The Southern Poverty Law Center: Manufacturing Hate

Will we do the pledge free, Bob?

Committee will come to order without objection. The chair is authorized to declare 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, Mister Nels, to lead us all in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Please stand and join me in honoring our nation's flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. and the superlative for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Thank you, Sheriff, for leading us. Um, we'll begin with opening statements. The chair is recognized for an opening statement. They called them field sources, individuals of the Southern Poverty Law Center, paid to gin up hate, the very hate they told their supporters that they were fighting. Field source number thirty seven. F thirty seven, coordinated transportation and attended the twenty seventeen rally in Charlottesville. The Southern Poverty Law Center paid him two hundred and seventy thousand dollars. Two hundred and seventy thousand dollars to the guy who helped put together the event where a young lady was killed. Field source number nine. He got one million dollars 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 clan, whatever that means. And he was on the Southern Poverty Law Center payroll. F twenty seven. Southern Poverty Law Center paid him three hundred thousand dollars in six years. And what did he do? He ran the Aryan Nation Motorcycle Club. F forty three. 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, nineteen thousand dollars of their donors' money. All told, three million dollars. Three million dollars to manufacture hate. Remember when Rahm Emanuel said, never let a crisis go to waste? The SPLCs took it a step further. They went one better. They said, we're gonna create the crisis. We're gonna 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 Council is with us today, like Moms for Liberty, like Turning Point USA. Even the Alliance Defending Freedom has 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 and the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, they never made the Southern Poverty Law centers list. 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. And it all paid off. It all paid off. Just ask Mark Halk 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 m- he'll meet you wherever, come, we'll meet you at the court. Nope. Kick in his door, harass him. front of his wife and family. January twenty third, twenty twenty three, the now famous memor- memorandum from the Richmond FBI field office. We know how it paid off, cuz 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. 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 Poverty Law Center was running a 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 gonna prosecute them. Nope, you're not gonna prosecute them. They're too valuable politically. You gotta 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. Field source thirty seven. 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 is killed, the Southern Poverty Law Center almost tripled their income. It all worked. They went from fifty-one million annual income to a hundred and thirty-three million dollars. 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 eight hundred million in assets, seven hundred million dollar endowment fund. Such a deal. Such a deal. But here's the good news, cuz there is some good news. Here's the good news. President Trump got elected, Todd Blanchett'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. So I wanna 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 we're, and we look forward to bringing in the head of the Southern Private Law Center. We're in d- we're in discussions with them about having one of them here today, could 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 members.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to all of our witnesses. For decades, the Southern Poverty Law Center, uh, 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. So why is the Department of Justice under Trump and Todd Blanch 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. DOJ has 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. 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. 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, uh, 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 do the victims respond? 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 eight thousand swindled students brought three different class action lawsuits that were certified by the courts against Trump. 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 twenty-five million dollars. So that was more than eight thousand 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. Everybody can see what's happening with this outrageous scam scandalous prosecution in Alabama, an outrageous scandalous persecution here on Capitol Hill. If anyone has flipped 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's 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 unending stream of violent death threats, something which makes this prosecution and persecution all the more appalling. 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 two thousand seventeen when neo-Nazis marched on a synagogue, in the University of Jun- Virginia chanting " Jews will not replace us", when a homicidal extremist drove his car into peaceful counter-protesters and killed Heather Heyer, Trump could only bring himself to say that there were some very fine people on both sides. In twenty twenty, 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. 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, could help prevent more than a thousand violent terror plots since twenty twenty, and installed a twenty-two year old with zero national ex- security experience, except for model United Nations, his junior year of college, to run what remains of our terrorism prevention office. 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 capital on January sixth, twenty twenty one. And just this month, the Trump administration released a new national counter-terror 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 a hundred and fifty-two attacks in the United States and killed a hundred and twelve Americans, compared with thirty-five attacks and thirteen deaths attributed to left-wing extremists. Again, he just blames his enemies for what his side is doing. Trump's real relationship to the extreme right was on full display January sixth twenty twenty one when the Proud Boys Oath Keepers and three 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. 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 hist- history, but brutally assaulted our police, wounding, injuring, disfiguring, and disabling more than a hundred and fifty terminating many careers in the process. But what has President Trump done to support, praise, or even just thank the police officers who save members of the House and Senate and his own Vice President from the rampaging mob he had incited? Nothing. What's he done to help Sergeant Gunnell, 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 sixth? 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. No, Trump praises the J six criminals, calling them heroes, martyrs, patriots, even hostages. He parted and commuted the sentences of more than fifteen hundred 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. 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 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 in the DOJ and liberating his private militia from jail. Many of these pardon conflicts 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 twelve 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. 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 sixth, he was going to be, quote, awarded ten million dollars for his work and would be able to split the money with them, if they agreed not to talk to the Now that brings us to the real fraud underway this week. Donald Trump has withdrawn his bogus ten billion dollar lawsuit against the IRS because the judge in the case Kathleen Williams doubted there was even a case for 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 gonna lose. 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 him, his family, and his businesses forever for tax frauds that he may have committed in the past, but the establishment of a one point seven seven six billion dollar 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. 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 Jsixer has had charges thrown out because of a false malicious or retaliatory prosecution. Not a single one has had their c- criminal conviction reversed on appeal because of a false, malicious or retaliatory prosecution. 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 have been under attack since this nightmare of MAGA weaponization began in January of last year. False, malicious and retaliatory prosec- prosecutions are how Donald Trump and his DOJ not real law enforcement, not real prosecutors. We would never set up a political sl- slush fund to compensate the J sixers for their imaginary injuries because it's blatantly unconstitutional. Section four of the fourteenth 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 So, everybody who thinks they're getting a big payoff this week, a million dollars per Jsixer, is the word on the street, should understand this. Uh, 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. 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 one point eight billion dollars 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 pr- 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. 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 in 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 one point eight billion dollar settlement instead. 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. Mister Chair, pursuant to clause two K six of rule eleven, I move that the committee now immediately subpoena those involved in the creation or execution of the nearly one point eight billion dollar slush fund. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanch, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant, IRS Chief Executive Officer Frank Bisignano, and Treasury Department General Counsel Brian Morrissey. Mister Blanch orchestrated this outrageous slush fund as part of the settlement with Donald Trump, which was also signed by Mister Woodward and Mister Bessant will

Woodward.

oversee the payout of these funds. Mister Bisignano signed off on this settlement for the IRS and Brian Morrissey, remarkably resigned as this deal was being announced. These individuals

I second.

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. We will n- uh, without objection, all of the opening statements will be included in the record. We will introduce today's witnesses. We're pleased to have with us Doctor Carol Swain.

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

But it's not time for that now, we're ho- holding it in advance. Doctor 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 Phi Beta Kappa from Roanoke College and received a master's degree from Yale and her PHD from North Carolina. Mister Tyler O'Neill is a senior editor at the Daily Signal, where his reporting focuses on non-profit organizations. He previously was an editor. at PJ Media and Fox News, and is the author of two uh books. Mister 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. Mister Perkins has also previously served as a member of the Louisiana House of Representatives. And Miss 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 Education uh 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. 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 beliefs, so help you God. Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative Uh, 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 Doctor Swain. Just make sure you hit the microphone there, hit that button, and try to stay as close to five as you can, although I won't cut you off right at five. After all, we gave Mister Raskin fifteen, so

Good morning. Chairman, Rankin, member, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today on this very important subject. I am Doctor 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. My nineteen ninety-three book, Black Faces, Black Interests, won three national awards and was cited by the US Supreme Court. Yet, starting in two thousand and nine, 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. In September two thousand and nine, I found myself in the S crosshairs 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 genuine hate groups, such as the KKK and the neo-Nazis, towards targeting mainstream conservatives, immigration reformers, and anyone challenging pro- progressive ideas on race and im- race and immigration. 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." Within weeks of my article, the Southern Poverty Law Center In October two thousand and nine, 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 Bodecker, which I recommended for classroom use because it offered perspectives rarely heard on university campuses. 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. 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 chill speech and academic freedom without any meaningful accountability. The S- Southern Poverty Law Center's tactics, the mission creep creep because it's lost sight of its Guilt by association, weaponized hate labels have broader consequences. They distort public discourse and equate policy disagre disagreements with bigotry. 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 to examine the southern pol- poverty law center's practices, its financial operations, its influence on government partnerships, the l- and it and the lack of transparency and accountability surrounding its hate group designation. 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 comp- this uh organization accountable as you do or as you p- 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.

Thank you, Doctor.

Thank you.

Um, Miss Perkins, you are now recognized for five minutes.

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 two thousand and three. Americans once associated Southern Poverty Law Center with fighting the Ku Klux Klan during the civil rights era. That reputation gave the SPLC enormous moral credibility. But in November of two thousand and ten, 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 twenty twelve, FRC joined Governor Mike Huckabee in supporting Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day after the company was boycotted because its leadership publicly affirmed traditional marriage. Two weeks later, on August fifteenth, LGBT activist Floyd Corkins entered FRC headquarters carrying a nine millimeter pistol, fifty rounds of ammunition and fifteen 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, Leo, thank you.

Thank you.

The following day, investigators confirmed, Corkins confessed to selecting FRC because of SLP, SL, L, 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 six million dollars in security-related cost. But the cost extends way beyond one act of violence. SPLC's intelligence projects and associated 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 Around twenty sixteen the SPLC began pressuring financial corporations and technology companies to de-platform and defund organizations that it labeled extremist. Then came Charlottesville. According to the recent federal indictment, a member of the on-line 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, JP Morgan, 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. The time The outline of change the terms closely parallels the acceleration of the efforts to debank and de-platform conservatives. FRC experiences from Truist, uh, Truist Financial, B and B, BB and T, Fideli- uh, Fidelity Investments, GuideStar, mobile calls, and other technology-related companies. And SPLC officials openly acknowledged this strategy before Congress. In January of twenty twenty, SPLC official Lakeisha Brooks stated this, "we have lobbied internet companies one by one. A key part of this strategy has been to target these organizations' funding."

Yeah.

Brooks continued to describe the coordinated effort to pressure technology companies and financial institutions to restrict ax access for organizations SPLC opposed. This committee, the issue before this committee is larger than SPLC fraud. SPLC was the hub, but there are many 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-related or 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.

Uh, thank you, Mister Perkins, for that testimony. Leo, the hero, thank you for your for your courage. Um, we'll now go to Mister O'Neill.

Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Raskin, members of the committee, I'm honest. 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 as assets of eight hundred and twenty-two 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". 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 as 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. This hate map kills two birds with one stone. It silences conservative dissent from the left's 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 twenty twenty three, I analyzed the map and found that it exaggerated hate by at least two hundred and sixty-seven percent by including mainstream conservatives, double counting groups, and mentioning defunct organizations. Given this track record, is it really so far-fetched to think the SPLC might be propping up some of the very white it claims it exists to oppose. A federal grand jury indicted the SPLC on fraud charges because it had funneled three million dollars 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 happened. But that's not what allegedly happened in Charlottesville in twenty seventeen. 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. 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 has have offshoots that engage in similar efforts against conservatives. The Change 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 options.

Thank you, Mr. O'Neill. Miss Wiley, you're recognized for five minutes.

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 Clans of America. It has brought major voting rights cases, including to secure a fair representation for black voters in Alabama. And it educates the public on threats from extremist movements before those stress threats turn to violence. Sadly, this work is critical. A San Diego mosque the families of three brave fathers are mourning the hate, 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 uh um not 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 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. 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 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 non-profits that had their grants cut off, protesters 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 to be sent to southern poverty loss center. In this case, it doesn't appear that conviction is the goal. Starving the SPLC of resources, diminishing 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 anti-semitic 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 twenty fifteen. 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. Thank you.

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

Uh, Mr. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for this, I just wanted to note the very uh sad occasion of the passing of a distinguished uh former member of uh the House of Representatives, Barney Frank, um 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.

Mister Chairman, if I could just add, I mean

Sure.

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

I would just relate what I remember about one of the things I remember about Representative Frank was um When I first got here, this was back when the motion to recommit was actually a debate. I mean, 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 I I don't know. It was it was a financial service advice. I don't know the subject, plus I've seen the guy debate. I'd I'd rather not do that, particularly as a freshman. Uh, so he was very good at holding his own in any type of

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Nathalie is recognized.

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

Sure, now recognize gentlemen from California.

The chairman. At the risk of piling on, we all have uh that served with Barney have uh 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, " Darryl, now you're probably not gonna be for this, but you should be." Uh, and were or some similar ones and on occasions it was true. And uh that was the thing about uh a incredibly smart uh, if you will, happy warrior at times. Uh he wasn't always happy, but when he was, and on this committee where I served with him, uh he was he was happiest when there was real debate, when uh he could use his wit uh to either change minds or at least embarrass the

Now moved to five minute question. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for five minutes.

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

I don't know, Doctor Swain, what I will say is what's important about the Southern Poverty Law Center's work,

I'm asking you.

is that it identify where and how we have problems.

I'm asking you, I'm asking you, you're choosing not to answer, okay, you don't know her, you've have you read any of her writings?

I have not.

Okay. So, Doctor Swain, what was the impact of SPLC's radical uh just uh unnecessary uh attack on you? What wa- what was the result of that?

It actually set in motion a series of events that uh led to my retiring in twenty seventeen. Now there are more things that happened, but once the Southern Poverty Law Center labels uh a a black conservative as a an apologist for white supremacists, then uh people don't know how to process that. But I can tell you that James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal wrote a two thousand word article. uh, 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, uh, as well because people knew that if they went after the author of a book on white nationalism, I published with Cambridge Press in in two thousand two, a book, The New White Nationalism in America is challenged to integration. Uh, they went after me, uh, and so, I was

It it you you're a t you were a tenured professor,

Yes.

um, Vanderbilt and Princeton,

Yes.

and it impacted your career.

It definitely impacted my career.

Th- it Thank you thank you for that information. So let's just uh let's just cut to the chase here. SPLC is closing an um eight hundred million dollar nest egg. I'm hap- I happen to have their nine ninety employees and how much they get paid, the present CEO, uh from this filing from twenty twenty four. Four hundred and sixty six thousand dollars as the base salary, uh total with perks five hundred twenty-two thousand. And you go on down the list and there at when the list closed for me, uh I didn't see anybody making less than two hundred and eighty-five thousand dollars per year from them. And there's a reason that uh Charity Watch gives SPLC and F as a charity. Uh the organization's recent federal indictment for wire fraud alleged that it secretly took some of that money over three million dollars in donor funds to informants tied to extremist groups like the KKK Aryan Nations. And it only r- confirms what mass resistance has warned about for years, that the SPLC was never fighting hate, was manufacturing it to justify existence. Mister O'Neill was talking about um uh ICEN who actually was one of the founders, uh who was uh attacking the KKK and then uh actually had to had to shift when they put them out of business because they needed money. And so, Then it became this this mission to attack uh people uh and and falsely label them and basically gin up the the the basic uh uh money machine that they were doing and I wanna ask you, Mister Perkins. Um the your your team was specifically uh targeted by SPLC and as a result of their targeting you for having uh espousing traditional American and biblical values They there was actually uh an attempted mass violence. Can you describe that a little bit and and talk about our our her- Leo, the hero, just a a little bit more?

