SPLC

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is probably familiar to anyone reading this blog. Still, the SPLC is a non-profit legal advocacy organization specializing in civil rights and public interest litigation. They fight racism, in short. Hence, Trump does not like the SPLC, naturally, because he's a racist pig, and has told his DOJ to find something to charge the SPLC with. If we still have justice in America, these charges will go nowhere. We should figure out a way to charge Trump with frivolous litigation. This article by Josh Moon of the Alabama Political Reporter sums it up pretty well

Opinion | The SPLC indictment is exactly what you

think it is—pure BS

The Trump DOJ that doesn’t have time to bring charges against anyone in the Epstein files wants to explore a wild conspiracy about the SPLC.

By

JOSH MOON

Published on April 22, 2026 at 7:56 am CDT

It has been said that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. Apparently, the way to do so is with pure bullsh*t. 

We know this to be true because the Trump Department of Justice, using grade-A BS, managed to sucker a Montgomery grand jury into a multi-count indictment alleging fraud, conspiracy and wire fraud against the Southern Poverty Law Center on Tuesday. 

To put that another way, the guys who don’t have time to bring charges against a single human male for the multitudes of child rape allegations contained in the Epstein files, managed to find a conspiracy to promote racism perpetrated by SPLC because it paid confidential informants who were members of hate groups. 

In so many ways, it is the absolute pitch-perfect encapsulation of the white, male victimhood that has defined MAGA. 

For years now, the SPLC has exposed thousands of individuals and groups for their hateful, disgusting behavior, and has helped pull the curtain back on the underground organizations that have fueled some of America’s most hateful groups. Tuesday’s indictment was nothing more than sympathizers of those groups punching back. 

And then holding a press conference to heap more BS on top of the already smoldering pile of BS. 

To be absolutely crystal clear, despite what the head of the FBI and the acting U.S. attorney general said on Tuesday, the SPLC did not use donated funds to “manufacture extremism” or “stoke racial hatred.” Making such a claim, as both Kash Patel and Todd Blanche did, is something akin to accusing the FBI of manufacturing loan sharking because it paid informants and infiltrated organized crime. 

That’s essentially what the SPLC was doing. Using a series of dummy companies, the organization paid informants who were high-ranking members of various hate groups, including the KKK, Aryan Nation and others, to provide information and documents so the SPLC and its various publications could expose the groups’ activities. 

This isn’t exactly a secret. Some of the organization’s most famous cases utilized documents and information gained from inside sources. Did anyone actually believe that these sources weren’t getting paid for their information? Did anyone think that the sources weren’t being paid to infiltrate these organizations? 

These were dangerous, life-changing risks that were being taken. 

It’s probably also worth mentioning here that for all of the bluster of Patel and Blanche, there is no detail in the actual indictment of the SPLC for manufacturing extremism or paying anyone to stoke racial hatred. 

Instead, the indictment itself meanders through a long list of actions that appear to sit in a legal gray area but certainly do not come close to the fantastic headlines of the SPLC essentially paying people to be racists so it could either report on those actions or litigate against the group. 

For example, in the indictment’s lengthiest entry, it accuses the SPLC of paying an informant who infiltrated the neo-Nazi group the National Alliance and provided a trove of information over more than a decade. In one instance, this individual, who isn’t identified in the indictment, stole 25 boxes of documents from the group’s headquarters, copied them all, provided the copies to the SPLC and then quietly returned the original documents to the headquarters. 

The SPLC, the indictment said, used that information for stories on the group. It paid the informant roughly $100,000 per year to provide information. 

Am I supposed to be mad about that? Is anyone, aside from the National Alliance, Kash Patel and Todd Blanche, mad about that? 

The bulk of the DOJ’s case against the SPLC relies on a broad catch-all charge meant to ensnare fraudsters and other scam artists who flirt with the edges of the law to pull off scams. It’s a law that makes it a crime to knowingly provide false information to a federally insured lending institution. Over the years, the charge has been broadened from providing information to gain a loan or other benefit to include providing the institution with basically any false information. 

