aryan Nation Motorcycle Club. F-43. He was president of some crazy group and he was previously convicted of cross-burning, but the Southern Poverty Law Center thought he was worth $19,000 of their donor's money. All told $3 million.

(08:07)
$3 million to manufacture hate. Remember when Rahm Emmanuel said, "Never let a crisis go to waste?" The SPLCs took it a step further. They went one better. They said, "We're going to create the crisis. We're going to manufacture the crisis." And by so doing, they became the standard, the source for determining who's a hate group and who isn't. And of course, they labeled good pro family organizations, conservative organizations hate groups, like the Family Research Councils with us today, like Moms for Liberty, like Turning Point USA. Even the Alliance Defending Freedom is argued numerous cases, won numerous cases in front of the Supreme Court. They labeled them all hate groups, but not Jane's Revenge. Nope. Even though Jane's Revenge firebombed and vandalized churches, crisis pregnancy centers in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, they never made the Southern Poverty Law Center's list.

(09:07)
And the Biden administration, they helped make the SPLC the standard. They consulted with the Southern Poverty Law Center. They had quarterly meetings with them. Lisa Monaco, the deputy attorney general, the lady who runs the Justice Department during the Biden administrations had quarterly meetings with the Southern Poverty Law Center. They gave the SPLC first look at FBI data and they used them to train their prosecutors.

(09:35)
And it all paid off. It all paid off. Just asked Mark Houck, what happens when you train the prosecutors? They kicked in his door at six in the morning in front of him and his seven kids arrested him. Of course, the jury found him not guilty. They couldn't just go talk to him even though his lawyer said, "He'll meet you wherever. Come, we'll meet you at the courtroom." Nope. Kicking his door harassing in front of his wife and family. January 23rd, 2023, the now famous memorandum from the Richmond FBI field office. We know how it paid off because in that memorandum they cite the Southern Poverty Law Center as the source. And of course, that memo says if you're a pro-life Catholic, well, you're an extremist. You're dangerous.

(10:22)
Yeah. The SPLC became part of the weaponized effort of the Garland-Biden Justice Department against the American people. Now here's what's interesting. The Biden DOJ knew all about it. They had opened an investigation. They were looking into this group. They knew the Southern Property Law Center was running the scam, but they dropped the case. They dropped the case because when you meet with them, consult with them, have them train your prosecutors. Well, guess what? You're not going to prosecute them.

(10:55)
Nope. You're not going to prosecute them. They're too valuable politically. You got to use them for your political advantage. And that's exactly what the Biden administration did. And here's the scariest part of all. It worked.

(11:09)
Field Source 37. Again, he was the first one I mentioned. He was part of the planning group for the Charlottesville rally. He was paid to coordinate transportation. He was paid to attend. After the event, again, after the event where a young lady was killed, the Southern Poverty Law Center almost tripled their income. It all worked. They went from 51 million annual income to $133 million.

(11:34)
Turned out for them creating hate was more profitable than fighting it. That's exactly what they did. They ran a scam. They became the standard. They didn't get prosecuted and they made a ton of money, made a ton of money. They're sitting on 800 million in assets, $700 million endowment fund. Such a deal. Such a deal. But here's the good news, because there's some good news. Here's the good news.

(11:59)
President Trump got elected. Todd Blanche's attorney general, Kash Patel's FBI director, and guess what? They're prosecuting these guys for running a scam, ripping off their donors, falsely labeling all kinds of good organizations like the Family Research Council, Moms for Liberty Alliance, Defending Freedom, falsely labeling them hate groups, but they got caught. Thank goodness they did.

(12:22)
So I want to commend the Attorney General and the work he's done, the FBI. Most importantly, President Trump for being the guy who put these guys in those positions. We look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. This is something, and we look forward to bringing in the head of the Southern Private Law Center. We're in discussions with them about having... We wanted him here today, couldn't make it. We're working on it and we will do whatever it takes to get him on that witness stand to answer our questions about the scam they run, the lies they told, the things they did. With that, I yield to the ranking member.

Jamie Raskin (12:56):

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to all of our witnesses. For decades, the Southern Poverty Law Center shared information about racist terror plots with the FBI gleaned from their informant program. The FBI was happy to receive it and this practice frequently led to the disruption of dangerous conspiracies by the KKK and neo-Nazi groups to commit violence against synagogues, churches, African-Americans, Jews, and other targeted minorities.

(13:22)
So why is the Department of Justice under Trump and Todd Blanche now prosecuting the Southern Poverty Law Center? The DOJ says that the SPLC defrauded its donors by paying undercover informants to infiltrate and collect intelligence on these racist groups. But where are all the donors complaining about having been defrauded? Where is the evidence of the fraud? Where are the civil lawsuits that always follow in the wake of a fraud, a scam or rip off?

(13:55)
DOJ's offered no evidence that anyone was actually deceived or defrauded by this perfectly lawful, well-known and accepted practice that the FBI itself approved for many years using informants and undercover agents was indeed the basis for the FBI's own efforts to investigate racist extremist groups when that was a priority before the targets of the FBI became instead the perceived political foes of Donald Trump.

(14:21)
In fact, what its donors love about the Southern Poverty Law Center is how effective it's been getting on the inside of extremely dangerous racial terrorist groups to find out what's going on to try to stop the reign of terror of bombings, assaults, lynching and arson. The violent price of white supremacy that goes back centuries in our country.

(14:43)
Why are there no civil fraud lawsuits? Why has no one sued the Southern Poverty Law Center? From my experience as a former state assistant attorney general and a congressman who deals with constituents who get defrauded frequently and now I'm the co-chair of the bipartisan Stop the Scams Caucus, I can assure you that victims of fraud are usually enraged after a period of being embarrassed and they come forward to complain and to sue the fraudsters. What does a real fraud case look like? How did the victims respond?

(15:16)
Well, let's take this well-known long-running fraud case called Trump University, which was shut down by the New York Attorney General's Office when it determined that Trump University was systematically deceiving and ripping off its students and cheating them of a real education they paid for. Over 8,000 swindled students brought three different class action lawsuits that were certified by the courts against Trump.

(15:44)
They tried for years to recover the lost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition for a completely bogus education and they finally won a massive settlement for $25 million. So that was more than 8,000 desperate young people who told their stories to the world. So far, to my knowledge, there's not a single donor to the Southern Poverty Law Center who's come forward to say that he or she was defrauded, much less thousands of them and they have many thousands of donors.

(16:16)
Everybody can see what's happening with this outrageous, scandalous prosecution in Alabama, an outrageous scandalous persecution here on Capitol Hill. If anyone has flip sides to join the racist extremists, it's not the SPLC. It is the FBI itself. And if a fraud is being perpetrated on the public right now, it's not an SPLC fraud. SPLC has been an enemy of the Klan and neo-Nazi groups for more than a half century. It's been unswerving and steadfast, which is why their offices were bombed and why they get an unending stream of violent death threats, something which makes this prosecution and persecution all the more appalling.

(16:58)
No. What we're witnessing is a Trump administration fraud on a vast and shocking scale. President Trump has coddled and cultivated the extreme right for as long as he's been in politics. After the infamous Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in August of 2017 when Neo-Nazis marched on a synagogue and the University of Virginia chanting, "Jews will not replace us." When a homicidal extremist drove his car into peaceful counterprotestors and killed Heather Heyer, Trump could only bring himself to say that there were some very fine people on both sides.

(17:34)
In 2020, when he was directly asked in a nationally televised presidential debate to condemn White supremacists, he told the Proud Boys to stand back and stand by, which they immediately adopted as their official motto and emblazoned on their T-shirts.

(17:50)
In office, the Trump administration has dismantled the anti-domestic terror infrastructure at the FBI, at DOJ, at the Department of Homeland Security, constantly shifting resources away from monitoring racially motivated violent extremism into immigration enforcement. He's gutted the Civil Rights Division, which is charged with prosecuting hate crimes, defunded the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships, which had helped prevent more than a thousand violent terror plots since 2020 and installed a 22-year-old with zero national security experience, except for model United Nations, his junior year of college, to run what remains of our terrorism prevention office.

(18:33)
He's redirected the Civil Rights Division to focus on so called anti-White discrimination instead of the actual hate crimes devastating communities across America. He fired the federal prosecutors and FBI agents who investigated and convicted the extremists who attacked the Capitol on January 6th, 2021. And just this month, the Trump administration released a new national counter-terrorist strategy that literally erases right-wing violent extremism from the record. The strategy identifies drug cartels, Islamist terror, and violent left-wing extremists as the nation's top threats, but makes no mention whatsoever of far-right extremism, White supremacist violence, or domestic Neo-Nazi terror. This despite a decade of data from the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies showing that right-wing extremists carried out 152 attacks in the United States and killed 112 Americans compared with 35 attacks and 13 deaths attributed to left-wing extremists. Again, he just blames his enemies for what his side is doing.

(19:37)
Trump's real relationship to the extreme right was on full display January 6th, 2021 when the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and Three Percenters all in Roger Stone's sphere of influence led the violent assault on the Capitol and our police force as Trump exhorted a crowd of thousands to go out and fight and fight like hell or you won't have a country anymore.