Uh the the gunman who is now serving prison for domestic terrorism came into a building with a gun uh Leo who is the building manager was actually standing at the front, asking what he needed, he pulled the the revol- uh pulled the semi-automatic pistol out of the backpack, uh he began shooting, The first round hit uh 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. Uh, Leo was able to disarm him and take him down and and even recover the weapon. And and 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. I would have, just as the FBI said, I would have defended myself not knowing if I was gonna pass out. 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 uh 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 thousands of Americans who love this country and happen to believe the Bible as a definitive way to live. They wanna silence us. And I and I 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.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now you, Matt.

Uh, thank you. Uh, Mr. Nadler, recognized, gentlemen from New York, recognized.

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 dare challenge him. And now this committee is being pressed into service to join in his petty campaign of retribution. That is because the dignity of that is beneath the dignity of this committee on which I have been proud to serve my entire career in Congress. 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 anti-semitism. Unfortunately, anti-semitism in America is not a relic of the past. It is a pres- 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 Porway, Poway, California. We have seen it spread through on-line spaces. And we have seen it increasingly seep into mainstream right-wing politics, in conspiracy theories about Jewish financiers, in Holocaust analogies deployed as political weapons, and in figures with well-documented ties to white supremacists ascending to positions of influence. The Southern Poverty Law Center is on the front lines fighting anti-semitism. In twenty nineteen, the SPLC won a fourteen million dollar judgment against the founder of a neo-Nazi website, The Daily Stormer, who orchestrated a full-blown doxing and harassment campaign against a local Jewish woman. She ended up getting more than seven hundred 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 twelve-year-old son and their rabbi imposed on photos of the gates of Auschwitz. One of our witnesses, Mister O'Neill, has accused the S. P. L. C. of exaggerating hate. I wonder if he thinks that the hate against this woman was exaggerated or manufactured. Last year, the Southern Poverty Law Center filed suit against the white supremacist extremist group Guaym Defense League, an openly anti-semitic group that calls for the return of the Nazi party. S. P. L. C. sued because in twenty twenty four The GDL launched a coordinated campaign against black and Jewish communities during a July twenty twenty-four 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, Mister Perkins, has called the S. P. L. C. quote " 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. 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 anti-semitism we see within the current administration? President Trump has not only ho- hosted but also refused to condemn Nick Fuentes, 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 anti-semit anti-semitics like Kingsley Wilson,

The

Ed Martin and Sebastian Gorka and gutted the agencies

president.

charged with preventing domestic terrorism. Lip service about fighting anti-semitism rings hollow when you staff your government with people who embrace it, no matter how many tests

Representative Nadler, Representative Nadler, you actually shared one of the examples I would share, you actually shared one of the examples, I would share, which is the which is the defense league lawsuit. Um, this is an incredibly important for the Jewish community because anti-semitism 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. It comes for people who are black, comes from people who are transgender, uh, it 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 anti-semitism could happen. 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 forty-five page event threat memo to the FBI before the United

Time to jump. Time to jump.

Thank you, and I yield back.

Time to yield back. Mister O'Neill, they had an extremist file web page, didn't they?

Yes.

And they would, on this web page, they would they would pick out some crazy hate guy and they would, you know, 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?

Okay.

Exactly.

And F forty-two was uh one of the field sources, number forty-two, chair of some crazy hate group. The Southern Poverty Law Center highlighted him on their web page. He's bad, he's evil, send us money. Is that right?

Yes.

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

No,

They didn't tell them.

I

Did they did they tell them they were paying him a hundred and forty thousand dollars?

No, not to my knowledge.

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

No, they did not.

Is that appropriate, Miss Wiley?

Uh, I'm sorry, which which part? Sorry.

All of that, is that appropriate to say 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 a hundred and forty thousand dollars. Is that appropriate?

Well, we have public reporting that over a dozen donors actually said that they spent the money as intended.

Uh, it'll be a simple question, field source field source forty two got a hundred and forty

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

No, it is appropriate. No, no, no, is it appre- is that technique appropriate? That's what I'm asking.

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

But I didn't ask if it was lawful or unlawful.

Y, or Z.

As you said earlier in your testimony, the court's gonna determine that when they go to

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

Is the Alliance Defending Freedom, is that a hate group?

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

Well, they'd they've ha- uh uh argued sixteen cases before the Supreme Court - one sixteen cases before the Supreme Court. They stand for traditional values. So then probably a law center labeled them a hate group. Are they a hate group?

I don't know them and I don't work

Well, here's one thing is,

I'm here to talk about the impact on civil rights.

uh, well, let me ask you this, is Jane's Revenge, is that a hate group? Cuz the ADF, they didn't firebomb anybody, but Jane's Revenge did. ADF is labeled a hate group, Jane's Revenge isn't. I wanna know how you would how you would label it.

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

OK. Uh, Mister O'Neill, is, uh, you think any of these field sources were double-dipping? I mean, during the during the Biden ray Garland administration, the Justice Department paid a bunch of confidential human sources, a bunch of them. Uh, we know a bunch of them were at at the Capitol and January sixth, 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 Public Law Center, having quarterly meetings with them, consulting with them, giving them 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?

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 Stephen 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 you know 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.

Yeah. Uh, last question will come to you, mister p- mister Perkins. In your opening statement, you talked about how it was just worse than the SPLC because how they've they've put themselves out there or become the standard of help help from the government, I think, in becoming the source of the standard on

Well, there are members of this committee that were endorsed by SPLC. Uh, they were they had a C four, was involved in elections. So they were they were not just an um

Okay.

They were a player on the field as well. So how how can they be objective in determining who is uh a purveyor of hate and who is not? I mean, they had a they had a uh they had a stake in this. But to 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 mat material was in a briefing to uh the the m members of the military but they also continue to have their

Yep. Yep.

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

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

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

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

How about you, uh, Mr. Perkins?

No.

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

No.

You've never heard of Michael Donald before?

I'm not sure. Why don't you

You can cut your mike on.

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

Well, he was the he was the nineteen year old African-American black boy down in Mobile, Alabama. He's the uh son of uh Bula May and um David Donald, the youngest of six children. He was um in community college at the time. while working part-time for a local newspaper and um on March twenty first of nineteen eighty-one he was lynched. You've never heard of that before?

No, I have not.

But then you did not know then that the S.

I don't recall that.

B. L. C. uh was responsible for filing a lawsuit uh against the United

I have public

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

I was totally aware of it. In fact, I used data from this.

Okay, well let me ask you this then. Let me ask you this. If you were aware with that, you know that they had

in my

you're aware of it mister o'neill aren't you

yes i'm actually very aware of that case because the s.

and and and and and let me and and let me ok well well hold on let me ask let me ask

p. l. c. edged out ruler mcdonald who wanted to make a video about it

let me ask you this you said uh hold on uh hold on uh you said that

well i didn't get to this mark well i didn't get to this mark

charlottesville was a uh catalytic moment or a

Mm-hmm.

uh for the uh 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 Klan men down there and the anti-Jewish folks, anti-Semites, were good people. You were aware of the fact that uh SPLC provided information to the FBI about that. Isn't that correct, Ms. Wiley?

That is correct.

And they have been very effective at suing organizations, anti-semitism, anti- uh racism. They have been a thorn in the side of the racist, who I'm sure sat up in their graves, uh Robert E. Lee, uh Nathan Bedford Forrest, the former Confederate General, uh founder of the Ku Klux Klan, and other 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 uh ending enforcement of the uh or the ability to enforce the Voting Rights Act which is one of the ways that you, Miss Doctor Swain, were able to get the right to vote. I don't understand it, Miss Wiley.

May I respond?

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 their targeting the SPLC? Can you tell us why?

We've just seen an outright attack on all the gains of the civil rights movement for the past sixty 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 one hundred percent since twenty fifteen, where the rise in anti-semitism, 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 including any of the groups here should experience violence.

And Trump and Republicans on this panel are trying to have us deny reality,

I think uh the gentleman's time the gentleman's time has expired.

which we also

With that we go to the gentleman from California,

Are you a fan?

Mister McCl- McClintock. I thank the gentleman.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, uh Eric Hoffer famously observed that every great cause becomes a movement, that becomes a business, that becomes a racket. And I think that sums up precisely the matter before us today. Uh SPLC is a private organization, they have a right to speak and influence the public policy discussion. No one questions that. Um, what they, uh, do to the 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. Uh, those are the allegations in the grand jury indictment. We've got a legal system that I trust will sort those And it also doesn't include the right to slander, and we have good laws and civil courts to to hold them accountable for defamation. So that leaves two legislative concerns. First is this, the civil rights movement of which SPLC was once a part had made great progress in uniting our country and marginalizing racist ideology and dramatically reducing racial strife uh between the nineteen fifties and the nineteen nineties but over the past several decades that In recent years we've watched our country torn apart by growing racial strife. And the allegation at the heart of this matter is that the SPLC was covertly fanning these flames for their own financial gain. Uh, a significant flashpoint of course was the Charlottesville riots which had fatal results. And I I do need to call out the ranking member for deliberately perpetuating the Democrats' dishonest claim that Donald Trump praised the Nazis at 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.

Mister Chairman, I ask that the uh gentleman's words be taken down.

Now we have the really bad, not yielding

Is that uh The gentleman will suspend the gentleman will suspend What purpose is the gentleman?

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

I didn't

Wh- wh- which words does the gentleman object to?

Which words are which words are you referring to?

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

Uh,

Uh,

but the gentleman,

but the gentleman,

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

he has impu- he he has impu- he has impu- the gentleman would would

he has impued he he has imputed he has imputed the motives.

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

So it is.

Both times.

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

I I think we need to put them

The gentleman will suspend.

to put it in context, Mr. Chairman. We got to have both both utterances.

The gentleman will suspend.

i do need to call out the brazen number for

uh could you we can't hear you sorry

turn off microphone

he's

ok just as loud as you could please

i need to call out the brazen number

The dress.

I need to call out.

Oh, jeez.

Go ahead, I'll

I think that's going to get very difficult. Grinding there. Or Deliberately perpetuating.

Deliberately perpetuating

The

the

backhand.

I'm sorry.

Just be patient for a second. No.

the democrat's dishonest claim.

The democrat's dishonest claim.

That Donald Trump praised

That Donald Trump praised

the neo-nazis. The neo-nazi, Charlie.

the neo-nazis.

Thank you, thank you. Uh, is that the passage of one of the two times that you're referring to?

Yeah, that's the first

That's the first pa- excellent.

first section.

Uh, just one moment then, please. The ch- the chairman is 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 uh as to the veracity of the other person's statement with that. I thank the gentleman, but uh I will not take down the lines.

Well, mis- mister chairman Mister chairman, the second statement is the one that that I ask then that the words be taken down.

I uh no my question

And so it's only it's only proper that we hear the second

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?

what the ranking member knows but chose to leave out

what the ranking member knows but chose to leave out

is that trump then said

is that trump then said

i'm not talking about the neo-nazis

i'm not talking about the neo-nazis

or white nationalists

or white nationalists

because they should be condemned because they should be condemned totally

so so mr. chairman

thank you the the uh the the gentleman will suspend what the what having heard both of these and understanding them in context they meet the requirement of decor- within decorum. Again, the chair would caution individuals to, whenever possible, to refer to the specifics and not to the testimony or the statements of either side. However, in context, uh, it was not a violation, uh, for which the words may be taken down.

I

And with that,

Mister Chairman.

the gentleman from California may continue.

Mister Chairman. Mister Chairman.

It is the gentleman from

Parliamentar- parliamentary inquirer.

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

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

Please. The gentleman will continue.

Po- point of order, Mr. Chairman. Point of order?

The The gentleman will state his point of order.

Is it um within the rules

That that is not how you state a point of order. It states your point of order.

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

gentlemen, they if if you're considering it a point of order, in answer to the point of order,

It it it's

a p- in answer to the point of order, a motion to have words taken down, the words speak for themselves, the gentlemen uh had them heard, I am aware of what they were, and I have 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 uh back to uh two minutes, and we'll conclude with three minutes. or three minutes remaining. Please.

Thank you. And, Mister 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. Two hundred and seventy thousand dollars was he, while he was recruiting agitators and posting inflammatory rhetoric. And to learn that this was part of more than three million dollars in such uh payments to such extremist groups uh begs the question of whether the SPLC was financing the very extremist groups it was assuring donors was fighting with their contributions. Uh 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 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?

Partly because information was not available, as is now coming forth. Uh, we did in. Uh, we did.

And, I I I would certainly hope so. I I I would certainly hope so. Uh, Uh, Mr. O'Neill, m- Mr. O'Neill, is it. is it.

Uh, it is possible, but I have no knowledge of that. What I know are the allegations claimed in the indictment. But I would highly, uh, encourage Congress to consider n- uh, adding to any rider of financial, uh, 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.

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

If that's a question, it wou- I'll allow you to brief the answer, if you would.

Uh, 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.

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

Um, thank you very much, Mister Chairman. Just a d- a footnote to that recent. I uh 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 uh I 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 they 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 uh China is uh his biggest enemy in the world and when he was over in China then he loved uh President Xi, and he adored him, and they're great friends and so on. So that's Donald Trump. But I I can't imagine any other president in American history finding very fine people on both sides of an anti-semitic race uh attack, like the one that led to the death of Heather Heyer. So I 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 um oh and I'll say one other thing. Uh very fine people on both sides, you know to people in Charlottesville uh that uh that was a very painful thing. My sister and her family happened to live in Charlottesville, the the Ku Klux Klan and the Neo-Nazis gathered at the local synagogue. That's where they kicked off uh their attack on Jews and African-Americans uh 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 uh d- he denounces racist violence but he made himself perfectly clear. Ms. Wiley, um have you heard any of these witnesses today uh 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?

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 fraud.

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

Yes, and I I just wanna note that, and because there was a a representation made uh about the SPLC that it worked with the Donald Trump Department of Justice providing information from its employ- uh informant program in the first Trump administration. So that's why we were so concerned to hear uh that denial that they had knowledge,

Yeah, um, well, the, uh, you know the not-for-profit sector very well, it seems like, uh, the now one of the lines of attack against the SPLC is that the people who work there make too much money. Um, I just went online and checked out some of the, uh, the the salaried executives of the the right-wing groups that we're not having a hearing about today, like uh the NRA. Wayne LaPierre was making one point two million dollars uh when he was there. Um you could look at uh the Heritage Foundation, which in twenty twenty-three paid its president nine hundred and fifty three thousand dollars 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. Um just very quickly on that, is there anything um uh to this?

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 it has developers coming for land and they won't benefit from the land for food assistance programs to make sure that a

Mm. Well, Well, but let's let's talk about that because to listen to some of uh your but let's let's talk about that because to listen to some of uh your co-panelists there you would think that there is no co-panelists there you would think that there is no extremist hate violence extremist hate violence taking place what about the AMI church taking place what about the AMI church in Charleston South Carolina where in Charleston South Carolina where Dylan Roof was charged up Dylan Roof was charged up on

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

A g- a young lady can answer the question, but

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you holding this hearing. The information that has come out in this indictment is truly disturbing. Uh, my district is adjacent to the district that includes Charlottesville.

More senior residents.

Many of my constituents, um, have families in Charlottesville. Many of my constituents work in Charlottesville. And to see that let me ask you, Mister O'Neill, 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 F nine, no, F thirty-six who was a member of the online leadership chat group that planned that the twenty seventeen Unite the Right event in Charlottesville and attended the event at the direction of the SPLC is that helping to dismantle these organizations?