The SPLC set up a number of what appear to be phony businesses and used the business names to establish bank accounts. Those accounts were then used to pay off the informants in order to mask the payments. Because it wouldn’t look great if the guy in the National Alliance was getting checks from the Southern Poverty Law Center. 

The indictment calls those instances in which the SPLC used the dummy companies to set up bank accounts crimes. That might be the case, although one exception to the law is if the party has control of the entity it used to set up the accounts. So, if those companies were real on paper, that’s not a crime. There are also a couple of other exceptions that could be leaned on, so we’ll see. 

Regardless, though, that’s about the bulk of it. The SPLC paid bad people to give good information on other bad people and bad organizations. Or to put it another way: It did exactly what we all thought the SPLC has been doing for years. 

And really, that’s what this is all about—hitting back at an organization that has litigated against hatefulness, discrimination and bigotry. Because we have the absolute worst people imaginable in charge of our justice system. 

They are on a rampage against decency and against any group of people who dared stand up for it. The SPLC has long been a shining star for exposing hateful groups and awful humans. 

That made it the biggest target.

Original.

Allen Clifton

Trump keeps saying we are in a new "Golden Age." Now maybe if he called it "the 2nd Gilded Age" it would have more impact. If you are a billionaire, this is in fact a very good time to be a billionaire, maybe even a "Golden Age." Only the extreme wealthy are seeing any kind of a rise in their wealth and income, in large part because Republicans keep shoveling tax cuts their way, while the vast majority of this country, and the planet, are not extremely wealthy. Far too many are barely scraping by. But you never hear Trump acknowledge that. Indeed, his "Liquor Cabinet" only tells him what he wants to hear. Any discouraging word will get you tossed out on your ass. Is this any way to run a country?

Here's another one from Allen Clifton along the same lines.

We’re seeing firsthand why nearly all of Donald Trump’s businesses were complete failures that ended in bankruptcy and embarrassment.

You know, like Trump Steaks, Trump Water, Trump Shuttle, Trump Magazine, Trump Mortgage, Trump Taj Mahal, Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, Trump Entertainment Resorts, Trump Vodka, Trump University, Trump: The Game, Trump Network, Trump.com, and the Trump Foundation.

You can pretty much put “Trump” in front of a common noun, and you’ll likely name one of his many business failures.

Imagine having a CEO of a company who doesn’t listen to anyone, thinks he’s the smartest person in every room he walks into, and only wants to be told what he wants to hear — which, of course, is that he’s a genius, everything is great, and if anything negative is happening, it’s definitely not his fault or the result of his decision-making.

It’s like if someone walked up to the captain of the Titanic and told him there was an iceberg they needed to avoid — otherwise the ship would strike it and sink — prompting the captain to fire the person who relayed that information he didn’t want to hear, replace them with someone who told him no iceberg could sink the ship, and then order the Titanic to continue on the exact same heading… right into the iceberg.

That’s effectively who Donald Trump is — the Dunning–Kruger CEO: an idiot who thinks he’s a “genius” because he’s too uninformed to realize how uninformed he actually is.

Despite all evidence to the contrary, he continues to go out and brag about how “strong” the American economy is, claiming it’s in some kind of “new Golden Age” and better than at any point in history — all while insisting prices are lower, inflation no longer exists, and the world respects the United States, despite the fact that none of that is true.

The economy is a mess, inflation is higher than it’s been in years (driven in large part by tariffs and his war in Iran), and absolutely no one respects this country right now. Our enemies are laughing at us, and our allies can’t stand us.

Even as Republicans lose elections (badly) all over the country, or win by much smaller margins than they normally would, he takes no responsibility — instead blaming anything and everything but himself, outright denying reality, or, as usual, claiming it’s all “rigged” whenever an election doesn’t go his way.

I’ve said it plenty of times before: future generations are going to look back on this time in American history stunned that tens of millions of Americans somehow believed that a con artist and failed businessman was a “business genius,” despite every bit of evidence proving the exact opposite.