(19:57)
That mob not only chanted hang Mike Pence, referring to Donald Trump's then vice president and tried to shut down the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in American history, but brutally assaulted our police, wounding, injuring, disfiguring, and disabling more than 150 officers, terminating many careers in the process. But what has President Trump done to support, praise or even just thank the police officers who saved members of the House and Senate and his own vice president from the rampaging mob, he had incited? Nothing.

(20:31)
What's he done to help Sergeant Gonell, whose brutal injuries forced him to retire from the Capitol Force? Nothing. What's he done to help Officer Harry Dunn, who was taunted with racial slurs throughout the day on January 6th? Nothing. Officer Michael Fanone, who wasn't even on duty, but came down to join his brothers and sisters in the blue to defend our democracy and was nearly ripped to shreds by the mob and had a heart attack. What's he done for him and his family? Nothing.

(20:59)
No. Trump praises the J6 criminals calling them heroes, martyrs, patriots, even hostages. He parted and commuted the sentences of more than 1,500 of them on his first day in office, both the violent felons who attacked our officers with Confederate battle flags, baseball bats, and steel pipes and the organizers behind the scenes who were convicted of seditious conspiracy, the deliberate and coordinated effort to put down and overthrow the government of the United States.

(21:29)
Trump wasn't interested in the specific criminal backgrounds of any of the criminals he pardoned, whether they were child abusers, armed robbers, or drug traffickers, nor was he interested in whether they'd shown any contrition or remorse for the worst mob attack on the Capitol and the police in the history of the Capitol city, nor was he interested in whether they paid off their fines or restitution for the millions of dollars in damages inflicted. He just pardoned them all, en masse, overriding the pardon attorney and the DOJ and liberating his private militia from jail.

(22:02)
Many of these pardon convicts have already gone out to commit more crimes since Trump let them out. Take, for example, Andrew Paul Johnson, who Trump let out of jail and then promptly went out and sexually attacked and molested two 12-year-old children, one boy and one girl. He is now back in prison for life, but Trump's stupid blundering decision making forever altered the lives of those children.

(22:27)
Oh, and by the way, last year Andrew Paul Johnson in a desperate bid to get these children not to turn him in to the police told them that because he had stormed the Capitol on January 6th, he was going to be, quote, "Awarded $10 million for his work and would be able to split the money with them if they agreed not to talk to the police."

(22:46)
Now that brings us to the real fraud underway this week. Donald Trump has withdrawn his bogus $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS because the judge in the case, Kathleen Williams doubted there was even a case or controversy and whether Trump had proper standing to bring it. And there was clearly no adverse relationship between Trump and the IRS. In any event, he withdrew it. He knew he was going to lose.

(23:08)
Now Trump is claiming that he and the IRS have a so called settlement, which is not possible because the case was dismissed. This fraudulent settlement involves not only an agreement by the IRS and the DOJ not to investigate or prosecute Kim, his family and his businesses forever for tax frauds that he may have committed in the past, but the establishment of a 1.776 billion political slush fund in the DOJ called the anti-weaponization fund that will be used to reward his friends and foot soldiers. This is lawless.

(23:43)
To begin with, Trump doesn't establish federal programs and appropriate money for them. We do that. That's the power of the purse, which belongs exclusively to Congress. We never set up this political slush fund to be run out of the DOJ and we never would. We have a judicial system to hear authentic cases and controversies. Not a single J6er has had charges thrown out because of a false, malicious or retaliatory prosecution. Not a single one has had their criminal conviction reversed on appeal because of a false, malicious or retaliatory prosecution.

(24:16)
The idea that they were falsely or maliciously prosecuted has not been found by a single judge, Republican, Democratic or independent appointee. And this is a defamatory slur on law enforcement and the serious civil servants at the DOJ who've been under attack since this nightmare of MAGA weaponization began in January of last year.

(24:37)
False, malicious and retaliatory prosecutions are how Donald Trump and his DOJ operate, not real law enforcement, not real prosecutors. We would never set up a political slush fund to compensate the J6ers for their imaginary injuries because it's blatantly unconstitutional. Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, which I commend to all of my colleagues, it's in the Constitution, provides that the United States shall not assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States. All such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

(25:14)
So everybody who thinks they're getting a big payoff this week, a million dollars per J6er is the word on the street should understand this. This payment is illegal and void. Meaning that the money belongs only to the taxpayers of America, the people of the United States, and we will get that money back if any insurrectionist gets any.

(25:38)
My friends, the Southern Poverty Law Center is not perpetuating a fraud. Today the Trump administration is perpetuating a fraud against America by taking nearly $1.8 billion of our money from the US Judgment Fund for the payment of actual court judgments and damages and without any legal authorization from Congress purporting to use it to pay off his once and future private militia. No one is fooled by all the counterfeit outrage about the SPLC and finger pointing at the people who've actually been combating violent racism in America.

(26:17)
Mr. Chairman, the threat is not the SPLC. The real fraud is coming from the White House. Just yesterday, the New York Times reported that the career lawyers and the IRS Chief Counsel's Office believed that Donald Trump's lawsuit is deeply flawed and could be easily defeated and they drafted a memo advising the DOJ to dismiss it. Of course, instead, the DOJ entered into the $1.8 billion settlement instead.

(26:40)
The general counsel for the Treasury Department, Brian Morrissey, the top lawyer, resigned on the same day this settlement was announced. We've got many questions for everybody involved in this brazen and corrupt transaction. Mr. Chair, pursuant to clause 2K6 of Rule 11, I move that the committee now immediately subpoena those involved in the creation or execution of the nearly $1.8 billion slush fund. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, IRS Chief Executive Officer Frank Bisignano and Treasury Department General Counsel Brian Morrissey.

(27:20)
Mr. Blanche orchestrated this outrageous slush fund as part of the settlement with Donald Trump, which was also signed by Mr. Woodward and Mr. Bessent will oversee the payout of these funds. Mr. Bisignano signed off on this settlement for the IRS and Brian Morrissey remarkably resigned as this deal was being announced. These individuals all possess critical insights into Trump's self-dealing scheme with his own agencies to create this fund and reward his supporters and friends. So I move that they be subpoenaed right now.

Speaker 1 (27:53):

I second.

Jim Jordan (27:54):

The gentleman has not been recognized for that purpose. We will hold any motion to subpoena in abeyance until the conclusion of today's hearing. Without objection, all of their opening statements will be included in the record. We will introduce today's witnesses. We're pleased to have with this Dr. Carol Swain.

Jamie Raskin (28:08):

Mr. Chairman, I just want to request a recorded vote on that if that's all right?

Jim Jordan (28:11):

Well, we'll do that when it's time for that, but it's not time for that now. We're holding it in advance. Dr. Swain is author and former professor of Princeton University and Vanderbilt University. She has served on various government commissions, including the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Tennessee Advisory Committee to the US Civil Rights Commission. She graduated 5-Beta Kappa from Roanoke College and received a master's degree from Yale and her PhD from North Carolina.

(28:35)
Mr. Tyler O'Neill is a senior editor at The Daily Signal where his reporting focuses on nonprofit organizations. He previously was an editor at PJ Media and Fox News and is the author of two books.

(28:47)
Mr. Tony Perkins is the president of the Family Research Council, a nonprofit organization that advocates for family-centered policies. He's an ordained minister and previously served as the chair and vice chair of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom. Mr. Perkins has also previously served as a member of the Louisiana House of Representatives.

(29:04)
And Ms. Maya Wiley is the president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. She previously served in the civil division of the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and worked at the ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. We welcome our today's witnesses and thank them for appearing today. And if you all please stand, we will begin by swearing you in.

(29:28)
Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief so help you God?

(29:39)
Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. Thank you and you can be seated. Please know that your written testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes and we will start with Dr. Swain.

(29:55)
Just make sure you hit the microphone there, hit that button and try to stay as close to five as we can, although I won't cut you off right at five. After all, we gave Mr. Raskin 15.

Carol Swain (30:04):

Good morning, chairman, ranking member, and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today on this very important subject.

(30:17)
I am Dr. Carol M. Swain, a former tenured professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt, and I was also tenured at Princeton. I am a woman who rose from rural poverty in Southwest Virginia, earned five degrees, and built a career as a scholar of race, politics, and representation.

(30:38)
My 1993 book, Black Faces Black Interest won three national awards and was cited by the US Supreme Court. Yet, starting in 2009, I became the target of a sustained smear campaign by the Southern Poverty Law Center. An organization once respected for fighting real hate, but which I believe has become a weapon against conservatives, Christians, and dissenting voices.

(31:08)
In September 2009, I found myself in the SPLC's cross-hairs after I published an article in the Huffington Post titled Mission Creep and the Southern Poverty Law Center's Misguided Focus. I argued that the SPLC had drifted from its original mission of monitoring genuine hate groups, such as the KKK and the Neo-Nazis towards targeting mainstream conservatives, immigration reformers, and anyone challenging progressive ideas on race and immigration.