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

Thank you. I wanna continue to inquire about this uh this funding. Um 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?

Yeah, my understanding is that the SPLC's um 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 Woktopus, I go through all of the ways in which the Biden administration, uh, solicited information on the domestic terror threat from the southern poverty law center how we have this alignment with demonizing uh, concerned moms and dads that happened 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 and the DOJ.

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 to exclusive events with DOJ leadership during the Biden and Harris administration.

Correct. In fact, uh, they had one of their staffers by the name of RG Cravens, who, uh, 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.

And in October of this year, FD- FBI Director Patel terminated the FBI's relationship with the SPLC. What was the nature uh the nature of the relationship f- prior to the termination? You 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?

Yes, uh, specifically in the notorious memo from the FBI

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

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 uh it just took the SPLC's list of radical traditional catholic hate groups verbatim and put it into the FBI's uh language in the memo for 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 is no longer even at the SPLC.

It's truly shocking. Thank you for being here. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The chair now recognized uh generally from California.

Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know there's a talk of the Department of Justice is is uh vindictive prosecutions of SPLC. I just wanna remind us all of something else that the Trump DOJ just did. On April fourteenth 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 uh spout Islamophobic, mis- uh sojournistic and white nationalist ideologies, and both happen to be on SPLC's watch lists, both groups and others like them, took up arms for Donald Trump and attacked the Capitol on January sixth. I'd like to ask unanimous consent to put into the record two uh articles about the January sixth rioters and their later um Jim? uh crimes. Go ahead, Nancy. People forget what happened in the weeks before January sixth, December of twenty twenty, at yet another pro-Trump rally, uh they rioted in the st- streets of DC, vandalized historically black churches, white nationalists supporting Donald Trump uh vandalizing African American places of worship right here in the capital. Uh four of their crimes leading up to and on January sixth, these individuals, including Enrique Tarrio, Stuart Rhodes and many others were convicted of seditious conspiracy and other felonies and to more than one hundred years in prison collectively. Now Donald Trump unleash unleashed over fifteen hundred 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. SPLC has been tracking these groups for years, long before January sixth. and designated them and others like them as hate groups. Uh, SPLC has continued to call out these groups for the danger they pose to our communities and our democracy. Uh, the label has upset these groups so much that Gavin McInnis, the founder of Proud Boys, who describes himself as a Western chauvinist and said Muslims are stupid, sued the SPLC in twenty nineteen for defamation for designating them as a hate group, and that lawsuit failed. Miss Wiley, you've described the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers as the foot soldiers of January sixth. In your opinion, is documenting and naming these groups part of the reason why SPLC is now being punished by the Trump administration?

Sadly, because of the pattern of behavior and weaponization that we have seen, it's hard not to conclude that, uh, particularly, um, because of exactly the point you just raised, Representative Loeffler, that we're seeing pardoning of violence and violent insurrection from January sixth.

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 in 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. I I 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, uh were convicted in courts of law by juries of their peers, as - as the Constitution provides, but also an effort perhaps uh to make sure that when uh a call goes out to violent extremists to overturn their government to attack violently the government again that those extremists will know a couple of things. One, that the president will pardon them for their crimes. and two, that the president will reward them monetarily with taxpayer dollars for their violence and for their treason. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

General Lady yields back. Uh, before recognizing the gentleman from North Carolina, uh, I do have to step out for a minute. I wanted to just tell our witnesses that we'll be back, uh, shortly, and I do think we have votes at well over twelve thirty, so there may be a little break. And I should have mentioned at the outset, if any of you need a break at any time, you know, uh, you've been there almost two hours.

Yes, yes, Mr. Chairman. I have a series of letters uh from Moms for Liberty.

Quickly. Quickly, yes.

Oh, um, Tina Duskovich, um, uh, Julie Mauch, uh, and then a whole series of additional letters from Moms for Liberty. Then I also have

No objection?

thank you,

Wonderful.

Southern Law Poverty Law Center education material surprisingly common in red states, Arizona,

Objection?

Arizona School of Resource directed teachers

Objection.

SPLC curriculum in K twelve learning for justice.

Objection. Yep.

SPLC curriculum in Arizona document.

Okay.

Uh, additionally, federal grand jury charges Southern Poverty Law Center for wire fraud, false statements, and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

Objection.

Southern Poverty Law Center is a scam, not an arbiter of justice.

Objection.

SPLC is a hedge fund with a dumb anti-racism newsletter.

Without objection.

Exposing the SPLC and celebrating their

That objection.

Biden DOJ was in cahoots with SPLC as it funded extremist groups.

With that objection.

SPLC's wealth raises questions despite controversial activities.

That objection.

A nine ninety filed in October of twenty twenty four by SPLC.

Objection.

And America First Legal reveals explosive documents exposing Biden Department of Justice's partnership and coordinated campaign with the Southern Poverty Law Center to weaponize civil rights enforcement.

Objection.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentleman from North Carolina, Mister Harris is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to submit into the record a letter from Awake, Illinois to the House Judiciary Committee.

Got objection.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, uh I'm so grateful for all you witnesses for being here today, and I wanna take just a few moments to talk about the shooting that took place at Family Research Council's headquarters in two thousand twelve that obviously hits home for me because I have followed and admired the great work of FRC as both a pastor involved for a number of years and now as a a member of Congress. In two thousand ten, the SPLC, as we've talked about today, designated Family Research Council as an anti-LGBTQ hate group and placed it on its so-called hate map and as I stated in our hearing last regarding the SPLC, there's nothing hateful about the Family Research Council. Family Research Council is a pro-family, pro-life group that promotes the Christian values held by many, many Americans. But that didn't stop the SPLC. FLC from placing F uh RC on this map. Um, what was clearly a politically motivated designation was intended to harm FRC and it had dire consequences. We've mentioned it today. On August fifteenth, two thousand twelve, Floyd Lee Corkins the second entered Family Research Council's headquarters in Washington DC in open fire. It was FRC security guard Leo Johnson who heroically uh tackled Corkins Now how did you, this building, Mm. this organization, did you, did you, how did you find it earlier? Did you like look up?

Yeah, what they uh Southern Poverty Law lists uh anti-gay groups like not online. Okay. I did a little bit of research on the website and stuff like that. Okay.

I did a little bit of research. And guess where he landed? There's no speculation here, you know? There's no need for interpretation at this. The convicted shooter specifically cited SPL as his source for finding out about family research counsel. Speaks for itself. Mister Perkins, what was your immediate reaction when you found out that the shooter learned about FRC through this SPLC hate map?

Uh, Congressman Harris, I actually anticipated that was the case. In fact, the day after, before the FBI acknowledged it, I stood before dozens of uh TV cameras on the street in front of FRC and said that FRC may not have pulled the trigger, but they inspired the gunman. I was mocked by the media, but then the testimony, the confession came out, and I I asked at that point for SPLC take down Christian groups from this list. They didn't, and the consequences have been in twenty seventeen, one of your colleagues, one of my former colleagues, Steve Scalise was shot. He was targeted by the SPLC. And then of course last year, Charlie Kirk, who also was targeted by SPLC, was assassinated. So there is culpability in knowing that this list, this ideological labeling leads to violence.

No doubt. And as of yesterday, when I looked up FRC on SPLC's hate map, your organization is still listed despite this attack in two thousand twelve. So, What impact has this continued designation on the or has it had on the organization and your staff?

Well, fortunately, we were large enough that we could sustain SPLC and their blood money that they've been raising to target conservative groups. It has hurt us. We spent six million dollars just to enhance our security. We've had, it's funny, they're crying now that they're getting their own medicine, that fidelity is not giving money to them. How about the thousands of conservative groups that were denied donor-driven funds because SPLC's labeling? Is there fairness in that? I think not.

And and I will say, this may seem like a silly question, but following the twenty-twelve attack on your headquarters, did SPLC ever reach out to apologize?

No.

Well, I think it's disgraceful that FRC has put such

The gentleman yields back. The gentleman yields back. We now go to the gentlelady We now go to the gentle lady.

Wonderful. Thank you so much, Thank you so much, Mister Chairman, Mister Chairman, uh, uh it is really a rich irony that Republicans want to argue that Donald Trump, it is really a rich irony that Republicans want to argue that Donald Trump or this DOJ or this DOJ, care about stopping hate, care about stopping hate. and that's why they're going after the Southern Poverty Law Center. And that's why they're going after the Southern Poverty Law Center, Donald Trump just set up an illegal one point eight billion dollar slush fund of US taxpayer dollars to pardon convicted insurrectionists who are tied to white supremacists from the Proud Boys the Oath Keepers Nazi supremacists oh yes, and prohibit any action against his own uh violations or his family's violations of tax law you wanna argue that Trump's DOJ is trying to stop hate? Give me a break. Trump ran his campaigns and these administrations on stoking fear and racism against communities of color and promoting hate, enacted Muslim bans, kidnapped and disappeared immigrants of all immigration statuses, including US citizens, forced universities to roll back their diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, stripped voting rights from black and brown voters, disenfranchising women and rural voters with the Save Act that he wants to It's all a shameless plan to return America to single party control by a Republican party who, unable to win on any sort of policy merits, turns to an old racist playbook that restricts the power of black, brown, and working class voters and goes after any political foes just to hold on to power. That's what's happening. For decades, the Southern Poverty Law Center has sued and won jury verdicts against hate groups who conspire and facilitate violence against black and brown people. The center secured a verdict against the planners of the twenty seventeen Charlottesville rally, the same rally that drew participants whom Donald Trump called "very fine people on both sides" and yes I know what he said after that to try and defend it, but the entire rally was organized by white nationalists. And even after images and videos re- revealed that these participants put up their arms in Nazi salutes and violently injured counter-protesters and cheered on the former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, he's stuck by that. LSP uh SPLC has been winning. That's why Donald Trump wants to target them. That's the problem. Stephen Miller, angry that SPLC called him out back in twenty sixteen for promoting white nationalism and right-wing extremist ideas has decided to take revenge, with an outrageous indictment that is replete with mistakes of fact and law. It is a complete fabrication that any crime has been committed at all. In the words of one former prosecutor, DOJ falls quote " egregiously short" on alleging a crime. So, Miss Wiley, the indictment and this entire hearing is premised on the theory that S S PLC somehow manufactured hate by paying confidential informants. So I wanna set the record straight about these informants. Based on what

Yes, um, Atawafen Division is the name of the extremist group, uh, and I should say that in addition to the work that SPLC did, um, uh, that prevented the violence, in fact, it was in twenty nineteen So it was information it turned on to the Department of Justice during the Trump administration. So the suggestion that somehow SPLC only works with an administration based on the party is undermined by this very important fact. And the, what the FBI found was that this person had already bought the supplies for the attack on a synagogue and a bar where a lot of LGBTQ people frequented.

Thank you. I'm gonna go through a series. of these, so just a yes or no would be great. Did another informant produce information that led to the arrest of a neo-Nazi individual who sought a national security clearance in Philadelphia Navy Yard?

Yes.

Did an informant produce information that the center used to tip off the FBI about the twenty seventeen Charlottesville rally?

Yes.

So the center was using informants to root out hate and help the FBI prosecute that hate not manufacture hate. Is that correct?

Yes.

And I wanna ask you, um, you know, there, there, charges are also

The general lady yields back.

Miss, Miss Chappell.

I just want a UC request.

Of course.

Thank you very much. Um, the first one is the intercept. We knew they were paying informants. SPLC donors reject Trump, DOJ, Procurement.

Without objection.

The second one is uh a letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, nonprofits together in four hundred and forty-two,

Without objection.

civil rights organizations, uh rejecting the criminal charges. And um finally uh you now have the consent to introduce a statement from Trevor Potter, President of Campaign Legal Center, former Republican.

Without objection so ordered. We now go to Mr. Hunt for five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The talking point for the Democrat hybrid today is that uh Jim Crow is alive and well in America and I am sure that some of the SPLC's actions have helped them make this argument my first question is for you, Miss Wayne, in the twenty twenty four presidential election, were you required to pay a poll tax before you voted?

No.

I have another question for you. When You went to vote uh w- at the voting locations. Were you intimidated in any way, um, with baseball bats, fire hoses, or dogs?

The only thing that intimidated me is that in my state that y- you're going to if you um you have to ask for a Republican ballot or a Democrat ballot, and if you are in a precinct that's predominantly Democrat, I think you would have a lot of fear.

Thank you for answering that question, ma'am. colleagues and everyone on the web screaming Jim Crow two point O like I hear ad ad infinitum. Let's take a moment to revisit what actual Jim Crow was. Jim Crow was a time when black Americans could not sit in classrooms with white Americans. It was colored only water fountains. It was beatings in the streets. It was lynchings. It was fear. It was public humiliation. My own father, who grew up in a segregated South in New Orleans, had to walk around to the back of a restaurant to order a sandwich in the French quarters of New Orleans because of the color of his skin. That was Jim Crow. And that is precisely why it is so offensive to compare that era of legalized discrimination and racial terror to showing a photo ID in a voting booth. And it's just as offensive when groups and organizations like these manufacture faux hate and racial tension, requiring identification to vote. It's not oppression. It is not segregation. It is not racism. It is the basic standard that applies equally to every single American citizen regardless of what you look like. You need an ID to board a plane. You need an ID to cash a check. You need an ID to buy alcohol. You need an ID to enter these very federal buildings. And by the way, attaining an ID in this country is a extremely low bar. But somehow showing an ID to vote in America is now considered to be Jim Crow two point O. This is not about civil rights. This is about political theater. And the Democrat Party survives on manufacturing grievance. Democrats invoke the pain of the past because they have nothing to offer for the present. They don't want an honest debate. They don't they want emotional manipulation. They want outrage. They want division, as evidenced by our discussion in this very hearing today. They want Americans to fight each other chaos is politically useful to them. Words like racism and white supremacy and Jim Crow two point O. For the purposes of elucidating my colleagues on on the other side of the aisle, let's take a hard look at what real Jim Crow was. Check out this one behind me. You see, this This is Jim Crow. is Jim Crow. This is what Democrats call Jim Crow. Next slide, please. T- t- t- t- that is Jim Crow. For whatever reason, this is what Democrats call Jim Crow.

Slide please.

That is Jim Crow. This is what Democrats call Jim Crow. I know that some of these images can seem to be very jarring to many of us that haven't experienced that over the course of their entire life. past forty years of my lifetime. I never saw these things. I never experienced them personally. But I have family members who have and who did. And that's why it is extraordinarily important for us to be very, very careful with what we compare to Jim Crow, because this country has come a very, very long way. I keep saying this over and over and over and over again till I am blue in the face. I represent a white majority district along with three of my other black colleagues here in Congress. And you know what? Nobody cares about what we look like. We are being judged not by the color of our skin, but by the content of our character because we've come a long way from this. I don't wanna go back to that. In fact, I wanna continue on the path that America has set forward in the name of Jesus Christ. And I wanna, I wanna let people know that we don't need to be angry. We don't need to be divided. We want equality. For everyone, let me be crystal clear, this is not nineteen sixty anymore. It's two thousand and twenty six. And the fact that that groups like these are willing to stroke the flames of hate by funding the KKK is absurd. With that, I yield back the remainder of my time. Thank you for being here.

