12 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

It strikes me as being both odd and ridiculous for a Trump supporter to discuss corruption on any level, as it pertains to any politician, anywhere.

12 hours ago, MIke B Bad said:

Agree......the irony is breathtaking.

Absolutely, yet it’s ironic argumentative inverse precedes you.

1 hour ago, novacova said:

Absolutely, yet it’s ironic argumentative inverse precedes you.

I'm suppose to guess what is going to be posted in order to recognise the irony before it is posted?

16 minutes ago, MIke B Bad said:

I'm suppose to guess what is going to be posted in order to recognise the irony before it is posted?

Since you are having trouble deciphering a non cryptic phrase, then sure, go ahead and take a guess.

Headline from 20 January 2029:

"Corrupt Former President, His Family, and His Staff Arrested By the FBI"

3 hours ago, JerryM said:

I don't know that anyone claims it was HER money.

The superseding indictment against Dr. Beirich is still under seal. She is likely the person referenced in the original indictment as Employee-2

Yes, it can't be her money on her academic's salary. I would have been donations, so she received 4 million USD from like minded Democrats who want to stop hate groups. Truly a lucrative field being a hate group expert. A lot of money in it.

18 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Truly a lucrative field being a hate group expert. A lot of money in it.

I think you're having fun but the from the SPLC indictment:

10. Between 2014 and 2023, the SPLC secretly funneled more than $3 million in SPLC

funds to Fs who were associated with various violent extremist groups.

Just now, JerryM said:

I think you're having fun but the from the SPLC indictment:

10. Between 2014 and 2023, the SPLC secretly funneled more than $3 million in SPLC

funds to Fs who were associated with various violent extremist groups.

Yes and Mrs Beirich got to decide exactly how those millions of US Dollars were allocated. It is fun, you must admit, that she is now accused of money laundering. I am laughing as I type this.

4 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Yes and Mrs Beirich got to decide exactly how those millions of US Dollars were allocated. It is fun, you must admit, that she is now accused of money laundering. I am laughing as I type this.

The indictment against Beirich is still sealed. The money laundering is in the original indictment but -- according to multiple legal analysts -- is no slam dunk.

The primary charge here is wire fraud in deceiving donations Rep. Raskin at the SPLC House hearing said that as #2 AG for Maryland, he would get almost daily complaints by persons claiming to be cheated by a charity/non-profit.

There he said are none against the SPLC.

Edited August 15Aug 15 by JerryM

3 minutes ago, JerryM said:

The indictment against Beirich is still sealed. The money laundering is in the original indictment but -- according to multiple legal analysts -- is no slam dunk

The whole story sounds unreal. This charity was infiltrating KKK and other hate groups and got millions of Dollars to do it. The very unattractive academic female who was in charge of the millions was having an affair with the operative infiltrating the hate groups, and funding her beau wit the millions. Talk about a conflict of interest. And then they catch her and put her in ankle cuffs and an orange top for a day, but don't imprison her.

I would be amazed if she doesn't walk free, the prosecution seems almost reluctant declining to ask for her imprisonment. However, it does appear she was using the donors' money to fund her personal expenses and the personal expenses of her beau, with whom she lived, as well.

Maybe a perfect Hollywood movie and vehicle for Jodie Foster. It seems the kind of story Larry David would make up. Beirich: "You got coffee all over my Clan robes!"

In federal criminal law, a failure to prove the underlying wire or bank fraud does not automatically render a money laundering charge "moot," but it frequently collapses the prosecution's case because money laundering conspiracy charges generally require proof that the funds involved came from a specified unlawful activity (SUA) like fraud.

To secure a conviction for concealment money laundering or conspiracy under federal statutes, the government must prove that the transaction or movement of money involved the actual proceeds of a separate underlying crime.

If the Department of Justice fails to convince a jury or court that the funds were acquired via illegal means (such as wire fraud or false statements to a bank), the money lacks the legal classification of "criminally derived property" or "proceeds.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdal/pr/second-superseding-indictment-adds-defendant-and-charges-southern-poverty-law-center

1 minute ago, JerryM said:

In federal criminal law, a failure to prove the underlying wire or bank fraud does not automatically render a money laundering charge "moot," but it frequently collapses the prosecution's case because money laundering conspiracy charges generally require proof that the funds involved came from a specified unlawful activity (SUA) like fraud.

To secure a conviction for concealment money laundering or conspiracy under federal statutes, the government must prove that the transaction or movement of money involved the actual proceeds of a separate underlying crime.

If the Department of Justice fails to convince a jury or court that the funds were acquired via illegal means (such as wire fraud or false statements to a bank), the money lacks the legal classification of "criminally derived property" or "proceeds.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdal/pr/second-superseding-indictment-adds-defendant-and-charges-southern-poverty-law-center

Well, since the money was donations obtained ostensibly to combat hate groups, and Beirich actually used them to fund her personal expenses and her lover, it would seem that is indeed criminal fraud.

So let's see.

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

Well, since the money was donations obtained ostensibly to combat hate groups, and Beirich actually used them to fund her personal expenses and her lover, it would seem that is indeed criminal fraud.

So let's see.

Legal experts have previously said they believe the case contains a number of potential legal defects, noting it is not clear from the language in the indictment itself that donors had in fact been misled or that banks were deceived into taking certain actions due to fraud.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/southern-poverty-law-center-heidi-beirich-indicted

NB If no one was misled then the rest of the case is dodgy.