(31:48)
I specifically criticized the SPLC's attacks on figures like Lou Dobbs and organizations like the Center for Immigration Studies. I concluded my article with the line, " Rather than monitoring hate groups, the Southern Poverty Law Center has become one."

(32:07)
Within weeks of my article, the Southern Poverty Law Center retaliated. In October 2009, SPLC spokesman Mark Potok publicly labeled me as an apologist for White supremacists. This stemmed from my endorsement of a documentary film, a conversation about race directed by Craig Bodeker, which I recommended for classroom use because it offered perspectives rarely heard on university campuses.

(32:39)
This attack on me was not an isolated incident. The Southern Poverty Law Center has used guilt by association, cherry-picked quotes and fabrications to damage and destroy reputations and organizations. There was long-term professional harm to me. Offers from other universities dried up. Speaking opportunities declined. I became kryptonite in certain academic and media circles.

(33:11)
My experiences with the Southern Poverty Law Center exposed a powerful tax-exempt organization with enormous influence over media, corporations, law enforcement, and government that can kill speech and academic freedom without any meaningful accountability. The Southern Poverty Law Center's tactics, the mission creep because it's lost sight of its original purpose, guilt by association, weaponized hate labels have broader consequences. They distort public discourse and equate policy disagreements with bigotry.

(33:51)
They influence tech companies, public and private schools and federal agencies in ways that marginalize conservative and religious voices. Their smear tactics undermine individuals and organizations that are fighting for the public good. I urge this committee to examine the Southern Poverty Law Center's practices, its financial operations, its influence on government partnerships and the lack of transparency and accountability surrounding its hate group designation.

(34:27)
Real civil rights work, real civil rights work, real civil rights work requires truth telling, not retaliation against scholars who challenge orthodoxies and certainly not the alleged financing of the hate the organization claims to fight. I hope Congress will deal with the Southern Poverty Law Center appropriately. Both political parties need to address this. This is a bipartisan issue. They should use all available means to hold this organization accountable-

Carol Swain (35:00):

... to hold this organization accountable as you do or as you proclaim to do with other organizations. Let's hold everyone to the same standard. Thank you for your time and I will be ready to answer questions at the appropriate time.

Jim Jordan (35:18):

Thank you, Doctor. Mr. Perkins, you are now recognized for five minutes.

Mr. Perkins (35:23):

Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm Tony Perkins. I've served as the president of the Family Research Council here in Washington since 2003. Americans once associated Southern Poverty Law Center with fighting the Klu Klux Klan during the civil rights era. That reputation gave the SPLC enormous moral credibility. But in November of 2010, SPLC shifted its focus beyond violent groups and began targeting Christian organizations opposing efforts to redefine marriage and human sexuality. Family Research Council was among the most prominent of that first wave. In August of 2012, FRC joined Governor Mike Huckabee in supporting Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day after the company was boycotted because its leadership publicly affirmed traditional marriage.

(36:15)
Two weeks later on August 15th, LGBT activist Floyd Corkins entered FRC headquarters carrying a nine millimeter pistol, 50 rounds of ammunition, and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches. According to his later confession, his intent was to kill as many as possible and stuff the sandwiches into our mouths. As he entered the building and pulled the gun out of his backpack, our building manager, Leo Johnson, confronted him. Though seriously wounded, Leo stopped the attacker and prevented a mass casualty event. After multiple surgeries and months of rehabilitation, Leo returned to work and remains today affectionately known as Leo the hero. And he's here with us today. Leo, thank you.

(37:01)
The following day, investigators confirmed Corkins confessed to selecting FRC because of SPLC's website and hate map. Following the attack, FRC appealed publicly, privately to SPLC to remove mainstream Christian organizations from its inflammatory classifications. Those requests were rejected. The attack has cost FRC more than $6 million in security related cost. But the costs extend way beyond on act of violence. SPLC's intelligence project and associated labels became deeply influential on banks, payment processors. And technology companies increasingly relied on SPLC classifications to decide which organizations could maintain accounts, process transactions, and operate online. Around 2016, the SPLC began pressuring financial corporations and technology companies to de-platform and defund organizations that it labeled extremists.

(38:17)
Then came Charlottesville. According to the recent federal indictment, a member of the online leadership that planned Unite the Right Rally at the direction of the SPLC and helped coordinate transportation for attendees was bankrolled by SPLC. Charlottesville, don't miss this, Charlottesville was a catalytic event for SPLC. As major corporations like Apple, JPMorgan Chase aligned with SPLC contributing millions of dollars. Shortly afterwards, the coalition known as Change the Terms was formed, led by SPLC and the Center for American Progress, establishing standards that would encourage companies to deny digital access and financial infrastructure to organizations that SPLC labeled.

(39:03)
The timeline of Change the Terms closely parallels the acceleration of the efforts to debank and de-platform conservatives. FRC experiences from Truist Financial, BB&T, Fidelity Investments, GuideStar, Mobile Calls, and other technology related companies. And SPLC officials openly acknowledged this strategy before Congress. In January of 2020, SPLC official Lecia Brooks stated this, "We have lobbied internet companies one by one. A key part of this strategy has been to target these organizations' funding." Brooks continued to describe the coordinated effort to pressure technology companies and financial institutions to restrict access for organizations SPLC opposed.

(39:56)
This committee, the issue before this committee is larger than SPLC fraud. SPLC was the hub, but there are many spokes that made up this wheel designed to crush Christians and conservatives. The congressional inquiry should not stop with SPLC. In America, citizens should not lose banking services, digital platforms, public credibility, and a sense of safety because they believe in biblical marriage and sexuality. When government regulated institutions can apply ideological labels in a coordinated fashion to silence, isolate and financially cripple opponents, we have political targeting by proxy and freedom is at risk.

Jim Jordan (40:49):

Thank you, Mr. Perkins for that testimony. Leo the hero, thank you for your courage. We'll now go to Mr. O'Neil.

Mr. O'Neil (40:58):

Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin, members of the committee, I'm honored to testify before you today. I will argue that the Southern Poverty Law Center does not merely track hate, it systematically inflates it, profits from it, and according to a federal indictment, may even have helped create it. The first thing to know about the SPLC is that it has nothing to do with poverty. The Poverty Palace has an endowment, has assets of $822 million. That's more than three times the assets of the national YMCA and almost twice the sum of Planned Parenthood. That's why former employees have suggested mocking mottos for the SPLC, such as Making Hate Pay.

(41:53)
How did the SPLC become so wealthy? Co-founder Morris Dees set up a lucrative fundraising engine by suing the Ku Klux Klan into bankruptcy. When the SPLC ran out of grand dragons to slay, the center needed to find more hate to justify the fundraising. It has a financial incentive to juice the numbers. The SPLC began to publish a hate map that plots mainstream conservative and Christian groups alongside Klan chapters. The map includes Moms for Liberty, PragerU, Turning Point USA, and even Focus on the Family. The SPLC says the map reveals the infrastructure upholding white supremacy.

(42:45)
This hate map kills two birds with one stone. It silences conservative dissent from the lefts and the SPLC's agenda and it exaggerates hate to keep the money flowing. The map also includes groups that barely exist, like a Confederate memorabilia shop and a convent. In 2023, I analyzed the map and found that it exaggerated hate by at least 267% by including mainstream conservatives, double counting groups, and mentioning defunct organizations. Given this track record, is it really so farfetched to think the SPLC might be propping up some of the very white supremacist groups it claims it exists to oppose?

(43:37)
A federal grand jury indicted the SPLC on fraud charges because it had funneled $3 million to members of the Klan. The SPLC didn't deny the payments but said it was funding informants who had tipped the center off to violent threats before they happen. But that's not what allegedly happened in Charlottesville in 2017. According to the indictment, the SPLC paid an organizer and directed this person's racist postings. The indictment suggests the SPLC's involvement made Charlottesville larger than it otherwise would have been.

(44:17)
After Charlottesville, the SPLC's annual fundraising doubled. Social media companies volunteered to start silencing hate groups. CNN plastered the hate map on its website. Charlottesville was a payday for the SPLC. And this so called informant may have been the SPLC's most cunning investment. Of course, if it became known that the SPLC had paid a Charlottesville organizer, that would be a massive scandal. No wonder the SPLC allegedly lied to a bank, setting up shell companies to fund these informants. Why does this matter? SPLC staff have briefed DOJ prosecutors. Big tech companies have used the SPLC to blacklist conservative nonprofits. School districts across the country have adopted the SPLC's curriculum. Hundreds of companies systematically exclude conservatives from their charity programs because of the SPLC. The SPLC also have offshoots that engage in similar efforts against conservatives. The Change of the Terms Coalition banded together to pressure big tech to de-platform conservatives. And former SPLC staff have founded the global project against hate and extremism. If an organization can inflate threats, influence federal policy and conceal its role in allegedly fueling the very extremism it condemns, then Congress has a duty to investigate it and its offshoots.

Jim Jordan (46:04):

Thank you, Mr. O'Neil. Ms. Wiley, you're recognized for five minutes.