Thank the gentleman. He yields back. We now go to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Miss Ganlin.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. As we heard earlier, in July, nineteen eighty-three, the Ku Klux Klan firebombed the Southern Poverty Law Center's offices in Montgomery, Alabama. The Klan carried out its violent attack because the SPLC had stood up against it, and has continued to stand up against hate in the following decades, whether it's racial and religious hate, hatred of immigrants, or the LGBTQ community. This melted clock, which was frozen in time by the KKK firebomb, bombing still hangs in SPLC's headquarters as a reminder of the very real dangers of defending American civil liberties from hate. So how grotesque is it, given that history, that the majority has chosen to frame this hearing as an accusation that the southern poverty loss center itself is in the business of manufacturing hate? But with the increasing shamelessness of the Trump administration and its congressional allies, none of us should be surprised that they are desperately trying to manufacture a reason to attack one of the organizations standing up to their assault on American civil rights. They're trying to turn back the clock and drag America backwards into some of the darkest days of our past. What has changed is not the Southern Poverty Law Center, but the way that this administration, with its embrace of white nationalists, rhetoric and groups, has decided to rewrite facts in history. In the past, This year we've seen pardons of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who orchestrated the violent January six attack. The DOJ hiding from the public, government research confirming that right-wing extremism poses the biggest domestic terrorism threat to our nation. The White House issuing NSPM seven, a directive that the Department of Justice and IRS target left-leaning groups that the White House has declared without evidence are a threat to our national security and members of the administration making repeated statements that they are not a threat to our national security. they intend to destroy non-profit groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center that are a threat to their extremist agenda. This White House has engaged in a concerted attack on the pillars of civil society that would ordinarily hold it accountable, going after law firms, the courts, legacy media, universities, organized religion, and even the Pope. We can all see a corrupt DOJ leveraging its power to attack the president's perceived enemies, and Prosecuting those who've tried to hold the administration accountable. Stealing taxpayer dollars to create a one point eight billion dollar slush fund to make payoffs to Trump loyalists who've been convicted of serious crimes. And giving Trump and his family a gold-plated get out of jail free card with the settlement agreement that the president's lawyer just signed. The Department of Justice's blatantly political prosecution in this committee's attacks against the Southern Poverty Law Center signaled the revival an old authoritarian playbook to vilify and discredit those working to combat hate and protect people from oppression. And it's part of this administration's whole of government attempt to shut down opposition to its lawless behavior. This administration and its MAGA allies are trying to rewrite facts and history just as they've tried to whitewash the violent January six assault on our capital and our constitution. But facts have a way of being sticky. They get in the way of lies. Americans have always sought to bend the arc of history towards justice, to hold those in power accountable, and to spur our country towards a more inclusive and perfect union. And we're not going to stop now. We are not going to allow extremists and charlatans to turn back the clock and take our civil rights and repression and put them asunder with hate. So, Ms. Wiley, the DOJ's indictment targets SPLC itself rather than individuals. Is the administration's goal to take out the organization, and why?

Well, I certainly can't speak for the administration. I think that what is so concerning to us as a civil rights community is that the Southern Poverty Law Center has been attacked because it does work to ensure that black voters can vote, because it does work to show and ensure that fair maps are drawn for places like Alabama and Louisiana where, yes, because we still have racial segregation in this country, black people have to be packed or cracked to take away the opportunity for them to decide who can represent them that will actually be accountable to them. These are incredibly important uh for civil rights, but it's also incredibly important for people's ability to have voice and power, including to dissent and disagree with the policies of this administration.

Do you think that, The general age, as you all see, my mistake, it might have been

Possibly, yes.

Thank you. I now recognize myself. Miss Wiley, um, would you agree with the statement that Charlie Kirk was a dangerous extremist?

Ugh.

I can't answer the question that way. I can't.

No, no, he

statements that I am aware of that Mister Kirk made were ones that I would consider to be dangerous.

And would those be the ones that he took directly from the Bible repeatedly?

I'm referring to the ones that he made uh about black women and black communities, the stereotyping, that stereotyped whole group of people.

So you would put him on a d- a a list of of dangerous people that should uh as the southern

I I don't I don't designate groups. Uh, I'm just answering your question.

Well, you've had opinions on everything the Democrats asked for. I just thought you might have an opinion on that.

I I shared my opinion about some of the things I heard he said,

Yes.

yes.

OK. Um Would you agree that a group could be good, have a great mission, do a lot of good things, but also, uh, commit crimes?

Well, I mean, uh, anything is possible. I think what we're talking about today.

No, well, no, no. It's that was kind of a yes or no, but

It's a specific organization we're talking about though,

um

which is Southern Poverty Law Center,

So,

and the the point is

but your your your p- your opinion is they can't commit crimes cuz they do good?

My opinion is that we see a prosecution where we know that the Southern Poverty Law Center offered evidence and is asking for accountability about whether that exculpatory evidence was shown to a grand jury. That should concern all Americans.

Okay, Mister O'Neill, I'll ask you essentially the same question. Um Would you say that Southern Poverty Law Center does some good work, at least historically?

Yes.

And l- having looked at the evidence, would you say that it i- appears to be overwhelmingly evidence of a criminal activity?

Uh, I would direct audiences to page ten of the indictment, uh, where there's a direct quote from an employee saying, " I certify that I am the sole owner of the above-named proprietorship." This is Sustainable

Okay, so what you have is actual evidence of bank fraud. Okay.

So long as the quotes from the indictment are accurate,

So

I have not seen the underlying.

Well people will go to jail if

I I'm not familiar with them.

I am.

Sure. Yes.

Would it surprise you to know that Erv Rubin and Erl Kruger both went to prison for attempting to blow up my office in twenty O one?

I was not aware of this, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Yep. Uh, Erl Kruger later died in prison. Uh, uh, Erl Kr- Erl uh died or Erv died before being tried, but the other was convicted and eventually, uh, So,

Very sorry to hear that.

here's here's a group you know of. They have a history of fighting anti-semitism, something that's been mentioned on the other side, and that obviously still exists in this country, as does racism. So you can be a good group, and yet you can have criminal activity, an activity that flies in the face of what you say you stand for.

Yes.

Ms. Wiley, I asked you that question for a reason. Doctor Swan here w- has in fact a history of being falsely accused, a history of being gone after. Mister Perkins has given these examples. The other side has spent a lot of time here today trying to tell us that it's - that it's all r- motivated because somehow we're persecuting people in this administration. Do you have any evidence, not anecdotally that, oh, they picked them. Do you have any evidence that in fact Southern Poverty did not in fact commit these crimes? Do you have any firsthand evidence of that? Yes or no, please.

Well, the Southern Poverty Law Center has a motion before the court right now, which actually says that the Department of Justice admitted that they knew that the banks new southern poverty loss center on the accounts, that is evidence in the public record that will be tried in court.

Okay. I will look forward to that in trial and uh I wanna thank all the witnesses today, for bringing out the fact that we should in fact, this committee should be looking at these not-for-profits and whether in fact they have deviated from their mission. And with that, who do we have? Oh, you have another unit?

Just a couple, you you see yeah, this is

Gentlemen is recognized.

Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman. Uh, the Guardian US lawmakers say, " D. O.

Without objection. Without objection.

House Judiciary Democrats let her read the targeting of Southern Poverty Law Center uh to Deputy Attorney General Akash Singh.

Without objection.

Um and uh that's it for now.

Thank you. We go now go to lady from uh general lady from Georgia for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, thank you for our witnesses being here today. Um, my father was the president of the Illinois chapter of the NA NAACP for many, many years. As a child, I learned how to fight for my rights before I even learned how to walk. I marched in protests, sat in meetings, and helped to organize. I want everyone in this room to understand what is happening right now. The Republican Party has launched an all-out assault against civil rights organizations founded to ensure the end of Jim Crow. But that's just one part of this strategy. Three weeks ago, the Supreme Court gutted section two of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana versus Calais saying that and I'm gonna quote " race neutral considerations that it could employ race neutral considerations" end quote in redistricting. And within days, southern legislatures they rushed to wipe out black representation in Congress. Tennessee caught an emergency session to repeal its own law against Mid-decade redistricting. It then splintered Memphis, a city that is sixty percent black, into three districts to dilute the voices of the black voters there. The state's black legislators protested and in response, the speakers stripped every single one of them of their committee assignments. Tennessee is not alone in silencing black voices. Alabama moved to reinstate maps a court previously struck down for intention racial discrimination. Florida passed new racially gerrymandered maps, and we're waiting in my home state of Georgia to see what happens with us on June seventeenth. Ms. Wiley, and you can just answer yes or no, have you ever seen five states move simultaneously to dismantle black rep- representation in Congress in such a very rapid short time?

No.

And while this administration demands attacks on black Americans' voices with phone calls to governors, it is fighting hard for the right-wing extremists, groups, who stormed the Capitol on January sixth, groups whose members are not all white supremacists, but doesn't seem to mind white supremacists. Trump's DOJ has given one point eight billion dollars of a slush fund, taken from taxpayers to pay off the sixteen hundred right-wing

I wish I had a word.

Hmm.

And I don't have a word for that, except to say that the American public should be outraged.

Southern states are tripping over themselves to eliminate black representation in Congress. The president is doling out reparations to white supremacists. And DOJ has indicted the Southern Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization built to defend the rights of Americans. on charges so flimsy that it would make Bull Connor and George Wallace blush. Americans deserve a voice in our democracy, representation of their interests, and should not have to fight for their basic civil rights again and again and again. Race should not be a factor. This is an attempt to roll back the progress made through the civil rights movement and strip black Americans of their voice in public life, using the same tactics as Southern segregationist states following the death of Reconstruction for the very same goal. I am a child of the civil rights movement. We have seen this before. If we needed a reminder or a wake-up call that Jim Crow is alive and evolved, these legislatures made sure that we got the notice. Ms. Wiley, would you like to expand on any previous questions or statements that you weren't able to complete?

I just wanna remind us that the F federal agencies, FBI, DEA, AFT spent over five hundred and forty-eight million dollars on informants for a reason, because they thought it was gonna help them keep people safe. We're talking about this attack on SPLC at a time

Thank you, and I yield.

I'm General Ayles back. General

Yeah, just a a couple of comments lead off. First of all, I'd like to thank uh Congressman Hunt for his pictures uh up here, um showing what it was like in the days in which the Democrat Party just rode roughshod over the South. I'd like to point out that the criticisms of Stephen Miller to believe I are uh to

Yeah. Yes.

this day are because the role he took in exposing the Duke lacrosse player hoax.

Regenerate.

in which three people almost were sent to prison for life. And Steve had the braveness to stand up to the politically correct. And eventually those three people were found innocent after going through absolute hell. I also wanna point out a book by Christopher Ruffo n called uh America's Culture Revolution, How the Radical Left Conquered Everything. And in that book he clearly describes how a goal of the hardcore left, and I think some members of this are members of the hardcore left uh the degree to which they try to racialize everything uh not just racialized black americans but hispanic asian americans everything that their ultimate goal is the end of the united states as as we have it break down and uh it should be mandatory reading and i think when you talk about joe biden screaming about white supremacy all the time i think a lot of us must wonder what in the world is he talking about but what he is talking about is he's trying American racial lines which is really just a a horrible thing. And finally, I don't have time to look into it, I I know if you Google Ann Coulter and Proud Boys and Ann Coulter is a many times New York Times bestseller uh you may get a a different version of the narrative we'd had today on uh on the Proud Boys. Okay, now we're gonna start off with Mister O'Neill. Um, given the SPLC's long documented pattern of financial misconduct, and by the way, the financial misconduct by itself is enough that nobody should ever be citing them for anything. And it's recent federal indictment for secretly filing millions of dollars to individuals tied to extremist groups. How do you explain the continued willingness of major press outlets to cite the SPLC as an authoritative source? And by the way, I think twelve years ago, thirteen years ago, any reasonably well um educated american would have known that the s. p. l. c. was just a uh a disgusting made up group uh but but and and i would think that any uh newspaper magazine online magazine that cites them should be considered totally discredited anybody who's done it the last twelve years but how how do you mister o'neill uh explain why so called major press at one time prestigious outlets, still cite SPLC as an authoritative source.

I think it's because the SPLC positions itself as a weapon of the left by demonizing the sorts of conservatives that many in the mainstream left want to render irrelevant and therefore it is a weapon a reputational weapon against people who are inconvenient for the left's narrative.

Yep. Go ahead, Mr. Perkins.

Well, they leverage their relationship with government to be able to do that with the media, and then they leverage the relationship with the government with the corporations. And that's how they were able to get the corporations to de-bank and de-platform conservatives because of that relationship. But go I go back to the illustration of the hub. They're at the center of it, but they're not alone.

Right. Yes.

I would also say that they leverage their relationship with

Okay, uh, very good. It just still bugs me that they go after Stephen Miller for fighting those three lacrosse guys innocent. Doesn't it just bug you? And you know that's what it's all about. Um, we'll we'll go to Tony Perkins. Your organization's falsely been labeled a hate group. I mean, to me you're about the most wholesome organization in the country, uh, by SPLC for holding names.

Well, again, we warned them to take down that label, and we've had subsequent attacks on people who have been labeled by them, including the latest Charlie Kirk who was assassinated. There is culpability here. And and I think that we need to look at the uh going back

Mm. Right. They just hate Christianity, don't they? Just hate it. Um Uh Doctor Swain, do you wanna comment on that? Would you like to comment?

Time.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Time of the gentleman has expired. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Carolina, North Carolina.

Thank you so much, uh, Mister Chairman. uh just reminding people that many of the roots of anti-racism and civil rights in the South came from the church's very Christian people.

I really do.

I suppose I need to remind some members of this committee of the long and blood-soaked history of the Ku Klux Klan in North Carolina, maybe even some of our witnesses. During Reconstruction, the Klan lynched and assassinated countless black and white leaders who opposed them. In the sixties, the Klan grew to more than ten thousand members in North Carolina, more than any other southern state combined, and they earned the nickname, and North Carolina earned the nickname, Klansville, USA. Klan members in North Carolina carried out coordinated terror campaigns, culminating in the nineteen seventy-nine Greensboro where the Klan and their Neo-Nazi allies shot and killed five people who were protesting against them. But the story doesn't end there. Only because of the bravery of those who fought back against the Klan, like so many of our Christian ministers, and the Southern Poverty Law Center, did we see some Change. In the nineteen eighties, the Southern Poverty Law Center launched Klanwatch to monitor, track and expose the activities of the Klan. In nineteen eighty-seven, the Southern Poverty Law Center won a groundbreaking lawsuit, securing seven million dollars in a judgment against the United Klans of America after their members lynched nineteen-year-old student Michael Donald in Mobile six years earlier. And I know that Mister Johnson talked Mercifully, mercifully, the judgment bankrupted the United Klan of America. This verdict greatly weakened the Klan and sent them scurrying underground, though of course we're seeing many of them today. But it didn't stamp out the last rotten remnants of the Klan throughout the South. And those remnants have been planting seeds that have been cultivated by this president. That's why the continued work of the Southern Poverty Law Center and its allies is so essential. Now, Ms. Wiley, is paying for informants to disrupt a violent white supremacist organization like the Klan, The same thing as supporting these groups?

No, and that's why I was citing the FBI's own use of informants.

And, um, actually, was there a book written about an undercover agent, by an undercover agent who infiltrated the Klan, like maybe called Black Klansman? Could you tell us about that?

I haven't read the book, but it's a great movie.