Original.

worst president ever

It's not your imagination. It's not make-believe. We are not trapped in The Twilight Zone (are we?) Trump is easily the worst president in U.S. history. That goes pretty far back, obviously, and we have had some real losers, like James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Warren G. Harding and Richard Nixon. But Trump takes the cake, if for no other reason than his constant, often unnecessary lying. But then you look at the corruption, the trashing of our allies, and who he surrounds himself with, and you know something is totally rotten in D.C.

‘Easily the Worst President in U.S. History’

Michael Bailey, a political scientist at Georgetown, prefaced his assessment of Trump’s consequentiality by pointedly noting that he would rank Trump “as easily the worst president in U.S. history. The corruption and damage to long-term U.S. institutions and reputation are far beyond anything we’ve seen before,” including Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan and Rutherford Hayes.

As for being consequential, Bailey continued, Trump has been “highly consequential in an overwhelmingly negative way. He will leave a lasting negative legacy.”

Bailey listed three of these legacies: “The erosion of trust in the U.S. by European and Asian allies; the erosion of U.S. dominance of higher education; and huge budget deficits (not only due to Trump, but exacerbated by him).”

Kate Shaw, a constitutional law scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, cited “Trump’s violation of numerous statutes passed by Congress” to note:

It’s not that particular decisions to violate statutes can’t be undone or reversed; many, perhaps even most, can. But the combination of the president’s numerous and flagrant statutory violations and Congress’s failure to challenge those violations has created a permission structure for future presidents to disregard statutes any time they find those statutes inconvenient.

Gary Jacobson, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of California-San Diego, expanded the case against Trump:

He has done serious damage to many aspects of American government and politics that will be difficult and costly and, in some cases, impossible to undo.

The mass firing of dedicated and experienced civil servants has made government dumber and weaker and will make it harder to attract talented replacements even if the next administration wants to make it smarter and more effective.

The damage to scientific and medical research, the environment, relations with allies and trading partners, disaster preparedness, consumer safety, higher education, military leadership, civil rights, etc. will take years to repair even in cases where that is possible.

It is already clear, Jacobson continued, that “Trump is among the most consequential presidents in U.S. history, and not in a good way.”

In an email replying to my questions, Barbara Walter, a professor of international affairs at the School of Global Policy and Strategy at the University of California-San Diego, wrote:

To flag one thing that belongs on your permanent list that likely won’t show up in the obvious places: norms.

American democracy remained strong for so long because both its political parties and its presidents respected a set of unwritten rules.

Adding that while formal checks “were essential, the oil that would grease the wheels of democracy would be norms,” Walter continued. Trump “has shown that you can violate them and survive politically. He’s torn down the invisible wall that kept the worst impulses of political life in check, and once that’s torn down, a new, ugly world emerges.”

Yphtach Lelkes, a professor at Penn’s Annenberg School for Communication, shares Walter’s concerns, writing by email:

I’m less confident about which specific policies or institutions belong on which list than I am about the broader effect on norms. My guess is that this is where Trump’s longest shadow will fall.

Norms take a long time to develop because they rest on habits of restraint and on the expectation that violations will be punished. But they can disappear quickly once it becomes clear that punishment is not coming.

As a result, Lelkes wrote, “Trump’s most consequential legacy may be less any single policy than the lesson he taught politicians: Norms can be broken, repeatedly and openly, without necessarily paying much of a price.”

While Trump’s norm violations amount to a major assault on American democracy, I am less convinced than Walter or Lelkes of the long-lasting damage.

The Supreme Court has been complicit in the undermining of trust, Moynihan argued:

By allowing Trump to claim these powers, the Supreme Court is weakening the ability of a future president or Congress to repair the damage he is doing today. If the court goes all in on unitary executive theory, it weakens the ability of Congress to bind the president from doing bad things.

By eroding America's government credibility and soft power, Moynihan concluded, “Trump can be both a hugely consequential president and a deeply damaging one.”

All of which points to one more indelible bequeathal: the stain on America left by the record.

Voters in this country twice elected a president with no ethics, no empathy and no end to his narcissism.