Ms. Wiley (46:08):

Thank you, Chairman Jordan and Ranking Member Raskin and to the entire committee for having me here today. I'd like to get right to the point. The attack on SPLC is nothing more than part of a larger, broader, coordinated attack on civil rights organizations, not-for-profits, ones that work to ensure voters can vote, that children can learn and people can live without fear. Multiracial democracy is something Americans value, but as the administration has gutted civil rights enforcement and the Supreme Court has gutted the Voting Rights Act, it is in danger. Civil rights organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center are fighting to protect all of our rights. It has done so for more than five decades. It helped bankrupt the violent white supremacist organizations, including the United Klans of America. It has brought major voting rights cases, including to secure fair representation for black voters in Alabama. And it educates the public on threats from extremist movements before those threats turn to violence.

(47:22)
Sadly, this work is critical. A San Diego mosque and the families of three brave fathers are mourning the apparently hate motivated killings from just Monday. No one should fear violence in a place of worship or anywhere else. SPLC has been targeted by extremists and their supporters for years, not because it is dangerous but because it is effective. Today it is SPLC, but in a sense we are all SPLC. I won't spend much time picking apart the preposterous criminal charges because I have complete confidence in SPLC's ability to do so in court. But all Americans, no matter our party or beliefs, should not sleep on this hearing and what is happening. Because Monday's murders at a mosque appears to be from two young people apparently espousing neo-Nazi and white supremacist hate. And they took up arms. We need to discuss hate ideologies and the groups that spread them to understand how we can prevent the kind of violence that happened on Monday.

(48:39)
Trying to distort SPLC's use of informants into some claim that engaged in manufacturing hate is not only nonsensical, it's an effort to deny that hate exists. Prosecution should never be tolerated as a weapon to silence disagreement or stop lawful activities that this administration dislikes. In the past year, we've seen countless examples of weaponization against law firms, universities, media companies, advocates of basic rights branded as domestic terrorists, important nonprofits that had their grants cut off, protestors who faced violence. The use of criminal prosecutions is consistent with this pattern. And our concern is that no organization seen as dissenting from any administration's policy, large or small, should ultimately face this kind of abuse of power. We are also concerned that some private financial companies, namely Schwab, Fidelity, and Vanguard, have joined in the administration's efforts to cut off funds that donors have asked be sent to Southern Poverty Law Center.

(49:51)
In this case, it doesn't appear that conviction is the goal. Starving the SPLC of resources, tarnishing its reputation and ultimately bullying it into compliance is more likely the point. Luckily, SPLC and civil rights organizations will not be intimidated. SPLC is continuing to fight against hate and to stand up for people's rights. It just sued the Goyim Defense League for antisemitic and racist harassment of Jewish and Black residents in Nashville. It has sued to ensure that voters in Cobb County, Georgia are getting their absentee ballots on time. And it continues to educate us about the growth of hate and extremism in this country, which even federal data has shown has doubled since 2015. It is real. The SPLC is far too busy fighting hate to manufacture it. You don't have to like or agree with all of its strategies. I wouldn't ask that. But the fact that SPLC is being criminally charged for its work only shows how much work it has to do.

(50:58)
Thank you.

Jim Jordan (51:00):

That concludes opening statements. Before going to five minute questions, the chair recognizes the ranking member for some comments.

Mr. Raskin (51:06):

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for this. I just wanted to note the very sad occasion of the passing of a distinguished former member of the House of Representatives, Barney Frank, who succumbed to his illness and died just moments ago. And so I wanted to make sure that all members knew about the passing of this great champion of civil rights and civil liberties. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back to you.

Ms. Scanlon (51:29):

Mr. Chairman, if I could just add.

Jim Jordan (51:32):

Sure.

Ms. Scanlon (51:32):

I mean, Rep Frank was obviously a huge advocate for civil rights, particularly LGBTQ rights and a big advocate for finance reform across our economic structures. So his voice will certainly be missed. Thank you.

Jim Jordan (51:50):

I would just relate what I remember about ... One of the things I remember about Representative Frank was when I first got here, this was back when the motion to recommit was actually a debate. Some of you may remember, five minute debate. And I was a freshman and for some reason leadership asked me to do the motion to recommit. Said, "Would I be willing to do the motion to recommit on a bill sponsored by Barney Frank?" And I said, "No, are you crazy?" I don't know. It was a financial service advice. I said, "I don't know the subject. Plus I've seen the guy debate. I'd rather not do that, particularly as a freshman." So he was very good at holding his own in any type of discussion or debate. And I think we all have those memories of the late representatives.

Mr. Nadler (52:32):

Mr. Chairman.

Jim Jordan (52:33):

`is recognized.

Mr. Nadler (52:35):

Barney was a great champion of all kinds of civil rights and civil liberties. I particularly remember the day in 2008 when he became the first member to offer a motion to legalize transgender, to recognize transgender people.

Jim Jordan (52:59):

Chair now recognizes the gentlemen from California.

Mr. Issa (53:03):

At the risk of piling on, we all, that served with Barney, have some fond memories. I'll just close out mine by saying from the time I was a freshman, he was very good at coming up to me and saying, "Darrell, now you're probably not going to be for this, but you should be." Or some similar ones. And on occasions it was true. And that was the thing about a incredibly smart, if you will, happy warrior at times. He wasn't always happy, but when he was and on this committee where I served with him, he was happiest when there was real debate, when he could use his wit to either change minds or at least embarrass those who had come half prepared. So yes, he will be missed. And I thank the gentlemen.

Jim Jordan (53:59):

We now move to five minute questions. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. Biggs (54:02):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Ms. Wiley, the SPLC labeled a brilliant black conservative, the woman sitting to your left, Dr. Carol Swain, a "apologist for white supremacist" simply for daring to disagree with them. Do you personally think Dr. Swain is a racist?

Ms. Wiley (54:23):

I don't know Dr. Swain. What I will say is what's important about the Southern Poverty Law Center's work-

Mr. Biggs (54:27):

I'm asking you ...

Ms. Wiley (54:28):

... is that it identify where and how we have problems.

Mr. Biggs (54:30):

I'm asking you, you're choosing not to answer. Okay. You don't know her? Have you read any of her writings?

Ms. Wiley (54:35):

I have not.

Mr. Biggs (54:36):

Okay. Dr. Swain, what was the impact of SPLC's radical just unnecessary attack on you? What was the result of that?

Carol Swain (54:49):

It actually set in motion a series of events that led to my retiring in 2017. Now there are more things that happened. But once the Southern Poverty Law Center labels a black conservative as an apologist for white supremacists, then people don't know how to process that. But I can tell you that James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal wrote a 2000 word article In Defense of Carol Swain. That's the title of the article, In Defense of Carol Swain. That helped a lot. But I think that it hurt the Southern Poverty Law Center as well because people knew that if they went after the author of a book on white nationalism ... I published with Cambridge Press in 2002 a book, The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration. They went after me and so I was-

Mr. Biggs (55:49):

You were a tenured professor Vanderbilt and Princeton-

Carol Swain (55:54):

Yes.

Mr. Biggs (55:54):

... and it impacted your career.

Carol Swain (55:56):

It definitely impacted my career.

Mr. Biggs (55:58):

Thank you for that information. So let's just cut to the chase here. SPLC is closing on an $800 million nest egg. I happen to have their 990 employees and how much they get paid, the present CEO, from this filing from 2024. $466,000 is the base salary, total with perks 522,000. And you go on down the list and when the list closed for me, I didn't see anybody making less than $285,000 per year from them. And there's a reason that Charity Watch gives SPLC and F as a charity. The organization's recent federal indictment for wire fraud alleged that it secretly took some of that money, over $3 million in donor funds, to informants tied to extremist groups like the KKK, Aryan Nations. And it only confirms what Mass Resistance has warned about for years, that the SPLC was never fighting hate, was manufacturing it to justify existence.

(57:01)
Mr. O'Neil was talking about Ison, who actually was one of the founders, who was attacking the KKK and then actually had to shift when they put them out of business because they needed money. And so then it became this mission to attack people and falsely label them and basically gin up the basic money machine that they were doing. And I want to ask you, Mr. Perkins, your team was specifically targeted by SPLC. And as a result of their targeting you for espousing traditional American and biblical values, there was actually an attempt at mass violence. Can you describe that a little bit and talk about our Leo are hero just a little bit more?

Mr. Perkins (57:58):

The gunman, who's now serving prison for domestic terrorism, came into the building with a gun. Leo, who was the building manager, was actually standing at the front, asking what he need. He pulled the semi-automatic pistol out of the backpack. He began shooting. The first round hit Leo in the arm, shattering his arm. He was still able to take him down. More shots were fired. The bullet holes remained in the walls of our building. Leo was able to disarm him and take him down and even recover the weapon. And following that, watching the footage with the FBI agents who were surveilling, it said, why did he not ... He was bleeding out. Why didn't he fire the round into Corkins to make sure that he could not come back at him? And I didn't know the answer. As a former police officer, just as the FBI said, I would have defended myself not knowing if I was going to pass out.