It's a great movie. Um, so, given that the SPLC's incredibly successful

Well, the only things we've heard in public sphere is donors saying that the SPLC did what they had hoped donors would do. And we know from the public record that they're continuing to try to give money to the SPLC.

Mm-hmm. I kind of hope this lawsuit, this specious lawsuit, results in more contributions to the SPLC. Might be a a silver lining to the lawsuit and this ridiculous hearing. Even the amateur, amateur hour Trump lackeys at DOJ know that this is a specious lawsuit. They don't believe these cynical charges. They know it's wrong. The SPLC is not funding the KKK or far-right groups. The SPLC is taking them down. But at the same time the President of the United States is trying to use taxpayer money to fund people who have assaulted police officers and tried to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. We have to speak truth. We have got to tell the American people what is going on. And that might be the only good thing that comes out of this ridiculous hearing. Thank you, and I yield back.

I'm not sure mis- uh, I'm not sure Leo thinks the hearing's ridiculous, uh, but Oh, actually, I'm I'm pretty sure he thinks it doesn't. Um,

Mister Chairman.

gentlelady from George is recognized.

Thank you so much, Mister Chair, I have um unanimous uh consent requests, a request unanimous

The objection. The objection. Gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.

Thank you, Chairman, I'm gonna take the gentlelady from North Carolina's advice and get to what I believe is the truth here. And I'm gonna get a little historic on you. Anybody ever hear of Machiavelli? Remember that, when you learned that in school? You know, and you can debate the exact wording of what it means, you can debate the exact origin, but the meaning is basic and it's simple, and it's as old as politics itself. If you believe, according to Machiavelli, that your cause is important enough, that it's righteous enough, that you want to obtain certain goals, that it's urgent enough, there are no rules, no morals, and no ethics. Truth becomes flexible and there are no standards anymore. And people start telling themselves that anything is acceptable, if they can win, if the outcome is important enough to them. This is about winning. This is about the left-wing, I'm sorry, but it's about the left-wing democratic party wanting to win and using the SPLC using each other as tools to make sure that they win elections and put out misstatements. And we have to ask, wouldn't it become part of the philosophy, well in the last administration, we remember, we saw a lot of things, an FBI of lies, an FBI of untruths, an FBI of injustice, an FBI that Joe Biden was willing to rely on politically tainted information, some of which came from the SPLC. Bad information, we know now that it was wrong, that it wasn't true at multiple levels. Garland told, the AG, told that, us that the greatest threat facing the entire country was domestic violent extremists. But the real threat, the great threat, a great threat to freedom was his own Department of Justice and his own FBI back then. It was scary. If you had a different opinion. Guess what folks, and I'm not trying to address this to you, Mrs. Wiley, I have a right to be conservative. I have a right to a different viewpoint. But there's not one human being up here that supports the Ku Klux Klan. None of us like it. I bet you there's nobody in this whole damn room that supports it. Catholics saw the clearest example of this. It was hateful, it was hurtful. They went after Roman Catholic churches. They were gonna have undercover agents. Thank God we found the information. It would have been going on. They went after Hindus in my own state of New Jersey. Good, faithful, peaceful, loving people. The FBI went in with guns drawn from bad information that they got. SPLCA supplied it a lot of this. The FBI painted them as domestic terrorists, the same thing with parents in school board meetings that were worried about the stuff their own biological children would be. Being taught to them, it is wrong. Catholics aren't extremists, concerned parents aren't extremists, Hindus aren't extremists, but we've seen the pattern before over and over again. We saw it in the abuse of Pfizer. We saw it when, by the way, tax dollars, questionable sources, FBI, Igor Danchenko, remember that? of thousands of dollars paid to him for bad information. We also got bad information from the Southern Poverty Law Center, all for politics to go after Republicans. That's the elephant in the room. That's what people don't wanna talk about. But that's the real deal. If you were conservative, and no, Charlie Kirk was not a terrorist. If you just sat and listened to what he said, you might not agree with it. He was just a very faithful, conservative person. It's his right. And now the worst of all of it though is that we find the Southern Poverty Law Center is just one more tool. I think it started out good. I think they wanted to do good things. I think there are still people in there that wanna do good things. But it's been used in a way that is perverse and awful to get a political goals of a political party accomplished. Machiavelli through and through. It's pretty damn amazing. People donated money believing they were helping good causes, helping vulnerable people, and in the beginning they were. Nobody wants racism. Nobody up here in this room wants racism. Nobody wants to hurt anybody. Nobody wants to hate anybody. But the Southern Poverty Law Center and the work that they've done in recent times, has actually caused more hate, more hurt, and more problems. They gave money to the KKK. I don't give a how - how you, uh, No.

No. In fact,

No. No.

with the FBI memo, uh, the SPLC has suggested that the catechism of the Catholic Church is itself a hateful document.

Mister Chairman, if we're gonna run over time, can we talk about the President's attack on the Pope?

Well, I How does an organization Last question and I'm done.

Is is that part of your presentation?

I'm very lenient.

How does an organization maintain credibility

Right.

I'm the General T- General for New Jersey controls the time. I'm the only person who can ask his last question.

as an authority on a I'm losing my time here, but how does an organization maintain credibility as an authority on extremeism, if there's serious concerns being

I can say that they d- that by two thousand and nine they had already deviated and started targeting conservatives and I would say that they were so effective at uh eliminating hate groups that they had to find new people to label new organizations. That's the problem.

So, Perkins.

Okay. We'll do UCs then, I think.

And, Mr. Chairman, point of order, just so we're clear, that was one minute over as we move into misbalance time.

We've been very late with the time.

That's a very good decision.

What's the second and third?

I I just wanna make sure we're we're doing it equally,

Yeah.

I can't remember, so sorry.

that's all. Equal rights, that's all.

Moving to UCs for Mister Van Gieroux,

I have u-

UCs for the General Manager of Pennsylvania,

I have a UC in Baltimore.

and then we're actually gonna go vote, and then we will come back once votes are completed. Gentlemen from New Jersey, UC.

I have a UC for Moms for Liberty, uh, and it is entitled " The Just Department Announced Indictment Against Southern Poverty Law Center", a UC

Objection. Gentleman news back. General Lee from Pennsylvania is recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request to introduce an article from The Hill dated September seventeenth, twenty twenty five, DOJ quietly removed studies showing right-wing attacks, outpaced those by the left.

Objection. Uh,

Uh, Article from the Washington Post, November thirteen, twenty nineteen, leaked Stephen Miller email showed Trump's point man on immigration, promoted white nationalism, SPLC reports.

That objection. Mm.

Uh White House uh issued the National Security Presidential Memorandum seven in September twenty twenty five.

The objection.

And the an article from the New Republic, April twenty twenty six, the Justice Department sides with the Ku Klux Klan.

The ob- objection.

Thank you.

And I I have two here, massacre at Pittsburgh synagogue tied to anti-refugee sentiment and great

No objection.

Buffalo shooters manifesto promotes great replacement theory,

I

anti-semitism.

Not objection.

Can I go?

Uh the committee will be in recess for a short period of time. I the reason we have to leave now is I do know that there's one fifteen minute vote and then there uh the the next five votes I think are two minute votes, I don't wanna I don't wanna miss that. Um so we're gonna we're gonna recess uh there's some lunch for you in the back, uh and uh then we'll be back as quick as possible. Committee stands to recess. is that their Committee will come to order. The gentlelady from the great state of California is recognized for five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I previously asked in this committee why the DOJ took down the NIJ's journal dedicated to domestic radicalization, violent In that journal, the DOJ research found that since nineteen ninety far-right extremists have committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far-left or radical Islamist extremists. And in spite of those facts, we held two hearings in this committee committed to Islamophobia, and not a week later yet another act of deadly violence from the right occurred at a mosque in my home state. So before I be given i'd like to respectfully ask our chairman mister chairman will you commit to holding a hearing on the white nationalists who violently shot at the mosque this week in san diego

uh we will take that under consideration we have a number of hearings scheduled

ok

and mark up schedule coming up here in the next week we're looking to do something on act blue we're looking to get the ceo of southern poppy law center to come

ok mister chairman i'm gonna reclaim my time

but he wouldn't he wouldn't agree to come yet so we're working on that

i'm gonna reclaim my time from you um and I hope that that long thing turns into a yes. Um, but now I would like to talk about an organization which is and has been historically dedicated to stopping violence the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose informant program has helped stop real acts of violence in this country. SPLC, shared intelligence, gathered from informants directly with law enforcement agencies, including the FBI and DOJ. That information helped stop a neo-Nazi from obtaining a security and help thwart a planned terrorist attack targeting a synagogue and an LGBTQ bar in Las Vegas. So, Mister Tyler, if an organization helps stop a bomb attack, is that good or bad?

Well, of course it's good, but

Okay, thank you. No, cuz I don't have a lot of time. Mister Tyler, do you believe that law enforcement sure should ignore credible intelligence about violent extremist threats? Yes or no?

No.

Okay, thank you.

W- and there was

Oh, I apologize.

Thank you.

Because from where I sit, those answers sound like public safety work. Yet Republicans applauded when Kash Patel severed the FBI's information sharing relationship with SPLC. And I cannot find a single instance where SPLC's cooperation with law enforcement made Americans last sa- less safe. Maybe the real issue is simply SPLC has been effective at white supremacists and extremist organizations for decades, organizations that Republicans either condone or deny exist at all. SPLC was founded during the Civil Rights Movement to fight racial terror and organized hate in the South and for over fifty years it has sued violent white supremacist organizations, monitored extremist groups, protected viol- voting rights, and defended vulnerable communities. SPLC bankrupted factions of the KKK and fought racial intimidation campaigns. And recently they exposed abusive living conditions in juvenile detention centers and filed suit against school districts that failed to provide individualized services and reasonable accommodations for disabled students. How is that bad? And let's talk about transparency for a moment. Republicans are accusing SPLC of wrongdoing because it did not publicly disclose donor-by-donor payout maps tied to confi- confidential informants. But nonprofits do not operate that way. Are Turning Point USA or Moms for Liberty publishing donor-by-donor payout audits? Cuz I can't seem to find them. And somehow Republicans want a completely different standard applied here. And the hypocrisy becomes even more obvious when you look at Acting Attorney General Todd Blanch. Mister Blanch publicly attacked SPLC over its confidential informant program, while refusing to rule out taxpayer-funded payouts, to January six rioters, including individuals convicted of assaulting police officers. So why is secrecy suddenly unacceptable when a civil rights organization uses confidential informants to stop violent extremism, but perfectly acceptable when this administration creates a one point eight billion dollar taxpayer-funded white reparation slush fund? Why are Republicans attacking SPLC while refusing to provide transparency about who could receive tax-unfair,

You see. The gentlelady is recognized for unanimous consent request.

Mm. Mm. general is facing bipartisan criticism about the doj's so-called anti-weaponization fund five nineteen twenty six politico i ask unanimous

without without objection

what we know about the san diego mosque shooting victims suspects possible motive and more

without objection

multiple republicans in congress post openly anti-muslim statements

without objection

the second wave return of the militias

without objection

Pentagon tightens ban on supremacist activity after years of denying problem.

With objection.

SPLC, DOJ lawsuit, a wake-up call to end Mississippi's school-to-prison pipeline.

Without objection.

SPLC report reveals the high price of Florida's incarceration of black children.

Without objection.

Fifth Circuit rules against unlawful debt collections targeting Hurricane Katrina survivors.

With objection.

SPLC report, overcoming the unprecedented, southern voters battle against voter suppression, intimidation and a virus.

Without objection.

SPLC announces new campaign, poverty is not aligned during poverty awareness month.

Okay, without objection.

How the threat of political violence is transforming America.

Okay, without objection.

And the l- and the last one, right-wing extremist violence is more frequent and deadly than left-wing violence.

Without objection.

Thank you, Mister Chair, and I am looking forward to getting additional information on

Yes. Yes. Yeah, and just for the record, Republicans aren't upset when the Southern Poverty Law Center labels racist organizations racist, we're upset when they label non-racist organizations, conservative organizations racist, and we're upset when they pay racist. That's why we're having the hearing. The gentleman from South Ca- or gentlelady is recognized, and the gentleman from South Carolina.

Thank you. Uh, the eleven count indictment of the Southern Poverty Law Center over wire fraud, false statements, and conspiracy to commit money laundering states that between f- twenty fourteen in twenty twenty three the splc covertly funneled more than three million dollars in donated funds to individuals who were associated with several violent extremist groups including the kkk the national socialist movement and the national socialist party of america because the splc was instigating rather than infiltrating these hate groups donor money was seemingly being used to create and prop up the very hate that splc claimed to be fighting against more hate means more money for the SPLC and this led to a transformation of this corrupt and divisive group, moving towards a creator of hate within America. There is a fundamental difference between federal law enforcement using paid informants and a non-profit organization lying to financial institutions to compensate people to format hate racism and anti-semitism. The SPLC's field sources were doing much more than gathering information. For example,

Yes, based on the information in the indictment. Based on the information in the indictment.

So in response to the indictment, the SP we also found out that the SPLC was sharing information with law enforcement. I've got concerns about that because of the na- how biased the SPLC obviously is, and the information that they were sharing with law enforcement was also biased. I think that you can tell that by the questioning or at least the the accusations that were just recently made and even some of the articles that were identified by the the woman uh from California uh the the articles themselves, even accusing the the folks this week of committing a horrible act at the mosque out in San Diego, Uh, their own writings defy and and disagree with what she was uh alleging over there. Individuals on the right and left have long recognized that the L SPLC is no longer the group that it was founded to be. Mister O'Neill, shouldn't we be concerned that our government and law enforcement are accepting information from knowingly biased sources?

Yes, we should be concerned that they were receiving information specifically from a group that systematically demonizes concern

So if the SPLC were instigating criminal action and then reporting such information to law enforcement would that raise not would that not raise even more legally dubious conflicts, Mister Perkins?

It would. SPLC was kind of it was like they were hiring an arsonist to create a fire, then they were calling the fire department

We're accusing someone else.

And then they wanted to get

We're accusing someone else of setting the fire.

Well, but they also wanted to get Citizen of the Year award by calling in and turning in the arsonists that they paid. Uh, it i this is a c- it's a conspiracy that goes way beyond just money. Th this was about trying to demonize silence and completely eliminate any opposition to the left when it came to their agenda.

And that's what's played out.

i have concerns that the splc's program teaching tolerance is really intolerant and many of the public and private schools use

OK, I appreciate that.

Mm.

Uh, I believe that this program, that it's the learning for justice is the community education program that I am referring to. Mister O'Neill.

Yes. So it's very telling in my mind that the program that was long known as teaching tolerance apparently the SPLC has become too woke for tolerance so they changed the name to nix the tolerance and just go with learning for justice.

Okay, all right, interesting. Well I'm just about out of time. I also have a unanimous consent.

LA's right there.

