SPLC Wants Indictment Thrown Out For “Vindictive Prosecution”
“latest manifestation of a top-down, retributive campaign in which [Trump] directed his Justice Department to go after those individuals and groups he deemed his political enemies, including the SPLC”
We have previously covered the indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in great detail:
- DOJ Alleges Southern Poverty Law Center Funneled $3 Million to White Hate Groups
- We discovered 15 years ago SPLC was “creating fictitious hate so that they could then fundraise off of it”
- SPLC – The Racial Arsonist Fundraised Off The Fire
- SPLC False Flag Operations Reminiscent of Tactics Used Against Tea Party
- Karma: SPLC Tried To Cut Off “Hate List” Groups From Fidelity Charitable, Now It’s Cut Off
- SPLC Fundraised Off Of Charlottesville, Didn’t Disclose Its Role
The latest development is that SPLC has filed a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment for Vindictive Prosecution, focused very heavily on public statements from Trump and others in his administration both before and after the indictment.
From the Motion:
President Trump’s triumphant statement on April 24, 2026, three days after an indictment was unsealed against the Southern Poverty Law Center (“the SPLC”), was the latest manifestation of a top-down, retributive campaign in which he directed his Justice Department to go after those individuals and groups he deemed his political enemies, including the SPLC.
To carry out the President’s directive, others in the Administration targeted the SPLC, which now faces criminal charges for exercising its First Amendment right to identify, report on, and criticize extremist hate groups. The Administration has falsely accused the SPLC of being “anti-Christian,” of aiding the Biden Administration’s “weaponization” of the Department of Justice, of participating in political violence, and, most recently, of helping to “rig” the 2020 election against President Donald Trump. These examples of this Administration’s animus over the past year culminated in the criminal charges against the SPLC—an indictment premised on conclusory accusations but devoid of provable facts or a proper statement of the law….
Then, after praising the indictment his Justice Department handed him, President Trump went further. He publicly proclaimed the improper political motive behind the case, branding the SPLC a “Democrat Hoax, along with Act Blue and many others” and claimed that when the allegations are proven “the 2020 Presidential Election should be permanently wiped from the books and be of no further force or effect!” 2 President Trump doubled down on these farcical claims on a nationally televised 60 Minutes interview a few days later. He falsely proclaimed that the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia “was all funded by the Southern [Poverty] Law [Center].”3 President Trump asserted that the SPLC had funded this “total fake” event “to make me look bad.”4 The SPLC’s efforts, according to the President, were “a part of the rigging of the [2020] election.”5
The President’s laid-bare admissions of the true purpose of the charges against the SPLC are not the only evidence of his improper use of criminal charges against one of his perceived adversaries…..
This is the very definition of a vindictive prosecution. The Court should dismiss the indictment as a violation of due process. In the alternative, the SPLC requests that the Court order the government to provide discovery on these issues to develop a complete factual record of the government’s motivations and schedule an evidentiary hearing.
It’s a long shot, but criminal defendants have to take long shots.
=======================
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
ahahah
they are guilty of their crimes
destroy the communistnazi leftists asap asap asap
I am still curious about the 10’s of millions they stashed offshore in the Cayman Island under various shell companies.
“Vindictive prosecution” says the hive of vindictiveness and villainy …
Project much, SPLC?
Hey, anybody notice how this heretofore unheard of term is suddenly getting great play from leftists? Like the new memo is out from Marc Elias to his minions?
SPLC is a “vindictive prosecution,”
Maryland Man’s indictment for trafficking illegals is a “vindictive prosecution.”
Trump’s THREE SIMULTANEOUS lawsuits? Not vindictive at all!
You cannot hate the leftist judiciary enough.
“Vindictive prosecution” = lawfare, as well as the hoaxes, repeated lies, fabrications and projection, all Democrat specialties and SOP.
Tell me about vindictive prosecution after the FBI goes through your wife’s underwear drawer.
accuse your adversary of that which you are doing.
vindictive prosecution is the defense de jure. Unfortunately, a lot of leftists judges will eat it up.
U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw in Nashville, Tennessee, is the federal judge who dismissed the human smuggling case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia . Note that he is an Obama appointee.
Okay. Let’s determine whether they are correct. Let’s open up their books, all their books. Let’s look at their email, all their emails. Let’s look at their phones especially text messages. If what they are accused of isn’t true according to the revealed communications than they are correct. I’m sure they will aid and abet this determination. They have nothing to hide, right?
How dare you accuse a black man! /sarc
They don’t seem to be denying that it’s true. They’re denying Trump’s over-the-top public statements, but not the actual crimes they’re accused of. Instead they’re saying those aren’t crimes because they were done for good motives, or some such nonsense, and that the DOJ shouldn’t be allowed to prosecute them for actual crimes just because Trump hates them. If only all the J6 defendants could have argued that, let alone Trump, Bannon, etc. Having the president hate you should be a free pass to commit any crimes you like, apparently.
Federal District Court of the Middle District of Alabama…..Good luck getting the case dismissed!
I should add, if the case get to discovery, SPLC and many of its major donors are going to get uncomfortable.
Have the SPLC attorneys shopped their liberal judge yet?
middle district of alabama
3 trump appointed judges
2 bush appointees
1 carter appointee on senior status.
the odds of a leftist judge are small
That looks like 50/50 to me.