(58:55)
So I asked Leo when he came out of surgery that night, I went to the hospital about midnight. He came out of the hospital and my first question was, "Leo, why didn't you shoot him?" And he said, "Because God told me not to." We're not here for revenge. We're here for justice. And what they have inspired, not just to us but to those of Americans who love this country and happen to believe the Bible as a definitive way to live, they want to silence us. And I stood on the street the day after the shooting, and I'll say it again, we will not be silent. We will not shrink back. We will not apologize for biblical truth. We will continue to stand for it.

Mr. Biggs (59:38):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Jim Jordan (59:41):

Thank you. Mr. Nadler, gentlemen from New York's recognized.

Mr. Nadler (59:44):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we've heard a lot over the last few days about so called weaponization as Donald Trump rolled out his settlement slush fund to reward his friends and allies, including insurrectionists, white supremacists and others within the MAGA faithful. But this hearing is among the worst kinds of weaponization, using the power of the Judiciary Committee to further Donald Trump's personal vendetta against those who seek to hold him and his allies accountable. He has weaponized the Department of Justice to stifle dissent, attacking law firms, universities, and members of civil society that they're challenging. And now this committee is being pressed into service to join in his petty campaign of retribution. That is beneath the dignity of this committee, on which I have been proud to serve my entire career in Congress.

(01:00:37)
But since we have been called here, I want to talk about the important work that the Southern Poverty Law Center does to take on one of the most maligned forces in our society, and that is antisemitism. Unfortunately, antisemitism in America is not a relic of the past. It is a present and growing threat. The FBI has consistently documented Jewish Americans as the most targeted religious group for hate crimes year after year. We have seen it erupt into mass violence, from the massacre at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh to the attack on Poway, California. We have seen it spread through online spaces. And we have seen it increasingly seep into mainstream right-wing politics in conspiracy theories about Jewish financiers and Holocaust analogies deployed as political weapons, and in figures with well-documented ties to white supremacists ascending to positions of influence.

(01:01:33)
The Southern Poverty Law Center is on the front lines fighting antisemitism. In 2019, the SPLC won a $14 million judgment against the founder of a neo-Nazi website, The Daily Stormer, who orchestrated the full-blown doxing and harassment campaign against a local Jewish woman. She ended up getting more than 700 gruesome threats online, like being told that she should have died in a concentration camp and that she was "easy to find." Someone even posted an image of her and her 12-year-old son and their rabbi imposed on photos of the gates of Auschwitz. One of our witnesses, Mr. O'Neil, has accused the SBLC of exaggerating hate. I wonder if he thinks that the hate against this woman was exaggerated or manufactured.

(01:02:22)
Last year, the Southern Poverty Law Center filed suit against the white supremacist extremist group, Goyim Defense League, an openly anti-Semitic group that calls for the return of the Nazi Party. SPLC sued, because in 2024 the GDL launched a coordinated campaign against black and Jewish communities during a July 2024 "hate tour", in quotes, in Nashville. These neo-Nazis were marching across the city assaulting people they believed to be Jewish, harassing groups of young black children and waving swastika flags. Another one of our witnesses, Mr. Perkins, has called the SPLC, "a partisan smear machine". I certainly hope he does not believe that it is a partisan smear to call out neo-Nazis and to make them pay for assaulting Jews and harassing black children.

(01:03:16)
Fighting against neo-Nazis, neo-fascists and white supremacists is not a partisan issue. It should be very simple to reject these tenets. So why is it so hard for Republicans to call out the antisemitism we see within the current administration? President Trump has not only hosted, but also refused to condemn Nick Fuentes, a Holocaust denier and white nationalist. Meanwhile, Republicans have remained silent as the administration attempted to implement political litmus tests in order for synagogues to be deemed eligible to receive security grants, hired known antisemites like Kingsley Wilson, Ed Martin and Sebastian Gorka, and gutted the agencies charged with preventing domestic terrorism.

(01:03:59)
Lip service about fighting antisemitism rings hollow when you staff your government with people who embrace it, no matter how many task forces or advisory committees you form. And now they are coming after an organization on the front lines of fighting antisemitism and racism in all its pernicious forms. Ms. Wiley, in the time we have left, I want to turn to you. What harm does it do to the Jewish community or any targeted community when Republicans spread false information against one of the few organizations actively fighting hate crimes and tracking extremist groups?

Ms. Wiley (01:04:32):

Representative Nadler, you actually shared one of the examples I would share, which is the Goyim Defense League lawsuit. This is incredibly important for the Jewish community because antisemitism and the great replacement theory that we're seeing in so many of these ideologies that SPLC is identifying actually comes for all of us, comes for people who are black, comes for people who are transgender, comes for people who are Jewish. And one of the things in the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights was co-founded with Jewish organizations and leaders. It is part of our roots in history as a civil rights coalition. And we have several of our Jewish groups have signed a letter that has been released today and sent supporting the Southern Poverty Law Center because it even modeled some of the ways that more elevation of antisemitism could happen.

(01:05:22)
One last thing I'll point out, because the FBI was well aware of this despite the claim and the indictment. The Southern Poverty Law Center gave a 45 page event threat memo to the FBI before the Unite the Right Rally because of the program we're talking about today, identifying that there would be people there who were armed. And as we saw in what turned out in that rally, it was critically important.

Jim Jordan (01:05:48):

[inaudible 01:05:48] gentleman.

Mr. Nadler (01:05:49):

Thank you. And I yield back.

Jim Jordan (01:05:50):

Gentleman yields back. Mr. O'Neil, they had an extremist file webpage, didn't they?

Mr. O'Neil (01:05:55):

Yes.

Jim Jordan (01:05:56):

And on this webpage, they would pick out some crazy hate guy and some bad guy and he was like the extremist of the month. They'd highlight him and they would say, "Send us money to stop so-and-so." Is that right?

Mr. O'Neil (01:06:06):

Exactly.

Jim Jordan (01:06:06):

And F42 was one of the field sources, number 42, chair of some crazy hate group. Southern Poverty Law Center highlighted him on their webpage. "He's bad, he's evil, send us money." Is that right?

Mr. O'Neil (01:06:18):

Yes.

Jim Jordan (01:06:19):

Did they tell their prospective donors they were paying this guy?

Mr. O'Neil (01:06:23):

No.

Jim Jordan (01:06:24):

They didn't tell him. Did they tell him they were paying him $140,000?

Mr. O'Neil (01:06:29):

No, not to my knowledge.

Jim Jordan (01:06:30):

So they said, "Let's stop the racist even though we're paying him to be racist." That was their pitch. But they didn't tell him that, did they?

Mr. O'Neil (01:06:36):

No, they did not.

Jim Jordan (01:06:37):

Is that appropriate, Ms. Wiley?

Ms. Wiley (01:06:41):

I'm sorry, which part? Sorry.

Jim Jordan (01:06:43):

All of that. Is that appropriate to tell your donors, "This is the extremist of the month. This hateful, racist guy is really bad. Send us money," but not tell those donors who you're taking their money from that we're paying this guy $140,000. Is that appropriate?

Ms. Wiley (01:06:57):

Well, we have public reporting that over a dozen donors actually said that they-

Jim Jordan (01:07:01):

Simple question.

Ms. Wiley (01:07:02):

... spent the money as intended.

Jim Jordan (01:07:03):

Field source 42 got 140 grand from the Southern Poverty Law Center, was featured on their webpage as extremist of the year or month or whatever they call these bad guys, and they were paying him and they were gating money. Is that appropriate? Simple question.

Ms. Wiley (01:07:19):

And donors have supported it and they keep trying to send more money to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Jim Jordan (01:07:25):

No, no, no. Is that technique appropriate? That's what I'm asking.

Ms. Wiley (01:07:27):

That is not unlawful to say that people have done X, Y, Z.

Jim Jordan (01:07:32):

I didn't ask if it was lawful or unlawful. As you said earlier in your testimony, the court's going to determine that when they go to trial. What I'm asking you, is it appropriate?

Ms. Wiley (01:07:40):

As I said, the donors have spoken. And in fact, they're trying to send more money now and their financial institution's refusing to send the money.

Jim Jordan (01:07:47):

Is Alliance Defending Freedom, is that a hate group?

Ms. Wiley (01:07:51):

I don't know. I don't do designations.

Jim Jordan (01:07:53):

Well, they've argued 16 cases with the Supreme Court, won 16 cases before the Supreme Court. They stand for traditional values. Southern Poverty Law Center labeled them a hate group. Are they a hate group?

Ms. Wiley (01:08:04):

I don't know them and I don't work on the designation-

Jim Jordan (01:08:07):

Well, here's one thing-

Ms. Wiley (01:08:07):

I'm here to talk about [inaudible 01:08:08]-

Jim Jordan (01:08:08):

Let me ask you this. Is Jane's Revenge, is that a hate group? Because the ADF, they didn't firebomb anybody, but Jane's Revenge did. ADF is labeled a hate group, Jane's Revenge isn't. I want to know how you would label.

Ms. Wiley (01:08:21):

I'm not here as a person who designates groups. I'm here to talk about the impact on civil rights.