This an article from April thirtieth, twenty twenty six from Lifeset news, the both sides' political violence

Objection.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This president and his supporters in Congress want to turn the clock back. They're trying to undo the progress of the civil rights movement. That's what this is all about. This is about white nationalism and a direct attack on black Americans in this country and it comes from the very top. That's why we need groups, like SPLC, because the president is systematically taking us back to the darkest chapters of American history. Rather than face accountability from the voters, he is fully embracing authoritarianism. Sham indictments against nonprofits are just one part of this plan. President Trump, he's captured Supreme Court, and Republicans in this very room have supported attacks on law firms in civil rights litigation, dismantling the federal civil rights offices, weaponizing the DOJ to baselessly attack the president's enemies, gutting the Voting Rights Act. This is an effort to criminalize dissent. We're witnessing an intentional effort to intimidate any institution who will stand up for our rights, the rights of Americans. It's an intentional effort to silence black voices and to undo our multiracial democracy. And the majority claims that the SPLC manufactures hate. Here's the hard truth. There is no reason that the SPLC has to manufacture hate in this country because the Trump era has supplied plenty of it. White supremacy, Christian nationalism, violence against women, right-wing extremism, and bigotry against the LGBTQ community is flourishing. And the president just set up a corrupt slush fund to pay people who took up arms against our own government. Right now, hate is being cultivated, rewarded, and reinforced by those in power. Ms. Wiley, thank you for being here, how do these attacks on SPLC, the Justice Department, and the civil rights of Black American in enforce civil rights enforcement affect the civil rights of Black Americans?

Significantly. And I just want to share one story we haven't talked about, because Because the reality is, Charles Murrell, the third, a black man in Boston in twenty twenty-two was just walking down the street. The Patriot Front attacked him. The Patriot Front is listed on SPLC's heat map as a hate and extremist group.

Yeah.

The importance of calling it out is so that Charles Murray the third can walk down the street and be safe. And at a time when we are talking about schools and education and children and what happens within them, we see a broad side attack on even teaching history of slavery, history of the civil rights movement that took permission away from hate and extremism and said, this country, no matter your viewpoint,

That's right.

no matter your religion, no matter who you vote for, and no matter what you believe is your country,

That's right.

that matters for all of us. And I say every American should be concerned, no matter who you are, if we whitew-

I couldn't agree more because we see every day when we turn on the news and we watch this president at press conferences the bigotry and the hatred is coming from the top. It's a strategy, it's an electoral strategy, but it's also a cultural one. The way President Trump has routinely insulted and demeaned women and people of color has permeated this country. When he casually calls women reporters " piggy" and stupid and mouths the word " bitch" at a black reporter, when he calls Haiti and African countries " shithole nations", when he repeatedly and relentlessly spreads falsehoods about President Obama's birth certificate, it spreads the hate. As a former history teacher, I know there's gonna be a reckoning. There will. And our children And our grandchildren will ask us where we stood, what we said, what we did when we had these microphones, when we had these platforms. They will ask us if we bowed down to a tyrant, to a bigot, to a man who spreads hate through his social media posts, through his appearances at press conferences, they will ask us this. And I will tell you, I know where I am. I'm standing

Generally yields back. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, hey guys, I have a great idea. Twenty sixteen, we we raised fifty one million dollars, that's really good. Um, but I think we can do better. Right? I think we can do just a little bit better if we just invest in the same thing that we're perpetuating if we perpetuate the same thing that we're fighting against. So let's let's take, Mister O'Neill, three million dollars, does that sound about right? If we take that little bit of money and send it to informants in white nationalist groups, I think we can two and a half, like I think we can double our money. Does that sound like a good business model?

I I I have I have this deal for you, I think it's only two hundred and seventy to that particular Charlottesville informant.

Right, yeah, so so so let's I think that's a good investment.

Yeah.

Don't you, I think if uh a year from now a year if a year from now in twenty seventeen,

Yeah. Twenty and seventy grand and then

I think we'll see the fruits of our labor. Is that kind of what happened?

According to the indictment, and I I do need to preface according to the indictment because I haven't seen the underlying evidence and of course this will work out in court. But according to the indictment, that's exactly what happened.

So we so we take this

Uh.

organization, the Southern Poverty Law Center, that has had, I say, tremendous success, decades ago in eliminating racism in our country, in uh fixing laws, and seeing really a societal change in the way that we approach race, in the way that we deal with race. Um, and they were doing pretty good in twenty sixteen, and even before. But isn't that just crazy? I mean, uh, Miss Hageman talked about this a second ago, but we're sitting and we're we're perpetuating the problem and funding the problem that we're eliminating, right? And this is this is a division for dollars racket. Is that a fair characterization, at least according to the indictment?

Well, and that's what I that's why I wrote this book in twenty twenty years before the indictment, because I saw it when they put good people like Tony Perkins' organization, Family Research Council, on the hate map. I've been screaming from the rooftops about this for years. So when the indictment comes out, I say, yeah, that that makes a lot of sense to me. And I want to s- a few if if you don't mind i wanna set a few things straight the southern poverty law center wasn't founded until nineteen seventy one a lot of people in this room have been saying that it's a civil rights organization started in the middle of the civil rights movement it was started toward the end of it they were almost ambulance chasing i mean and forgive me on this but when they sued the clan their own lawyers said that suing the clan was like shooting fish in a barrel because they said Morris Dease was so focused on suing the Klan to make money by going to donors because he knew donors cared about this, that they were drifting away from their original mission, which by the way wasn't fighting white supremacy, but was representing poor people in the South with legal representation, which is a noble mission, and I pray to God that they turn every effort that they have demonizing conservatives toward that effort because that effort is noble. And by the way, groups on the hate map, good conservative groups that provide legal representation to people who can't afford it, are demonized by the SPLC for doing exactly what the SPLC

So - so, mister - mister - mister Perkins,

was founded on.

real quick, if - if the SPLC puts on their hate map a neo-Nazi group, that's kind of their mission, right? There's no objection to that, probably not. Uh, the transparency, I think, actually helps to eliminate groups like that. Would you agree?

Yes.

So, you're on the same list. as a neo-Nazi group. And that's not really a fair characterization, is it?

No. They need this.

And Moms for Liberty too, I mean, the their only crime I think is being involved in their child's education, right?

Right, being moms.

Being moms.

Yeah. So what they need

That's apparently a white supremacist thing, right? Like I I don't understand this logic, but we we have we we are taking an entity and using uh an idea that we're gonna go grow our influence in the Biden administration, in government, they're going to meet with us on a quarterly basis, and we're gonna go after people. It i- it became, I think, and and maybe this is fair to characterize, but the SPLC went from maybe an altruistic entity at its inception, at at on a g- on a good day, to really a racket of " let's go grow our influence, let's balloon our fundraising." I mean, what's their foundation right now? Seven hundred million dollars? Is it fair to characterize the mission creep of the SPLC?

Congressman Fry, it's more insidious than that. They needed the the the the white supremacist groups so that they could marginalize and demonize moms and groups that adhere to biblical teaching. They needed those groups. That's why they're propping them up. This was not about money. This was about, Charlottesville was about coalescing corporations behind their initiative to marginalize and demonize conservatives. the left could march forward. It's much more insidious than what i- thi- this is like Al Capone. Does anybody believe that it was just tax evasion? Come on, he was a criminal. He killed, he murdered.

And you use that to justify your existence. Ma- that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

I mean he was back, gentlemen from Florida is where we which are we going?

No, I was just gonna note they were thirty sec- six seconds over, and I think a Miss Crockett needs to catch an airplane so she could go first.

Gentlemen from Texas, then we'll come to gentlemen from Florida.

Well, well, well. Um, I, you know, it is so hard to sit here and listen to this. That's one reason I watched the majority of this, um, and didn't actually sit in this room, because I'm sure my faces would have told, um, everything that I was thinking. Um, is there anyone that finds it odd? Well, can we start here? I'ma start with the entire panel. Are the Proud Boys A white supremacist organization, yes or no, starting with Miss Wiley.

It is my view they are. It depends on how you define it. I have a book.

Okay, never mind. Next.

It depends on how you define it.

It's a yes or no, proud voice,

Oh.

how they define themselves. Are they white supremacists, yes or no?

I have not read a description of how they define themselves.

Okay, that's fine.

I'm not on their mailing list, I don't know.

So are you only on the mailing list of

I'm not like the SPLC,

white supremacists or

I don't fund organizations that I'm a

Oh, it just seemed like you were saying because you haven't received their mail, you only receive the mail of white supremacists. But go ahead, last witness.

No, they're not white supremacists.

And you know what? I do believe that y'all believe that. Let's try another one. Neo-Nazis. Miss Wiley.

What, yes. What?

Neo-Nazi, Nazis is in their name. Neo-Nazi.

Is the question still about the Prat boys or is it about the uh

Neo-Nazis.

Neo-Nazis.

We have moved on. Neo-Nazis.

Ne- Neo-Nazis are hate groups and I have a book, two thousand and two,

Okay, thank you so much.

about hate groups that I suggest that you all read.

So we're gonna, so I'm reclaiming my time.

It's a long book.

I'm reclaiming my time. Neo-Nazis. Are they white supremacists?

Neo-Nazis? Are they white supremacists?

Yes or no?

Come on, this is amazing.

What's that?

Come on, this is amazing.

Yes or no?

They're they're certainly anti-semitic, which I would join with any member of the Democratic Party. Mister Nadler earlier was talking about standing up for the Jewish people.

Okay, reclaiming my time, next.

You happy to do that?

Yes, they're white supremacists.

Well, thank God, uh, Jesus Christ, I didn't think we were gonna get there. Oh my gosh, let me be clear. Proud Boys are freaking white supremacists, Neo-Nazis are too, and this president who loves to coddle white supremacist has decided that they should be giving checks. The reasons that I pointed to those particular organizations is because you can go and read I don't know how many articles as Doctor Swain wants people to read up I'ma be clear I I've read my fair share of books I do have my fair share of degrees it is clear that neo-Nazis as well as power boys joined in on January sixth yet this slush fund that they keep talking about is specifically to give them money. So how dare this majority sit here and try to lecture try to lecture this organization about money. Now, we're not talking about tax paying dollars as we are in that slush fund. But you're telling me the two billion dollars in the same country that I'm sure some of y'all will struggle with whether or not the enslavement of black people was good or bad. I'm not even gonna go there and ask y'all the question. y'all struggle with defining that these people were white supremacists. But this country still hasn't thought that reparations made sense for black folk in this country but at the same time they've decided that people that are in organizations that are absolutely white supremacy organizations should get our tax dollars because they decided to tear apart or attempt to tear apart our democracy. They are being rewarded. These are people that went through our criminal justice system. When people on that side of the aisle claim that they love law and order, they went through it. They either entered pleas of guilty or they were found guilty. And this president on day one, his priority was not around racism, it was around doing things like letting them go and now putting money in their pockets. We haven't had one hearing on white supremacy. Yet when we look at things like the killing of Ahmaud Arbery, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, the nine worshipers who were murdered at the Mother Emanuel AME Church, the twenty-three people murdered in twenty-nineteen during a shooting at Walmart and El Paso, the ten people murdered during the twenty-twenty-two shooting at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York. All of these were murdered by white supremacists who were empowered by the Republican Party's racist rhetoric and policies this is the same party that wants to drag us back to the Jim Crow era some say that there aren't poll taxes and I guess it's because they're not listing the amount of money, but when you tell somebody that they've gotta go and pay for something, say, like a passport that costs over a hundred dollars in order to be able to vote. That looks like a poll text to me. Some of y'all need to read up on your history books, the very same ones that the Republicans have decided that people should not hear about, cuz you don't want real history taught in our schools because you're afraid that it's gonna hurt people's feelings to know that their ancestors were so savage, that they would enslave black folk. You don't want them to understand why the fourteenth

Time of the gentlelady, the time of the the time of the gentlelady has expired. Well, you can't yield cuz you done run out of time, but uh it looks like the ranking member wants to make a uh unanimous consent request.

Mr. Chairman, thank you. Uh Walmart gunman attacked El Paso because that's what his president was telling him his defense attorney says. I'd like to introduce that for the record.

Not objection. Democrats would talk about a slush fund. I would just point out, was it a slush fund when Peter Strzok got one point two million dollars from the Garland Justice Department?

Mm.

Was it a slush fund when Lisa Page got eight hundred thousand? You know, Peter Strzok's the guy that said, I'm in the Northern Virginia Walmart, I can smell the Trump supporters. And the Biden Justice Department gave one point two million dollars. Gentleman from North Carolina is recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, Miss Wiley, I want to talk to you about the Charles Morell case that you mentioned earlier. You said it happened where?

Boston, Massachusetts, yes, sir.

In Boston? And he was attacked by whom?

The Patriot Front.

The Patriot Front. Um, the SPLC did not give the Patriot Front any money, is that correct?

Uh, I don't know.

You don't know?

No.

Um, and how was he attacked? And pardon me, I don't, I'm just not familiar with this case.

Uh, the Patriot Front was um, had a pr- a march that they were engaged in without a permit and he was attacked on the street.

Was he killed or just assaulted or?

I don't know that it matters if we're talking about a hate crime, which is what we're talking about.

Well, I'm I'm just trying to get the details, ma'am, and I'm leading up to this. Would you be willing to condemn the local

Uh, I'm sorry, I'm not qui- uh, what was your question?

Well, you condemn Boston's local leaders from trying to defund the police. They did that in their recent budget proposal.

Uh, uh, this is, uh, I don't live in Boston. What I will say is this was a hate crime and, and

Do you think that defunding the police helps or hurts public safety?

the question I think, um, that I was asked to come speak to was the rise of hate.

Mm-hmm. Right.

and the critical importance of us addressing and protecting civil rights.

Well, you said earlier that you respect Mister Mural's right to a free street.

And there's a complex plan

So I'm asking you, will you condemn the local leader's efforts to defund the police?

I will not make any comment about local decisions in Boston.

What about what about Mayor Wu's uh policy of offering sanctuary to people here illegally regardless of their criminal history? Will you condemn that?

No.

So it seems like your qualification on public safety is very limited. Correct? No, I'm just here, I'm just here on a hate crime discussion. Yeah, I think it is. I think it is. In regards, well, let's talk about the hate crimes. In terms of the Neo-Nazis, I actually agree with just about every word that Jerry Nadler said. I'm working on a bill to to promote safe places of worship, increased penalties for attacks on worshipers, and Neo-Nazis, this Neo-Nazism is certainly on the rise. You would agree with that? I would. Anti-semitism, uh, attacks against Jews, Christians, members of other faiths, it's on the rise. It is. Um, do you know why it's on the rise?

Well, I think that's why we've been so concerned about the cuts to grants and programs that are helping us understand the rise and exactly why we have young men,

Yeah.

like we saw in San Diego,

Yep.

murder three men at a mosque.

Are you concerned at all?

And while we're concerned about the attacks on the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is also seeking to help us better understand and forget all

I agree. Are you, do you find it at all problematic that one of the leading candidates for United States Senate proudly commissioned and displayed a Nazi tattoo on his chest for almost twenty years. Does that concern you?

I I don't know who you're referring to. I would only say that anti-semitism, neo-Nazism, hate always concerns me.

Would you condemn that and that candidate?

Condemn.

He's a United States Senate candidate who proudly wore a Nazi tattoo right on his chest.

I Well, certainly I don't agree with any support of neo-Nazism.

Okay. Now, I'm detecting a little bit of uh it seems like viewpoint and partisan bias from the SPLC. Uh, Mister Perkins, I wanna talk to you a little bit about this. Do you know why there is such fervent um resistance or, I would say, fervent hatred for traditional viewpoints, for Christians, for people like yourself?

I do, because we have a fixed view of marriage, of human sexuality, and that

Right. Right. Miss Wiley, do you think that biblical values are extreme? Miss Wiley, do you think that biblical values are extreme?