-Thomas B Edsall

Clarence Thomas

Here we have Clarence Thomas, one of the original "DEI" hires, denouncing the very movement that enabled his rise to the Supreme Court of the United States. You begin to wonder how anyone as educated as Thomas could be so fucking stupid and blind. To me, it's another indication that conservatism is really struggling these days. If we are lucky, the whole GOP will be smashed and shamed. They should probably try to start a new conservative party, because this one is bankrupt philosophically, morally, and every other way that matters. Proceed, Robert Reich.

The Worst Justice Ever

His attack on progressivism last week was the last straw

ROBERT REICH

APR 18, 2026

Friends,

I’ve long assumed that Samuel Alito was the worst. 

Alito — who authored the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), the case that ended constitutional abortion rights by merely asserting that the high court’s prior opinion in Roe v. Wade (1973) was wrongly decided; who accepted a 2008 luxury fishing trip to Alaska, including private jet travel, from hedge fund billionaire and GOP donor Paul Singer yet failed to disclose it on Alito’s financial forms and didn’t even recuse himself from decisions involving Singer’s subsequent business before the Supreme Court; who hoisted an inverted American flag outside his Virginia home shortly after the January 6 Capitol riot, a symbol of support for Trump’s false claims of a stolen 2020 election — has the moral and intellectual stature of a poisonous toad. 

But I’ve come to revise my view of the court’s worst Justice.

Clarence Thomas is 77 years old. He has now served on the Supreme Court for over 34 years, making him the longest-serving member of the court. He is a bitter, angry, severe hard-right, intellectually dishonest ideologue. After reading his latest thoughts on America, I’ve concluded Thomas is even worse than Alito.

Last Wednesday, Thomas gave a rare public address at the University of Texas in Austin that began as a banal tribute to the Declaration of Independence before degenerating into a misleading screed against progressivism. 

“At the beginning of the 20th century, a new set of first principles of government was introduced into the American mainstream,” Thomas intoned. “The proponents of this new set of first principles, most prominently among them the 28th president, Woodrow Wilson, called it progressivism.”

Thomas went on to blame progressives for the worst crimes of the 20^th century, insisting that “Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Mao” were all “intertwined with the rise of progressivism,” as was “racial segregation,” “eugenics,” and other evils. 

This is pure rubbish. 

In reality, America’s Progressive era emerged at the start of the 20th century from the corruption and excesses of America’s first Gilded Age (we’re now in the second, if you hadn’t noticed) — its record inequalities of income and wealth, its “robber barons” who monopolized industries and handed out sacks of money to pliant legislators, its dangerous factories and unsafe working conditions, its violent attacks on workers who tried to form unions, its corporate control over all facets of government, its widespread poverty and disease, and its corrupt party machines. 

In many ways, the Progressive Era — whose most prominent leader was Republican president Theodore Roosevelt, not Woodrow Wilson, by the way — saved capitalism from its own excesses by instituting a progressive income tax, an estate tax, pure food and drug laws, and America’s first laws against corporate influence in politics.

Then, under Teddy Roosevelt’s fifth cousin (Franklin D.), came Social Security, the 40-hour workweek (with time-and-a-half for overtime), the right to form unions, and laws and regulations that limited Wall Street’s ability to gamble with other people’s money. 

Clarence Thomas got it exactly backward. Had we not had the Progressive Era and its reforms extending through the 1930s, America might well have succumbed to fascism — as did Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini, or to communist fascism, as did Russia under Stalin. Progressive and New Deal reforms acted as bulwarks against the rise of fascism in America.

In fact, it’s been the demise of such reforms since Ronald Reagan that have opened the way to Trumpian neofascism. 

Over a third of American workers in the private sector were unionized in the 1950s, giving them bargaining leverage to get higher wages and better working conditions. Now, fewer than 6 percent are unionized, which has contributed to the flattening of wages, a contracting middle class, inequalities of income and wealth rivaling the first Gilded Age, and an angry and suspicious working class that’s become easy prey for demagogues. 