Why should they be excused if they are doing something wrong?
This should not be a discreet defense, but a part, a notice that reimbursement will be required of costs necessary to defend upon vindication.
And then there is the question of clean hands that may preclude equity.
Yup. State up front you’ll pursue a claim of “vindictive prosecution” should you be acquitted. The “not guilty” verdict in the criminal trial, combined with a showing of “vindictiveness” will be considered sufficient proof to sustain the claim, awarding attorney’s fees and actual & punitive damages, as if the prosecution has lost a civil suit.
Some of Trump’s supporters who were put through the mill could have benefitted from a rule like this. I have no problem with the SPLC benefitting from such a rule so long as it applies to all defendants in criminal cases. Prosecutors shouldn’t have a free pass to wreck someone or something when pursuing a case they fail to prove.
Very interesting/good points, particularly invoking clean hands to forestall equity issues/claims.
That is rich. But it’s no surprise, the Communists always accuse you of the things of which they are already guilty. The only reason for the existence of the splc is law fair
What did Trump and his friends/coworkers go through for four years if not “vindictive prosecution”? Pot, meet kettle.
.
Of course Trump is going after his enemies…. when they violate the law. Maybe if they hadn’t been so vocal in their hatred of all things Trump, in all people to the right of Stalin, they wouldn’t have drawn attention.
They certainly know a thing about lawfare now don’t they?
Thats all that liberal outfit has ever done now they squeal like pig when its their turn in the barrel.
I believe “vindictive” prosecution is a novel outlook on the law. I believe dozens of lawyers for Trump have been hounded, disbarred and near ruined because they presented a novel outlook on election law. Just sayin
When you lead with that instead of actual reasons to dismiss the case eh 🙄
Then again, they are probably banking on a reliable Democrat judge to bail them out so make sense.
I think they’re actually preparing a predicate for a defense at trial, hoping the failure of this motion will cause at least one juror to have reasonable doubt and prevent a conviction.
If this were a civil action, a lawsuit for damages, their strategy would be different.
Isn’t that term an oxymoron? Vindictive comes from vindicate. Vindicate means to clear someone of blame or suspicion, or to prove that a criticized idea, action, or theory is right and valid.
No, “vindictive” and “vindicate” are not the same..
“Vindictive” means “vengeful, spiteful, rancorous”, from the Latin “vindicta”, which means vengeance.
“Vindicate” comes from “vindicare”, to lay claim to one’s rightful property
At least they didn’t call it frivolous, like their motion to dismiss.
How interesting. And here I’d always thought that the fundamental question was, “Is the accused party guilty of the crime?”
I had no idea that if I just told the Judge that the Cop who arrested for bank robbery was a ol’ meanie who hated me I’d get to go free.
We are being denied due process with conclusory allegations and denial of first amendment protection sayeth SPLC.
The very definition of due process is the ability to petition the court with a motion to dismiss filled with conclusory statements and dismissing the first amendment rights of the president to comment on the indictment.
Is there really such a defense as “vindictive prosecution”?! And if there is, and you can prove it by statements like the ones cited, how did all the ridiculous prosecutions of the Biden years proceed?
On the other hand, Trump needs to learn keep his mouth shut. Especially when he is so inexact with facts, as he almost always is. He treats facts as if they don’t matter, and he can just make them up as he pleases, and it always comes back to bite him in the bum. Now they’re citing statements he made, some of which are obviously and patently false, but none of which should matter. But he’s given them something to argue, for no benefit. He’s risking a perfectly good prosecution by boasting about it, and boasting about it without paying attention to the facts.
For instance the statement that the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia “was all funded by the SPLC” and that it was a “total fake” event “to make me look bad”, is just objectively false. It goes so far beyond the facts that they’re not even on the same map. The fact is that one of the organizers of the rally was secretly an SPLC informer. One out of many. And there’s nothing in the indictment showing that they contributed one cent to the rally, let alone that they planned it to make Trump look bad.
The fact is that the rally was a genuine event, and the fact that the SPLC had a paid agent on the inside doesn’t change that. It’s like saying that because Israel has paid informers within Hizballah, which obviously it does, it has therefore funded the rockets that rain down on Israel.
The SPLC indictment speaks on its own, and makes a fair case against it, but Trump is not helping.
Under what legal theory can a defendant get the charges dismissed because the chief executive opines about the case in the media? If this is the law then surely every mayor, governor, Potus etc gets briefed on what he cannot say in public without freeing a suspect.
Executives’ public statements are evidence of the motive for prosecution. Such as how we knew Al Bragg’s motive for going after Trump, because he announced it. So to the extent that motive is an issue, those statements can be introduced as evidence.
For example it’s established law that otherwise legitimate government actions become unconstitutional if they’re taken for unconstitutional motives. Executive statements are evidence of such motives.
An example where a president’s statements can lead to a criminal case being dismissed is when someone is being tried before a court martial. Since the judges on such a tribunal are under the president’s command, if he makes it know that he wants a conviction then it becomes unlawful for them to judge the case, so they must dismiss it.
In this case I don’t see how the concept applies, but it’s a real concept in other contexts.
Leave a Comment