I can't that I don't even understand the question, sir. I'm sorry.

Very simple. Do you believe that biblical values are extreme?

I believe that people have the right

Sure.

to have their beliefs, including their interpretations of religion, whatever their religion is.

Is Mister Perkins' belief in traditional biblical values what brought him to the forefront of the SPLC's hate group map?

I can't speak for the SPLC's decision.

You are today.

I am here to speak about hate and bias. And what I am here to say is

Do you think that belief in biblical values promotes hate and bias?

That is way too broad a question to answer.

Well, I'm asking cuz

What I'm what I'm very clear on is that we have a constitution that protects First Amendment rights,

Sure.

including freedom of speech. We support that as a civil rights community that includes almost every faith and and an interfaith alliance.

Yep. Well, I know d- let me, uh, let me just stop you there.

And frankly

D- I, you know, I know Doctor Swain well. She's a scholar. She's independent. She's very well thought out. Why was she listed as someone to be concerned about?

I'm here because we're talking about hate. I did do not engage in the destinations.

Is she a hateful person?

I don't know her.

You're on behalf of the SPLC.

I'm on behalf of civil rights, the leadership conference that civil rights. I don't know her.

Yeah. Well, I'm over my time, Mister Chairman.

Mister Chairman, could we just clarify Miss Wiley's organizational identification? I think there's some confusion here.

Yeah.

I am the President and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, which is the nation's oldest and largest civil rights coalition of almost two hundred and fifty national organizations.

Gentlemen from Florida's recognized. Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman. I I wanna go back really quick. to uh the questioning uh by Miss Crockett just cuz I I thought it was actually an easy line of questioning and I wanna give everyone an opportunity just to clarify. Miss Swan the the Neo-Nazis are a supremacist group, right, I know you talked about your book, but

May I

Neo-Nazis are a supremacist group.

May I define a white supremacist? Because I did a Cambridge University Press book,

Okay, you keep you keep you're you're doing I know,

and when I did my research at one

but Miss Swan you're I gotta be honest, you're doing what the you're doing what the university professors did with Elise Stefanik talking about well what's the definition of this and what's it

No I'm telli- No I'm giving you a definition because you all don't have one.

no no but Neo- no no I I oh I the Neo-Nazis are a supremacist group. They believe they're supreme, right? That's why they wanted to put people in camps that they believed were not pure. Neo-Nazis are a supremacist group, right? I mean this this doesn't this is not a trick question, Miss Swan. I'm I'm not trying to trip you up in the fact that you're

I would like to define a white supremacist and when I did my research it was white people who believed that because of their race they were superior to other groups. But the left redefined white supremacists so that it could include any white person in this room,

That that, okay, Miss Swan, Miss Swan,

including you.

that's a, hold on, that's a wonderful speech and a filibuster.

No, it's the truth.

Are Ne- are are Neo-Nazis supremacists?

It depends on which ones. They are they are they are individual.

No, no, I didn't ask you, I didn't ask you which ones.

Some of them some of them are plano-anti-

Are are Neo-Nazis Miss Swan, listen, I'm not reading your book if you literally can't answer this question. Are Neo-Nazis

They're individuals, some are and some may be just plain old anti-semites.

No, no, no, neo-Nazis are anti-semites, okay? We're gonna agree there.

Right, okay.

But they're also supremacists, Ms. Swan.

Okay, if you if you agree

No, no, no, no. You don't have to take my word for it. Right? Like, they are. It's the that's the whole reason they exist,

But you all don't seem to

because they believe they are supreme.

You all don't seem to understand that a white supremacist is so indefiant.

Who's they all? I I'm not a neo-Nazi. Who's they all? I'm a regular person asking another regular person if we can agree that neo-nazis are supremacists.

Okay. Okay, I will agree with you.

Okay, I didn't, I don't want you to be forced into it.

Okay. I would agree with you, but I suggest you all take the time and read my Cambridge University Press book that was nominated for a Pope surprise.

Yeah, uh listen, uh I Miss Swan, listen, m- Doctor Swan, I can promise you there's no freaking way I'm buying your book when when it took two minutes for you to look at me and not and and how to convince you that neo-nazi listen d- this is not a talking point this is a hundred years of history.

Because I don't like the talking points, the leftist talking points.

Watch this, I'm gonna show you how easy it is. Mister Perkins, are Neo-Nazis supremacists?

They are supremacists.

Thank you, sir. Mister O'Neill.

Yes.

Okay. Doctor Swan, that wasn't a trick question for them. I wasn't trying to trip them up. I wasn't using DNC talking points. This is part of the problem. And I and I I didn't even wanna do this quite frankly, cuz I don't want I'm not interested in making this stuff political. Right, I got I got Democratic candidates in in Texas coming out yesterday and saying that Jews belong in concentration.

It's terrible.

OK? Like we're we're in real we're in real bad times.

I agree.

A- a- and so i- if we put all this if we put these hateful conversations in our political box, and we do the whataboutism, we're this is just gonna continue to spread hate.

I agree with a hundred percent.

It

We agree in it.

Right. Right. And and and that's why uh that's why we we gotta be able to at least agree to a simple set of facts that neo-Nazis are supremacists. Right? Okay. We've moved on, um, uh, we've moved on. You're you're there.

But you all use white supremacists as a broad statement in a just a party of a white person.

I I I I I I didn't I didn't listen, I didn't I didn't say anything other than they're supremacists.

Okay.

And they are.

I apologize to you, sir.

You okay. No, you don't have to apologize to me. I just I just want you to understand like if we can agree on a simple set of facts, then we can't solve real problems. So, you know, Mister Chairman, uh, you know, this obviously was a specific topic that you had scheduled. uh a couple weeks ago and invited these witnesses in. But I I gotta be honest, like the the last week, the amount of anti-semitic messages, voicemails, text messages I have gotten, stuff on my social media, an assassination plot, you know, a couple months ago, someone serving twenty-five years in in jail, um, and now watching someone running for office trying to join the greatest deliberative body ever created on this planet. who thinks the way forward for America is to look at nineteen forties Germany. OK, my grandmother was part of the Kindertransport out of Germany. Her parents died at Nauschweitz. My kids are not going to an internment camp, I can assure you. Uh, and it's becoming so normalized. I- i- it is - You know, we - we've gone from, you know, like, oh there's - there's Americans who donate to elected officials, you know, AIPAC, and then it's, you know, okay Netanyahu, and then it's, you know, o- okay, you know, maybe we shouldn't support foreign money, and then okay, now we're gonna call all these people Zionists, and now we're at concentration camps. By the way, we got to concentration camps much faster than I thought we would get, but here we are. Um, and it's real scary. They're, people are scared. Peop- people don't wanna show their Jewish stars anymore. They're moving into neighborhoods just to be around other, other Jews because they're concerned. And one of the my republican colleagues, now I know I'm over, Mister Chairman, I'm gonna wrap it up. One of my republican colleagues asked like, do we know why it's spreading hate, all sorts of hate, not just ant- antisemitism. Why is this is why it's spreading. It's all here. It's really here. Go go poll young kids versus seniors. It's a dramatic difference in the amount of hate young kids have versus seniors. This is the difference. You're seeing it in voting patterns. You're seeing it in belief systems. We've let foreign governments and just totally weaponized, this getting no no countries can beat us militarily. We're stronger than everyone combined. But they ha- they are gotten us fighting amongst ourselves, dividing us at each other's throats. So if you you ask me why things are so bad, I mean, just just spend a couple minutes, go to my Twitter, go look at some happy things, like a happy Veterans Day or happy Memorial Day that I posted. Look at the hate I get. You know, i- it is out of control. So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you doing this hearing, uh, in general, but hate in g- hate, real hate, is spreading in this country in ways that my grandparents they're gone. But I can't imagine if they were alive to see what was going on here. And I yield back. Thank you for the extra time, Mr. Chairman.

Well, um, I appreciate what the gentleman said, and one of the things I have personally made a commitment to do is keep it out of keep it out of our party the the party I belong to um and I know you are doing unbelievable amount of work trying to keep it out of your party the once great party of FDR and JFK is we're seeing things there that are just not healthy for this great nation um and I'm committed to doing everything I can to make sure it doesn't get involved in the Republican party um and I appreciate your words cuz it is it is scary very scary the gentleman from Missouri is recognized

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, uh, Mr. Chairman, I ha- I have to say i agree with a lot of what um my colleague mr. moskowitz just said and i think it is a lot of the hatred and division is driven by the by social media by by this especially since covid and i believe our foreign adversaries in many times are intervening and i believe the algorithms are driving our um young people particularly into more and more extreme uh views and that's sowing social division and that is not good for anyone Um, but, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this committee. It is truly astounding to me the lengths to which the Southern Poverty Law Center has gone to preserve its relevance. And I think it's telling that the on at this, our second hearing about the Southern Poverty Law Center, my Democrat colleagues have not called someone from SPLC um to uh to defend themselves. Uh, in fact, um, the uh previous Democrat witness, uh, very to the witness today just over and over again, well, I don't speak for the SPLC, well, why are you here then? Um, look, an organization that was ostensibly committed to advancing civil rights should strive to make its own intervention less necessary by encouraging productive dialogue and fostering equal treatment under the law rather than continually continually framing disagreements through the lens of racial animosity. If the SPLC were serious about dismantling hate, it would not be funding it, nor would it be engaging in conduct that promotes division for institutional or political gain. Um, Mister O'Neill, i- is it a common practice, you've written a lot about non-profit organizations or NGOs, is it a common practice for NGOs to channel money through intermediaries, uh, uh, entities in ways that obscure the ultimate recipient or purpose of those funds?

Uh, yes, to some degree there is dark money funding um through, and and this happens on both the right and the left.

Sure.

You have groups like sixteen thirty fund and um the tides foundation that purpose, that seem set up to hide which donors are funding which projects.

Okay. And uh are there uh are there legal or ethical issues with this uh this, I don't know, money laundering if you will? Yeah. Yes. Yes.

Um, the There is a very important First Amendment right established uh and and upheld through NAACP v Alabama and most recently AFP v Bonta that um Americans have the right to give to causes they believe in. That said,

Yeah. Yeah.

you know, there are there are questions about this cloaking of dark money. What is not covered in this is lying to a bank or saying

Right. Right. Right. Yes, okay. Uh, do does um does the SPLC uh reveal what the criteria or metrics are to determine which organizations or individuals uh are included in their hate map?

They claim to, yes. They have uh uh they have

Because uh, when I look

very weasely language. They say uh when a group vilifies other people,

Yes.

typically by their immutable characteristics, but they use the word typically. Because they have anti-immigrant hate groups,

Yes. Yes.

and so your immigration status is not an immutable characteristic.

So fair, Center for Immigration Studies,

Correct.

uh, I've I've studied their their work quite a bit, and all I see is a desire to enforce federal immigration law, but somehow that makes you a hate group. Well, let's go to um let's let's go to s- someone right here, um, uh, Doctor Swain, are you an apologist for white supremacists?

Okay. I don't think so. I try to stand up for all Americans, I believe in the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It applies to all races, and in America we should not be discriminating for or against any group.

So you have a dream that someday your young children would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the quality of their character.

Yes.

I don't know, I think if someone says something like that, they would be labeled a hate group by the SPLC maybe.

Probably.

Probably. Um, and um, I think you said it, you said it very w- very well, Doctor Swain, um, that rather than monitoring hate groups, the Southern Poverty Law Center has become one.

And that was two thousand and nine. And I w- I had been a Democrat all of my life. And so Well, at that time I was about ready to make a transition, but the it was my observations.

So that was two thousand and nine.

Yes, two thousand nine.

In the last seventeen years, has anything changed your mind about SPLC?

N- n- I was oh, I was ahead of my time.

Uh thank you. Thank you, Mister Chairman. I yield back.

Yields back, gentlemen from New York. Oh, okay, sure. We'll go to the gentleman from Wisconsin. Thank you, Chairman.

Mister O'Neill, I I wanted to talk a little bit about this uh the hate map concept, but um Isn't it true Southern Poverty Law Center began began as a public interest law firm?

Correct.

Yeah. And uh i- actually as a member of the state legislature, we had some issues in which Southern Poverty Law Center had weighed in on, so I was familiar with the group before this latest uh set of of uh issues made us kind of more aware of uh what's going on internally but um when did the organization start to kind of stray from that original mission or that original course

So it strayed from that course in at least two ways and two time periods. The first was in the nineteen eighties when the lawyers all quit because they said that Morris Dees took the organization in a direction of fighting the Klan instead of representing poor people in the South. And then the more recent time was really starting in the late nineteen nineties, but ramping up by, you know, a thousand percent in twenty ten when they had their hate map and they started going after conservative organizations.

So, let's talk about the hate map. So, first of all, can you explain the hate map?

Yes, this is a map. The SPLC is best known for suing Klan groups into bankruptcy. And so they had a program called Clanwatch. They expanded it to Hatewatch because they ran out of Grand Dragons to slay. And not to say that white supremacy doesn't exist anymore in America. There are some isolated groups. But by and large, not enough to justify the sort of money that the SPLC gets. And they have this map that's supposed to, and in their words they say it reveals the infrastructure upholding white supremacy in America today. And this map, now includes uh social conservative organizations like the Family Research Council, Moms for Liberty, it includes now Turning Point USA, PragerU, uh it includes Alliance Defending Freedom, it includes the Center for Immigration Studies, uh the Federation for American Immigration, I mean I could just go down the list. And it also includes uh a group of LGB people who oppose sexualized lessons for children in schools.

So is it s-

And they call that group an anti-LGBTQ hate.

So is it too far to say there's no left-leaning groups on the hate map?

There are a few left-leaning groups on the hate map, but nowhere near like the overall bias is very clear against the right. They don't have Antifa, they don't have Jane's Revenge. They do have uh the new Black Panther Party, I believe, which they always reference when they're asked this question. But by and large the hate map is solely well, not solely, but by and large targeted on conservative organizations.

Very good, thank you. Mister Perkins, um, do you think the Southern Poverty Law Center is intentionally trying to draw a distinction between you and these kind of legitimate hate groups do you think they're trying to maybe mold them?

They're trying to conflate.

Yeah, okay.

They they they use those organizations to marginalize and demean legitimate, uh, conservative Christian organizations.

Do you think they're purposely diverting money from your organization and reducing operations or do you think that's a target?

That was a part of their con- their broader conspiracy with financial platforms and and banks to debank us and other organizations to keep us from being able to get funds from donor advised funds, yes, so they're they're trying to to bankrupt conservative groups.

It Can I ask you further, did they have any success in that adventure that they launched?

Yes, they did.

Okay, okay. Um, the last thing I would say is do they you have relationship with um, if for with corporate donations, is there any linkage between kind of what they were doing to suppress further corporate donations to their organization or to you? Either way.

I I think most of the work was with uh corporations that had platforms or financial corporations that like PayPal that would facilitate funding to conservative groups most corporations were not giving to conservative groups directly. they were intermediates. They were the vehicles through which people would donate to conservative organizations.

Yeah, so it wasn't about the ideology of the corporation.

That's what

It was more about how they facilitated the actual cour- movement of funds.

Well, I would say some of them willingly went along. Others were pressured by the SPLC using their government connections. And I think, some some in the tech world have suggested that there were threats about regulate regulators uh like in the banking industry,

Yeah.

So I think they use threats and bullying tactics.

Thank you very much, Chairman. I, uh

Uh, you see.