Jim Jordan (01:08:26):

Okay. Mr. O'Neil, you think any of these field sources were double dipping? I mean, during the Biden, Ray, Garland administration, the Justice Department paid a bunch of confidential human sources, a bunch of them. We know a bunch of them were at the Capitol on January 6th, four went in the Capitol. And I'm just wondering if the same entity, the Justice Department under President Biden, paying these confidential human sources who was working with the Southern Poverty Law Center, having quarterly meetings with them, consulting with them, giving the FBI data before anyone else could see it, having them train their prosecutors. I'm just wondering, do you think it was out of the realm of possibility that the Justice Department was paying the same sources the SPLC was paying?

Mr. O'Neil (01:09:14):

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility. I have no information or knowledge that they were double dipping. I would say that Steven J. Ross, who is author of the Secret War Against Hate, which is about the history of informants that Jewish groups had placed in some of these violent groups back decades and decades before the SPLC ever existed, he said that neither the ADL nor the American Jewish Committee nor the Anti-Nazi League did anything like highlighting informants online as in extremist profiles while also funding them.

Jim Jordan (01:09:50):

Yeah. Last question I'll come to you, Mr. Perkins. In your opening statement, you talked about how it was just worse than the SPLC because how they've put themselves out there or become the standard of help from the government-

Jim Jordan (01:10:00):

They put themselves out there or become the standard of help from the government, I think, and becoming the source of the standard on evaluating and determining what groups are hate groups, what groups aren't. But it's bigger and broader, it has things. But I think the real thing here is how closely they worked with the government to carry out what they were trying to do. And the reason the Biden administration embraced them, I think, so fully was politics, simple politics. You agree?

Mr. Perkins (01:10:27):

Well, there are members of this committee that were endorsed by SPLC. They had a C4 was involved in elections. They were not just an umpire. They were a player on the field as well. So how can they be objective in determining who is a purveyor of hate and who is not? I mean, they had a stake in this. But to your point about their engagement with government, it goes much further than the federal government and the FBI and the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense, which their material was in briefing to the members of the military. But they also continue to have their learning for justice, which is about 500,000 educators across America and bulletins to local law enforcement. And I happen to know because the agency I was with, the sheriff called me and said, "Hey, we got a bulletin that says you're a part of a hate group." And he was laughing.

Jim Jordan (01:11:22):

Yep.

Mr. Perkins (01:11:23):

But that is the reach that they've had. This is the hub. They're the hub, but they're spokes that go out and-

Jim Jordan (01:11:30):

No, I think that's an appropriate metaphor. My time has expired with that. I recognize the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Johnson (01:11:36):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. O'Neill, have you ever heard the name Michael Donald?

Mr O'Neil (01:11:45):

I have, yes. I'm very familiar with the case.

Mr. Johnson (01:11:48):

How about you, Mr. Perkins?

Mr. Perkins (01:11:50):

No.

Mr. Johnson (01:11:51):

You don't know? You've never heard of him? How about you, Dr. Swain?

Dr. Swain (01:11:57):

No.

Mr. Johnson (01:11:57):

You've never heard of Michael Donald before?

Dr. Swain (01:11:59):

I'm not sure.

Mr. Johnson (01:12:02):

You cut your mic on.

Dr. Swain (01:12:05):

I'm not sure, but maybe if you give a little more information.

Mr. Johnson (01:12:10):

He was the 19-year-old African American Black boy down in Mobile, Alabama. He's the son of Beulah Mae and David Donald, the youngest of six children. He was in community college at the time while working part-time for a local newspaper. And on March 21st of 1981, he was lynched. You've never heard of that before?

Dr. Swain (01:12:52):

No, I have not. I don't recall it.

Mr. Johnson (01:12:53):

Then you do not know then that the SPLC was responsible for filing a lawsuit against the United Klans of America whose members were responsible for lynching Michael Donald. You did not know that the SPLC had sued along with Beulah Mae Donald-

Dr. Swain (01:13:17):

I have probably-

Mr. Johnson (01:13:18):

And received or obtained a judgment that ran the United Klans of America out of business. You weren't aware of that?

Dr. Swain (01:13:26):

I was totally aware of it. In fact, I used-

Mr. Johnson (01:13:28):

Okay. Well, let me ask you this. Let me ask you this. If you were aware of that, you know that they have been effective since then in running a number of Ku Klux Klan organizations out of business through lawsuits, correct?

Dr. Swain (01:13:45):

In my-

Mr. Johnson (01:13:45):

You're aware of it, Mr. O'Neill, aren't you?

Mr O'Neil (01:13:47):

Yes. I'm actually very aware of that case. Because the SPLC edged out Beulah McDonald's who wanted to make a video about it.

Mr. Johnson (01:13:56):

Hold on. Hold on now. You've said that Charlottesville was a catalytic moment or a fundraising moment, both of you all have said, for the Southern Poverty Law Center. You're aware of the fact that the Southern Poverty Law Center actually forwarded to the FBI information about Charlottesville before it even happened. Before Donald Trump said that the Ku Klux Klassman down there and anti- Jewish folks, antisemites were good people. You were aware of the fact that SPLC provided information to the FBI about that. Isn't that correct, Ms. Wiley?

Ms. Wiley (01:14:43):

That is correct.

Mr. Johnson (01:14:44):

And they have been very effective at suing organizations antisemitism, anti-racism. They have been a thorn in the side of the racist who I'm sure sat up in their graves. Robert E. Lee, Nathan Bedford Forrest, the former Confederate General, founder of the Klu Klux Klan and others, Stonewall Jackson, I'm sure that they stood up in their graves and saluted when Trump was elected and when he took office because on the first day he eliminated all federal efforts to remedy the impact of slavery and racism in America. They call it DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Trump has tried to stop that and the United States Supreme Court has gone along with him in ending enforcement or the ability to enforce the Voting Rights Act, which is one of the ways that you, Ms. Dr. Swain, were able to get the right to vote. I don't understand it Ms. Wiley.

Ms. Wiley (01:16:00):

May I respond?

Mr. Johnson (01:16:01):

Can you tell me why it is that folks today are claiming that we have no racism in America and the only extremism we have is through left wing groups like the SPLC and they're targeting the SPLC. Can you tell us why?

Ms. Wiley (01:16:23):

We've just seen an outright attack on all the gains of the civil rights movement for the past 60 years. And I can only say that I will never be able to explain it, but at a time when hate crimes have doubled in this country, gone up 100% since 2015, where the rise in antisemitism, the rise in hate against transgender people, Black people still remain the number one largest racial group subject to hate crimes that we have to talk about racism, transphobia, all of the violence that too many of our communities are experiencing and no one including any of the groups here should experience violence.

Mr. Issa (01:17:03):

In truth, I think the gentleman's time has expired. With that we go to the gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock. I thank the gentlemen.

Mr. McClintock (01:17:13):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Eric Hoffer famously observed that every great cause becomes a movement that becomes a business that becomes a racket. I think that sums up precisely the matter before us today. SPLC is a private organization. They have a right to speak and influence the public policy discussion. No one questions that. What they do to malign innocent groups like Turning Point USA and Family Research Council and others is despicable and hateful, but that's freedom of speech. But freedom of speech does not include the right to defraud donors. It does not include the right to commit bank fraud. Those are the allegations in the grand jury indictment.

(01:17:57)
We've got a legal system that I trust will sort those charges out and it also doesn't include the right to slander and we have good laws and civil courts to hold them accountable for defamation. So that leaves two legislative concerns. First is this, the civil rights movement of which SPLC was once apart had made great progress in uniting our country and marginalizing racist ideology and dramatically reducing racial strife between the 1950s and the 1990s. But over the past several decades, that progress seems to have reversed. In recent years, we've watched our country torn apart by growing racial strife.

(01:18:38)
And the allegation of the heart of this matter is that the SPLC was covertly fanning these flames for their own financial gain. A significant flashpoint, of course, was the Charlottesville riots, which had fatal results. And I do need to call out the ranking member for deliberately perpetuating the Democrat's dishonest claim that Donald Trump praised the Nazis at Charlottesville when he said there were, quote, "very fine people on both sides." What the ranking member knows but chose to leave out is that Trump then said, "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists because they should be condemned totally." Unquote. Ranking member knows this and the fact that he perpetuated that today speaks for itself.

Mr. Johnson (01:19:22):

Mr. Chairman, I ask if the gentleman's words be taken down.

Mr. McClintock (01:19:26):

Now we have the-

Mr. Issa (01:19:27):

The gentleman will suspend. What purpose does the gentleman interrupt?

Mr. Johnson (01:19:31):

I ask that the gentleman's words be taken down.

Mr. McClintock (01:19:36):

Which words does the gentleman-

Mr. Issa (01:19:37):

Which words are you referring to?

Mr. Johnson (01:19:38):

Well, he mentioned twice that the ranking member misled, deceived and lied to this committee.

Mr. McClintock (01:19:50):

I didn't use the word "deceive." I didn't use the word "lied."

Mr. Issa (01:19:55):

Would both gentlemen please suspend? Would the recording clerk read back verbatim that passage is being referred to?

Mr. Johnson (01:20:06):

Both times.