Wall Street has been deregulated — allowing it to go on gambling sprees such as the one that produced the financial crisis of 2008, which claimed millions of working peoples’ homes, savings, and jobs. 

America’s social safety nets have become so frayed that almost a fifth of the nation’s children are now in poverty. Yet Reagan, George W. Bush, and Trump have slashed taxes on the rich and on big corporations and have allowed giant corporations to merge into giant monopolies rivaling the trusts of the first Gilded Age. And Trump has ushered in an era of corruption the likes of which America hasn’t seen since that earlier disgraceful era.

Thomas claims that “the century of progressivism did not go well.” Baloney. It helped America create the largest middle class the world had ever seen, while also extending prosperity to millions of Black and brown people. 

The tragedy is that America turned its back on progressivism and on social progress in part because of the Supreme Court and Justice Clarence Thomas.

Flashback: I was in law school in 1973 when the Supreme Court decided Roe, protecting a pregnant person’s right to privacy under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. 

Clarence Thomas was in my law school class at the time, as were Hillary Rodham (later Hillary Clinton) and Bill Clinton.

The professors used the “Socratic method” — asking hard questions about the cases they were discussing and waiting for students to raise their hands in response, and then criticizing the responses. It was a hair-raising but effective way to learn the law.

One of the principles guiding those discussions is called stare decisis — Latin for “to stand by things decided.” It’s the doctrine of judicial precedent. If a court has already ruled on an issue (say, on reproductive rights), future courts should decide similar cases the same way. Supreme Courts can change their minds and rule differently than they did before, but they need good reasons to do so, and it helps if their opinion is unanimous or nearly so. Otherwise, their rulings appear (and are) arbitrary — even, shall we say, partisan.

In those classroom discussions almost 50 years ago, Hillary’s hand was always first in the air. When she was called upon, she gave perfect answers — whole paragraphs, precisely phrased. She distinguished one case from another, using precedents and stare decisis to guide her thinking. I was awed.

My hand was in the air about half the time, and when called on, my answers were meh.

Clarence’s hand was never in the air. I don’t recall him saying anything, ever.

Bill was never in class.

Only one of us now sits on the Supreme Court. And he has shown no respect for stare decisis.

Nor has he respected judicial ethics. 

A federal law — 28 U.S. Code § 455 — requires that “any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

In the aftermath of the 2020 election, Thomas’s wife, Ginni, actively strategized with White House chief of staff Mark Meadows on overturning the election results. Between Election Day 2020 and the days following the January 6 attack on the Capitol, she exchanged 29 text messages with Meadows, in which she spread false theories about the election, urged Meadows to overturn the election results, and called for specific actions from the White House to help overturn the election. She also served as one of nine board members of a group that helped lead the “Stop the Steal” movement and called for the punishment of House Republicans who participated in the U.S. House Select Committee investigating the January 6 attack. 

Yet Clarence Thomas has repeatedly participated in cases that have come to the high court directly or indirectly involving the 2020 election results, refusing to disqualify himself. 

In addition, he failed to disclose his wife’s income from her work at the Heritage Foundation, in violation of the Ethics in Government Act. 

Finally, there’s his speech last week in Austin. How can Americans be expected to believe in the impartiality of the Supreme Court in general and Clarence Thomas in particular when he condemns an entire philosophy of government — progressivism — and all the people who continue to call themselves progressives, in effect labeling them neofascists?

At the start of his speech last week in Austin, Clarence Thomas noted that “my wife Virginia and I have many wonderful friends and acquaintances here, and it is so special to have our dear friends Harlan and Kathy Crow join us today.”

He was, of course, referring to the Republican mega-donor who has spent the last 20 years lavishing Thomas with personal gifts, luxury yacht trips, fancy vacations, and funding for Ginni Thomas’s political organization. 

Small wonder that Clarence Thomas prefers the Gilded Age over the Progressive Era. He’s the living embodiment of the Gilded Age’s public-be-damned excesses. 

Hence, he’s my nominee for the worst justice in modern Supreme Court history.

Original.