Gentlemen, you look back, gentlemen from Pennsylvania's recognized.

Yes, I seek unanimous consent to introduce an article from May eighth, twenty twenty six, um from the Intercept, which is entitled " Big Finance Might Be Dooming the SPLC Even Before It's Day in Court" describing how uh some of these uh larger financial institutions have been blocking donor advised fund donations to the SPLC.

Object.

Thank you.

Gentleman from New York is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So the hate map, uh, you don't like it. I get it. Um, but the SPLC is not a government organization. And we have the First Amendment. So they're free to put what they want. And you, all of you are free to speak out against it and to explain why they're wrong. But as I think of my Republican colleagues, we believe in the First Amendment except, I guess, when it's critical of far right groups or conservative groups who support these Republicans. But you are not free to use the government to criminally indict a organization based on a completely bogus charge. And I want to dig into this indictment. On April twenty-first, hours after Acting Attorney General Todd Blanch and the FBI Director Kash Patel this indictment. Mister Blanche went on Fox and said this.

No information that we have that suggests that the money that they were paying to these informants and these members of these organizations they then turned around and shared what they learned with law enforcement. To the contrary, or else we would have known from their own words that they had given this money to uh to these guys and we didn't know it.

So, they had no idea that the SPLC was using informants, uh, and providing it for to the government. Five days later, Mister Blanch was forced to acknowledge that that was a false statement. In fact, it was in a document filed by the Department of Justice where he said it is true, he went on TV and said, " It is true that over the years they have selectively shared information with law enforcement. That's well documented and no dispute, but they aren't charged with any of that conduct." What the hell does that mean, they aren't charged with any of that conduct? The entire premise of this fraud scheme is that SPLC was actually using the money given by the donors to support the hate groups, not to dismantle them as they represented. So any knowledge by the government that the SPLC sh- shared information with them to dismantle these groups completely undermines and defeats the fraud claim. But there's plenty of evidence that the FBI knew that the information by the SPLC to help the FBI dismantle these groups came from informants. In fact, two weeks before the indictment, the SPLC presented the d- uh, US attorney's office with evidence that showed that they had been sharing information from informants with the FBI dating back to two thousand eighteen. And even Blanche's statement that none of the information shared with the was charged in the indictment is false. It doesn't matter because that's not what the fraud claim is, but it is false because the Charlottesville Unite the Right movement is specifically mentioned in the indictment. But the indictment does not mention the forty-five page report that the SPLC sent to multiple FBI offices before the Unite the Right event that included information from their informants. Now, we've established that, now we know this fraud claim is completely bogus. But it gets worse. Because it's not even part of the allegations. In paragraph nineteen of the indictment, it explains the fraud scheme. It says that the SPLC represented to the victim donors that their money would be used to help dismantle violent extremist groups but that they did not tell those donors exactly what they were doing. how they would do that. So it actually charges fraud by omission, not representation, misrepresentation. But in order to have fraud by omission, you must prove that the omission was material to the victims, such that they would have acted differently if they had known about it. But there isn't a single allegation in the indictment that any donor would not have donated if they knew about the payments to informants. In fact, everything we know is the opposite. Miss Wiley has pointed out repeatedly about how donors are trying to continue to give. And that Intercept article that, uh, ch- Ranking Member Raskin introduced cites twenty donors who now say that they either knew about the paid informants or they would have made their donations anyway. And so what is this really about? It is weaponizing and politicizing the department's of Justice, not any of your groups, to quash and squash free speech, to muzzle people, that because you are trying to protect far-right investigations who are huge supporters of the Republican Party. They may not do any oversight over this indictment, but I guarantee you when we take the majority back in January, we will be doing that oversight and they will be held accountable.

I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Texas is recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, thanks for holding this hearing and thank you to the witnesses for taking the time to be here um and testify before us we certainly um really appreciate that um and appreciate your expertise. Um Miss Miss Wiley, I have a a couple questions for you, do you still believe in defunding the police?

I believe in public safety and that means driving dogs.

D- does that mean driving dollars away from law enforcement?

It means making sure we're driving dollars to the things that support public safety,

So so possibly away from law and so possibly away from law enforcement.

and that's a variety of things. Well, I think we have law enforcement. We have talked about the need for law enforcement, particularly when we're fighting hate and bias crimes,

I I agree,

which have more than doubled in this country since twenty fifteen.

we certainly we do need law enforcement. Law enforcement's very important.

So I think I've

During your your mayoral race a few years ago, you said quote, " I'm going to take a billion dollars from New York City Police Department." Do you still think that's a good idea?

Well, I'm here to talk about hate crimes, not my run for city.

I'm just asking if that's if I I'm asking from a public s-

I've I stand by my run for mayor, and I appreciate the opportunity to try to drive dollars to public safety.

So you stand by that statement. You also stated you also stated you you have to cut the

i stand by the need to invest in community safety to ensure that we have a vibrant civil rights community

by by defunding the police

uh

that is able to participate in keeping our community safe from hate and bias

i i just wanna be clear you you you believe in investing in community safety by defunding the police

i am here to say that i'm really grateful we have the southern poverty law center because it is doing work including with law

You think that you think defunding the police makes our community safer.

to prevent hate and bias crimes.

Okay, I've got I've got another question for you. What what is a black job?

Uh you'd have to ask Donald Trump.

I'm I'm not sure what that means. I'm I'm referring to a statement that you made a year ago on your LinkedIn. I was so honored and proud to be a New York State Delegate for our next President, uh with Vice President Kamala Harris ascending to her black job.

Donald Trump made a comment that was very stereotypical, a black about black people. and it was a joke about his stereotypical statement about black people.

Is that a What what is a black job?

You'll have to ask Donald Trump.

Have to ask, well, Donald Trump's not on the witness stand,

Well,

so I'm asking you.

and I'm I'm here to talk about hate crime, which I hope you wanna talk about as well,

Could could Hillary Clinton

The the gentleman who yielded, I can clarify that.

but it's

Could could, no, I I'd like to hear from the witness, but I I appreciate it. Could could Hillary Clinton have filled that black job? What you call a black job?

You have to ask Donald Trump.

Okay. Thank you, I appreciate it. Um, Doctor Swain, I'd I'd like, got a couple questions for you. Um, and thank you again for for being here. Uh, in your book, The New White Nationalism, um, which is which is excellent, you you wrote that in two thousand two there were approximately two thousand KKK members in the entire nation. Um, sounds like you believe a large portion of them were were paid informants. Um, do you think that the SPLC was involved back in two thousand two?

Well, there was a scholar named Larrid.

If you can turn the mike on, please.

There was a scholar named Larrid Wilcox. uh that i referenced

hmm

and he did research and he was very critical of the southern poverty law center and he said at one point that they were more paid informants than actually k k k members and i will concede that the southern poverty law center was very successful as far as bankrupting the neo-nazis and the south and the uh k k k so i will concede that but i will also argue that as early as two thousand and when I wrote the uh the uh article that triggered the Southern Poverty Law Center. At that time, the New Black Panther Party was uh patrolling the polls, I think in Philadelphia, and they were intimidating white people and they had sticks in their hands, and the Southern Poverty Law Center had not labeled them as a hate group. And so in the blog where I ended with " instead of monitoring hate groups, the Southern Poverty Law Center has become instead of labeling or l- or listing the new Black Panther Party, what they did, they went after Lou Dobbs and they went after the Center for Immigration Studies, and anyone who questioned liberal immigration policies.

Mm-hmm. And - and we've got about fifteen, twenty seconds left. Can you just, to - to sort of close this out, what - what are the dangers of - of uh paying for these uh informants and extremist groups like the KKK?

You you get biased information if you're paying people uh for information. And one of the dangers for our society is that the Southern Poverty Law Center has pretty much become an arm of the Democratic Party. They are very partisan. They should not have that five O one C three status if they're gonna take a side in um uh uh to if they're gonna be biased in how they monitor groups and how they destroy individuals like me.

Thank you, Doctor Swain.

Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from New York.

Uh, Mr. Chairman, could I just do one, you see?

I thought I'm done. Go ahead.

Oh. So, sorry, this is a indirect answer to the gentleman from Texas' question. New York Times' um, what's a black job? Trump's anti-immigration remarks are met with derision. Trump accused immigrants of stealing black jobs during Thursday's debate, prompting criticism from Democrats and other social media users. So I'm glad to see that the gentleman's on our side. Thank you very much.

The gentleman from New York is recognized.

I have another unanimous consent uh motion to enter into the rec

That objection. Chair now recognizes gentle-

Hello.

gentleman from Washington.

Well, thank you, Mister Chair, and our uh distinguished uh panelists. Um, you know, I don't know what happened to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Uh, I know growing up in uh the inland Northwest in in uh sp- uh Eastern Washington, I had some fond, at least favorable memories toward the Southern Poverty Law Center when we had a Aryan Nations compound in uh the Coeur d'Alene area and it resonated with me that the SPLC had uh had played a role in uh getting those folks uh out of our communities and it was generally viewed upon favorably so I don't know how it went from that organization to what I think today could be accurately described as an almost militant weaponized arm of a progressive Marxist pro- political project uh here in the United States. Um. So, I guess, you know, Mister Neal O'Neal, I'm I'm sure you're familiar with the uh the uh uh the the the phrase " jump the shark" and " happy days" when when uh Fonzie

Yes.

jumped over the shark and it certainly the show went downhill from there.

Yeah.

Uh, and you spoke about the quest to start the focus on raising money from SPLC, but how did this organization again go from uh doing some good work uh against

Yeah, there the answer to that question is long and complicated, and that's what my book was trying to do. But the uh the main so first

From my book? I don't remember.

there was Morsties, who is a consummate fundraiser, and he decided to take the SPLC in that suing the Klan direction. And the lawyers said, But I think the the real answer to the your question, the substantive answer, is that we've seen on the left this ideological drift where it used to be that they would stand for your right to disagree and speak openly. And now it is as though if you disagree with anything that the left says, you must be a vile racist hater. Like this, this has always been a little bit of the rhetoric, but it got super. charged after twenty twenty and one of the reasons why moms for liberty is on the hate map is because they peop- many people on the left seem to work themselves into a lather and think that america is still systemically racist and critical race theory is so deeply in you know their idea of critical race theory is that white supremacy is so deeply embedded in our institutions that you have to have a fundamental revolution on a systemic basis otherwise you are supporting white supremacy. And that's the main reason, I think, why the SPLC justifies calling conservatives the infrastructure upholding white supremacy.

And do you think the SPLC is interested in racism being solved?

I I don't have expertise on that particularly. I think um I wish I could say that I do believe that, but I I don't know.

You know, our colleague from Florida I think spoke very passionately, uh, Congressman Moskowitz, about really concerning rise on an anti-semitism. And, you know, when we see these issues of hate that can manifest themselves online, in the social media sphere, often with foreign actors, uh, you know, the area that I'm really concerned about is the conspiracy theory mind-set and this kind of derangement in the fever swamps of the internet, that can play upon these things. And that's one of the reasons why it's the SPLC is so uh concerning because not only does their own activities of of funding uh these informants uh so-called informants using donations to fund racism itself uh but just this whole project certainly is laden with fervor uh for conspiracy theories, and we really do need uh some good think tank work, uh NGO work, and other work to focus on this issue across the board of uh of fighting conspiracy theory. And So, you know, however it did happen, this this jumping of the of the shark for SPLC really did uh some part of your law center I think really d- was a detriment to society as a whole. I I'll just close by saying uh thank you uh to all the panelists, but for all the good work you do, uh Miss Swain, Mister Perkins, Mister Neal, and uh and Miss Wiley. And with that, uh Mister Chairman, I'll yield back.

Gentleman yields back. The um I wanna thank our witnesses for being here today, for their great

Mister Chair, I'd like to offer an a unanimous consent.

Janelle is is uh recognized. Thank you all again.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I have two I'd like to uh enter into the record. The first is

Janelle Janelle is recognized.

from the thank you, from the center for economic and policy research january s twenty six the black jobs deficit cost black americans eighty seven billion dollars in twenty twenty five because of strong anti-black bias in hiring

objection

and i would like to enter to the record uh june of twenty four forbes black americans respond to trump's notion of black jobs

objection

thank you mr. chair

gentlemen the ranking members recognize for motion i understand

yes mr. chairman thank you pursuing the clause two k six of rule eleven i hereby move to subpoena acting attorney general todd blanch associate attorney general stanley woodward treasury secretary scott Besant irs chief executive officer frank bisignano treasury department general counsel brian morrissey to testify before the committee at a hearing on donald trump's nearly one point eight billion dollar slush fund to reward insurrectionist rioters and other alleged victims of weaponization

ranking members have made a motion gentlemen from california is recognized

Mr. Chairman

Motion has been moved. There's been a motion to move uh and put the uh uh lay the motion on the table. The motion is non-debatable. Those uh the question occurs on the motion to table. Those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed no.

No. No.

We're pinning the chair, the ayes have it, and the motion is tabled.

Can we have a recorded vote please, Mr. Chairman?

Uh request for a quarter vote being uh asked for a rec- a quarter vote is requested the clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Jordan.

Yes.

Mr. Jordan votes yes. Mr. Issa. Mr. Biggs. Mr. McClintock. Mr. McClintock votes aye. Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Massey. Mr. Roy. Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald votes aye. Mr. Klein. Mr. Klein votes aye. Mr. Gooden.

Aye.

Mr. Gooden votes aye. Mr. Van Drew. Mr. Nels. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore votes aye. Miss Hageman. Miss Hageman votes Miss Lee. Mister Hunt. Mister Frey. Mister Keilly. Mister Keilly votes no. Mister Grothman.

Aye.

Mister Grothman votes aye. Mister Nott.

Aye.

Mister Nott votes aye. Mister Harris.

Aye.

Mister Harris votes aye. Mister Onder.

Aye.

Mister Onder votes aye. Mister Schmidt. Mister Gill. Mister Gill votes aye. Mister Baumgartner.

Mister Brashen. Aye.

Mister Baumgartner votes aye. Mister Raskin. Mr. Raskin votes no. Mr. Nadler. Miss Lofgren.

No.

Miss Lofgren votes no. Mr. Cohen. Mr. Johnson.

No.

Mr. Johnson votes no. Mr. Liu.

No.

Mr. Liu votes no. Miss Jayapal.

No.

Miss Jayapal votes no. Mr. Correa. Miss Scanlan.

No.

Miss Scanlan votes no. Mr. Nagoose. Mr. Nagoose votes no. Miss McFath. Miss Ross.

No.

Miss Ross votes no. Miss Ballant. Miss Ballant votes no. Mr. Garcia. Miss Kamlager-Dove.

No.

Miss Kamlager-Dove votes no. Mr. Moskowitz. Mr. Goldman.

No.

Mr. Goldman votes no. Miss Crockett. Mr. Nadler.

No.

Mr. Nadler votes no.

Am I recorded? Biggs?

Mister Biggs, you're not recorded.

Aye. Aye.

Mister Biggs votes aye.

I didn't realize everyone was next to me. Miss McBath. No.

Miss McBath votes no.

Mister Garcia. Mister Garcia.

Mister Garcia.

No.

Mister Garcia votes no.

Correa.

Mister Correa.

No.

Mister Correa votes no.

Moskowitz, Mister Moskowitz. Should we vote?

Mister Mister Moskowitz votes no.

No.