Mr. Issa (01:20:11):

There's only one chair here. I'll take just one of them, it'll be fine.

Mr. Johnson (01:20:15):

I think we need-

Mr. Issa (01:20:16):

The gentleman will suspend.

Mr. Johnson (01:20:18):

To put it in context, Mr. Chairman, we got to have both uttering-

Mr. Issa (01:20:23):

The gentleman will suspend.

Speaker 2 (01:20:39):

I do need to call out the ranking member for-

Mr. Issa (01:20:46):

We can't hear you. I'm sorry. Okay. Just as loud as you could, please.

Speaker 2 (01:20:54):

I need to call out the raven member for deliberating perpetuator [inaudible 01:20:56].

Ms. Wiley (01:20:55):

I need to call out... Go ahead, I'll...

Speaker 2 (01:20:55):

"Ranking member for deliberately perpetuating..."

Ms. Wiley (01:21:06):

Deliberately perpetuating...

Speaker 2 (01:21:09):

"The..."

Ms. Wiley (01:21:25):

The... Deliberately perpetuating.

Speaker 2 (01:21:29):

"The Democrats dishonest claim..."

Ms. Wiley (01:21:31):

The Democrat's dishonest claim.

Speaker 2 (01:21:33):

"That Donald Trump praised..."

Ms. Wiley (01:21:34):

That Donald Trump praised.

Speaker 2 (01:21:35):

"The Neo-Nazis."

Ms. Wiley (01:21:36):

The Neo-Nazis.

Mr. Issa (01:21:37):

Thank you. Is that the passage or one of the two times that you're referring to?

Mr. Johnson (01:21:43):

Yeah. That's the first passage.

Mr. Issa (01:21:44):

Excellent. Just one moment then, please. The chairman's prepared to rule. Although we would prefer that all people speak only to the facts and not to the previous statements of either side, it does not violate the rules of decorum to have an opinion as to the veracity of the other person's statement with that. I thank the gentlemen, but Mr. I will not take down the lines.

Mr. Johnson (01:22:23):

Mr. Chairman, the second statement is the one that I ask then that the words be taken down. It's only proper that we hear the second-

Mr. Issa (01:22:36):

Okay. If the gentleman will suspend, I'll be patient. Could you please read or please read the second one and tell me, is there a difference?

Mr. Johnson (01:22:49):

What's my request if I disagree with the ruling?

Speaker 2 (01:22:56):

What the ranking member knows but chose to leave out.

Ms. Wiley (01:23:00):

What the ranking member knows but chose to leave out.

Speaker 2 (01:23:01):

Is that Trump then said...

Ms. Wiley (01:23:01):

"Is that Trump then said..."

Speaker 2 (01:23:05):

"I'm not talking about the Neo-Nazis."

Ms. Wiley (01:23:08):

I'm not talking about the Neo-Nazis.

Speaker 2 (01:23:09):

"Or white nationalists."

Ms. Wiley (01:23:09):

Or white nationalists.

Speaker 2 (01:23:12):

Because they should be condemned totally.

Mr. McClintock (01:23:13):

Same thing.

Ms. Wiley (01:23:13):

Because they should be condemned totally.

Mr. Issa (01:23:14):

Thank you.

Mr. Johnson (01:23:15):

Mr. Chairman-

Mr. Issa (01:23:17):

The gentleman will suspend. Having heard both of these and understanding them in context, they meet the requirement within decorum. Again, the chair would caution individuals whenever possible to refer to the specifics and not to the testimony or the statements of either side. However, in context, it was not a violation for which the words may be taken down. And with that, the gentleman from California may continue.

Mr. Johnson (01:23:47):

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Issa (01:23:50):

It is a gentleman's time. I will hear your parliamentary question after the conclusion of his-

Mr. Johnson (01:23:56):

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Issa (01:23:58):

The gentleman will continue.

Mr. Johnson (01:23:58):

Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Point of order.

Mr. Issa (01:24:01):

The gentleman will state his point of order.

Mr. Johnson (01:24:05):

Is it within the rules-

Mr. Issa (01:24:07):

That is not how you state a point of order. State your point of order.

Mr. Johnson (01:24:12):

My point of order is it's incorrect for the chair of the committee to not hear argument on a motion.

Mr. Issa (01:24:24):

Gentlemen, if you're considering it a point of order, an answer to the point of order, an answer to point of order, a motion to have words taken down, the words speak for themselves. The gentlemen had them heard. I'm aware of what they were and I've made my ruling. The gentleman, I thank him for his point of order. We now go to the gentleman from California and I would ask that it be reset back to two minutes and we'll conclude with three minutes or three minutes remaining, please.

Mr. McClintock (01:24:55):

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'm reminded of that old movie line, "The gentleman can't handle the truth." Now we have the revelation that the SPLC paid the chief organizer of this Unite the Right Riot. $270,000 while he was recruiting agitators and posting inflammatory rhetoric. And to learn that this was part of more than $3 million in such payments to such extremist groups begs the question of whether the SPLC was financing the very extremist groups, it was assuring donors was fighting with their contributions. The terrible attack on the mosque in San Diego on Monday was inspired by neo-Nazi propaganda. Was this surreptitiously financed by the SPLC or similar NGOs or perhaps even foreign governments? That's a legitimate concern and one that we need to fully explore.

(01:25:54)
The second legislative concern is that during the Biden administration, the attorney general and the FBI director told this committee that white supremacist groups were the greatest single threat that our country faced. The SPLC was one of the primary sources of this testimony. Was this an attempt to mislead Congress? And were the officials responsible for this testimony, victims of misinformation by the SPLC or were they active participants in this deception? I think we need to get to the bottom of that as well. Now, Dr. Swain, you detailed the smear campaign against you that obviously caused you reputational damage and financial loss. Mr. Perkins, your organization suffered both financial loss and actual violence. Why haven't you sued the SPLC?

Mr. Perkins (01:26:45):

Partly because information was not available as is now coming forth. We did talk to some attorneys initially about the violence that was perpetrated, but because of really the... There were other suits that were brought against the SPLC, but their image was so strong until now that it was very difficult. We had suits that were brought in court that did not succeed. I think it's a different day now and I think you may see some civil actions.

Mr. McClintock (01:27:19):

I would certainly hope so. Mr. O'Neil, is it possible the SPLC is not the only source of funds going to these extremist groups? Is it possible they're financed by other NGOs or even foreign governments? What reforms would you recommend?

Mr O'Neil (01:27:33):

It is possible, but I have no knowledge of that. What I know are the allegations claimed in the indictment, but I would highly encourage Congress to consider adding to any rider of financial disbursements that no taxpayer funds be directed to an organization that systematically slanders and defames mainstream conservatives and Christians, or frankly, those on the other side of the aisle in the way that the SPLC does. Thank you.

Dr. Swain (01:28:09):

May I answer the question about why I haven't sued the Southern Poverty Law Center?

Mr. Issa (01:28:14):

If that's a question, I'll allow you to briefly answer if you would.

Dr. Swain (01:28:18):

Because I didn't have the financial resources. There's no way I could go up against an organization that had the types of resources as the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Mr. Issa (01:28:29):

The gentleman yields back. We now go to the ranking member of the full committee, gentlemen from Maryland, Mr. Raskin, for his questions.

Jamie Raskin (01:28:37):

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Just a footnote to that recent contraton. I was not remotely offended by what the gentleman from California said because I'm used to having all of my points misstated by him regularly. It was interesting he said that I had accused the president of praising the Ku Klux Klan and the neo-Nazis. I never said that. I said he just made himself perfectly clear when he said there were very fine people on both sides. The fact that you can find him contradicting himself immediately thereafter and in other subsequent statements is just a reflection of how Donald Trump speaks. Sometimes China is his biggest enemy in the world and we was over in China that he loved President Xi and he adored him and they're great friends and so on. So that's Donald Trump. But I can't imagine any other president in American history finding very fine people on both sides of an antisemitic race attack like the on that led to the death of Heather Hyer.

(01:29:28)
So I stand completely by what I said before and I reject completely your insinuation that I've misrepresented the reality. All I did was quote Donald Trump's own words. Ms. Wiley... Oh, and I'll say one other thing. Very fine people on both sides. To people in Charlottesville, that was a very painful thing. My sister and her family happened to live in Charlottesville. The Ku Klux Klan and the neo-Nazis gathered at the local synagogue. That's where they kicked off their attack on Jews and African Americans in Charlottesville. So some people might be able to roll their eyes at that and say, "Oh, well, later he read a statement that his staff wrote for him saying that he denounces racist violence, but he made himself perfectly clear." Ms. Wiley, have you heard any of these witnesses today cite any evidence that anybody was deceived or defrauded by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is the whole heart of this attack on them? Did you hear one iota of evidence being offered that anybody was deceived or defrauded?

Ms. Wiley (01:30:33):

I have not. And we know as a matter of fact that donors continue to try to send money to the Southern Poverty Law Center and being blocked by-

Jamie Raskin (01:30:42):

In fact, haven't dozens of them stood up to say, "No, they weren't defrauded in any way." That's why they're supporting the Southern Poverty Law Center because they've been so effective in going undercover to blow the cover on these racist anti-semitic plots.

Ms. Wiley (01:30:56):

Yes. And I just want to note that and because there was a representation made about the SPLC that it worked with the Donald Trump Department of Justice providing information from its informant program in the first Trump administration. So that's why we were so concerned to hear that denial that they had knowledge that the acting attorney general had to retract. This is something that should concern all Americans because no Department of Justice should be behaving this way.

Jamie Raskin (01:31:29):

Yeah. Well, you know the not for-profit sector very well. It seems like now one of the lines of attack against the SPLC is that the people who work there make too much money. I just went online and checked out some of the salaried executives of the right-wing groups that we're not having a hearing about today like the NRA. Wayne Le Pierre was making $1.2 million when he was there. You could look at the Heritage Foundation, which in 2023 paid its president $953,000. I think three times what they're talking about there. I imagine being the CEO of the Southern Poverty Law Center is a lot more dangerous than being the president of the Heritage Foundation. Just very quickly on that, is there anything to this the idea that the work of the Southern Poverty Law Center should be trashed and derided and dismissed because the people who go to work there in Alabama are being paid too much money?

Ms. Wiley (01:32:30):

Well, certainly not. And I think the point is the way in which the Southern Poverty Law Center is providing free legal services. For example, to a Black community that has developers coming for land and they won't benefit from the land for food assistance programs to make sure that a mother who has a disabled child, five years old, is getting the disability services the law requires. That is what is happening with donations as well. And we are not talking enough about the work that civil rights organizations do, including SPLC that are-

Jamie Raskin (01:33:06):

Well, let's talk about that because to listen to some of your co-panelists there, you'd think that there is no extremist hate violence taking place. What about the AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, where Dylan Roof, who was charged up on white supremacy, went out and killed nine people. How about the Tree of Life Synagogue, the worst antisemitic attack in American history where Robert Bowers, who was consumed with white genocide replacement theory, which we hear from even more mainstream conservative groups killed 11 people. Is racist violence in fact some kind of myth made up by the Southern Poverty Law Center?

Ms. Wiley (01:33:42):

No, and the government's own data demonstrates that. But also if you look at-

Mr. Issa (01:33:47):

Gentle lady can answer the question but not go on beyond that. The gentleman's time has expired.

Ms. Wiley (01:33:52):

Thank you.

Mr. Issa (01:33:53):

Thank you. We now go to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Cline.

Mr. Cline (01:33:58):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you holding this hearing. The information that has come out in this indictment is truly disturbing. My district is adjacent to the district that includes Charlottesville. Many of my constituents have family in Charlottesville. Many of my constituents work in Charlottesville, and to see that... Let me ask you, Mr. O'Neil. The SPLC explicitly stated that they sought donations under the auspices that donor money would be used to help dismantle violent extremist groups by funding F9... No. F37, who was a member of the online leadership chat group that planned the 2017 Unite the Right Event in Charlottesville and attended the event at the direction of the SPLC. Is that helping to dismantle these organizations?

Mr O'Neil (01:35:02):

No. I would say the SPLC in subsequent filings did mention two cases where they claim information from these informants, these field sources led to federal prosecutions. So I think that is important context to add.

Mr. Cline (01:35:23):

Thank you. I want to continue to inquire about this funding. Given the SPLC's track record of partisanship and its direct link to real world violence, why did the FBI and DOJ during the Biden and Harris administration maintain a close relationship with the SPLC?

Mr O'Neil (01:35:45):

Yeah, my understanding is that the SPLC's bias and targeting of mainstream conservative and Christian groups aligned very strongly with the Biden DOJ and the Biden White House's preferences. And that's why in my second book, The Woketopus, I go through all of the ways in which the Biden administration solicited information on the domestic terror threat from the Southern Poverty Law Center, how we have this alignment with demonizing concerned moms and dads that happen consistently. And of course, when the SPLC released the hate map that included chapters of Moms for Liberty for the very first time, putting moms and dads who are concerned about their kids' education on a map with the Klan, they first gave an embargoed copy to their allies at the Civil Rights Division in the DOJ.

Mr. Cline (01:36:40):

So the SPLC got special treatment, direct access to high ranking officials in the Civil Rights Division, early access to FBI hate crime data and invitations to exclusive events with DOJ leadership during the Biden and Harris administration?

Mr O'Neil (01:36:54):

Correct. In fact, they had one of their staffers by the name of RG Cravens who spoke before DOJ prosecutors. This is the same man who when the Southern Poverty Law Center put Focus on the Family on the hate map last year, he defended putting Focus on the Family on the hate map by saying that it is both false and dangerous for conservative Christians to hold to biblical morality against the claims of the LGBTQ movement.

Mr. Cline (01:37:25):

And in October of this year, FBI Director Patel terminated the FBI's relationship with the SPLC. What was the nature of the relationship prior to the termination? You discussed that. Isn't it true that the FBI relied on the SPLC's hate group designation when determining which extremist groups to monitor?

Mr O'Neil (01:37:44):

Yes. Specifically in the notorious memo from the FBI's Richmond office, which was coordinated with other FBI offices, they cited the SPLC's list of radical traditional Catholic hate groups. Interestingly, that's where my anecdote about a convent comes from and one of those organizations on that list no longer existed and didn't exist at the time.

Mr. Cline (01:38:11):

Can you talk a little bit more about that FBI memo related to the Catholics in Richmond?

Mr O'Neil (01:38:17):

Yes. So this memo was released by whistleblowers. It was not meant to be publicly disseminated and only after a whistleblower released the memo did the FBI, the national office, publicly come out and say that it didn't meet the FBI's standards. I'd say that's an understatement. It just took the SPLC's list of radical traditional Catholic hate groups verbatim and put it into the FBI's language in the memo. For background, this is a list of radical traditional Catholic groups that is extremely outdated according to my sources and that was developed by Heidi Beirich, who now is leading the global project against hate and extremism. She's no longer even at the SBLC. It's truly shocking. Thank you for being here. I yield back.

Jim Jordan (01:39:05):

Gentlemen yields back. The chair now recognized the gentleman from California.

Ms. Lofgren (01:39:10):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know there's a talk of the Department of Justice's vindictive prosecutions of SPLC. I just want to remind us all of something else that the Trump DOJ just did. On April 14th this year, exactly a week before it targeted SPLC, DOJ asked the federal court to vacate the convictions, convictions of dozens of leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. Now, who are the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers? Both are far right organizations that spout Islamophobic misogynistic and white nationalist ideologies and both happen to be on SPLC's watch list. Both groups and others like them took up arms for Donald Trump and attacked the Capitol on January 6th. I'd like to ask unanimous consent to put into the record two articles about the January 6th rioters and their later crimes.

(01:40:14)
People forget what happened in the weeks before January 6th and December of 2020, yet another pro Trump rally. They rioted in the streets of DC vandalized historically Black churches, white nationalists supporting Donald Trump vandalizing African American places of worship right here in the Capitol. For their crimes leading up to and on January 6th, these individuals, including Enrique Tarrio, Stuart Rhodes and many others were convicted of seditious conspiracy and other felonies and sentenced to more than 100 years in prison collectively. Now, Donald Trump unleashed over 1500 criminals on our streets, some of who have gone on to commit kidnapping, sexual assault, burglary, death threats against elected officials and now the department is trying to erase their guilt permanently and ensure they cannot be recharged.

(01:41:12)
SPLC has been tracking these groups for years long before January 6th and designated them and others like them as hate groups. SPLC has continued to call out these groups for the danger they pose to our communities and our democracy. The label has upset these groups so much that Gavin McInnes, the founder of Proud Boys, who describes himself as a Western chauvinist and said, "Muslims are stupid," sued the SPLC in 2019 for defamation for designating them as a hate group and that lawsuit failed. Ms. Wally, you've described the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers as the foot soldiers of January 6th. In your opinion, is documenting and naming these groups part of the reason why SPLC is now being punished by the Trump administration?

Ms. Wiley (01:42:04):

Well, sadly because of the pattern of behavior and weaponization that we have seen, it's hard not to conclude that, particularly because of exactly the point you just raised, Representative Lofgren, that we're seeing pardoning of violence and violent insurrection from January 6th.

Ms. Lofgren (01:42:23):

Now, what does it say about this administration that is prosecuting the group that helped end the Klan, but apparently intending to give taxpayer money to violent white nationalists who vandalized Black churches and the capital alike through this so called settlement fund on a lawsuit that was bogus and barred by the statute of limitations? That's what this administration is. Donald Trump rewarding his foot soldiers for assaulting and beating up law enforcement in his name to the tunes of billions of dollars and punishing their common enemy, the organization that monitors and calls out their crime.

(01:43:05)I'd like to note that this isn't about just coddling the criminals who tried to overthrow the government and who attacked police officers viciously, and I would add, were convicted in courts of law by juries of their peers as the constitution provides, but also an effort perhaps to make sure that when a call goes out to violent extremists, to overturn the government, to attack violently the government again, that those extremists will knew a couple of things. One, that the president will pardon them for their crimes and two, that the president will reward them