Edited August 15Aug 15 by JerryM

1 minute ago, JerryM said:

Legal experts have previously said they believe the case contains a number of potential legal defects, noting it is not clear from the language in the indictment itself that donors had in fact been misled or that banks were deceived into taking certain actions due to fraud.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/southern-poverty-law-center-heidi-beirich-indicted

If no one was misled then the rest of the case is dodgy.

Yes I read that, but it seems fairly obvious the donors were misled, since the money was obtained to fight hate groups but in actual fact Beirich was using the money for her own expenses and to fund her lover.

Perhaps the "legal experts" who said that were a bit blinded by their left leaning blinkers.

15 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Yes I read that, but it seems fairly obvious the donors were misled

Then the prosecution should have no trouble obviously finding one.

And since Beirich left the SPLC 6 years ago, some or all of the transactions might not qualify for the 10 year statute of limitations.

Edited August 15Aug 15 by JerryM

2 hours ago, Wingate said:

Headline from 20 January 2029:

"Corrupt Former President, His Family, and His Staff Arrested By the FBI"

Leave Biden alone.

50 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Maybe a perfect Hollywood movie and vehicle for Jodie Foster.

Dr. Beirch seems a a rather large size. About Jodie Foster I remember this:

Edited August 15Aug 15 by JerryM

16 minutes ago, JerryM said:

Then the prosecution should have no trouble obviously finding one.

They could easily, but that would not be required. They just have to prove on what basis the funds were solicited. It seems fairly clear that the money was raked in on the basis that it would be used to fight hate groups, not to pay Ms Beirich's rent or electricity bills or food for her boyfriend. There must be copious literature that was used to ask for the donations.

Besides, donors are by nature ideological friends of Beirich and would be unlikely to be truthful.

Despite all this, we all know that the criminal justice system works differently for women, since Beirich is a woman she has a much bigger chance of being let off, or if convicted to just get a slap on the wrist. The prosecution not demanding she be imprisoned already indicates how lax and lenient they are with her because she's a woman.

One also would have thought that saying a house is your main residence, when it is not, to secure lower mortgage rates, is fraud, but clearly the criminal justice system works differently for women.

2 minutes ago, JerryM said:

Dr. Beirch seems a a rather large size. A bout Jodie Foster I remember this:

Yes, indeed, Beirich is a bit of a whale, but you can't put an actress in that looks like her, it would defeat the whole movie. She looks so unappealing. But the idealistic left wing smart woman, facing the evil patriarchy wanting to imprison her for bringing down the racist KKK, it's right up Jodie's ally. Though she's getting on a bit now.

Larry David should write the script though. He already has experience with KKK clansmen.

7 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

It seems fairly clear

It isn't fairly clear. Thank you.

1 minute ago, JerryM said:

It isn't fairly clear. Thank you.

No, but it is. They would have solicited the funds to fight hate groups. There is no way in hell that the donations were sought with a disclaimer "will also be used to fund Ms Beirich's rent, electricity bill and to pay food for her boyfriend".

So yah, it is pretty clear Beirich is guilty of fraud.

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

No, but it is. They would have solicited the funds to fight hate groups. There is no way in hell that the donations were sought with a disclaimer "will also be used to fund Ms Beirich's rent, electricity bill and to pay food for her boyfriend".

So yah, it is pretty clear Beirich is guilty of fraud.

The SPLC raised about $700 million in the years up to when Beirich left and you are saying the whole thing is a fraud because maybe $140,000 was improperly diverted.

The fraud charge against Beirich personally might not even be with in statute limitations.

But I remember your saying as to the Trump-Epstein birthday letter:

But very obviously this document is faked.

Edited August 15Aug 15 by JerryM

16 minutes ago, JerryM said:

The SPLC raise about $700 million in the years up to when Beirich left and you are saying the whole thing is a fraud because maybe $140,000 was improperly diverted

That's not the concern. The concern is whether the money Beirich used to pay her rent, electricity and to pay for meals for her boyfriend was used fraudulently. And the notion that the donors would have been making donations for this is clearly laughable. They made the donations because they thought it would be used to fight extremist groups. Instead it was used to pay Beirich's personal bills and her boyfriend.

Clearly Beirich engaged in fraud when she used the donation money to pay her personal bills and her boyfriend.

27 minutes ago, JerryM said:

The SPLC raised about $700 million in the years up to when Beirich left and you are saying the whole thing is a fraud because maybe $140,000 was improperly diverted.

The 140,000 USD you refer to are of course not the full story. The Justice Department claims Beirich was in a romantic relationship and shared a home with a confidential informant (identified as "F-9") who had infiltrated the neo-Nazi group National Alliance. So Beirich paying money to this guy was really in the neighbourhood of corruption to start with.

Over the course of their relationship, Beirich allegedly oversaw more than $1.2 million in SPLC donor payments directed to this specific informant. Not just 140,000 USD.

Investigators traced approximately $140,000 of that money directly from SPLC-operated accounts into two joint bank accounts that Beirich and her partner held together between 2015 and 2021. So the 140,000 USD was just the money the FBI could trace for certain. It is clear that the money Beirich misappropriated for her own personal use and that of her boyfriend is a much greater sum than 140,000 USD.

The government asserts that these transferred funds accounted for roughly two-thirds of the money in their joint accounts and were expressly used to cover their everyday household and living expenses.

There is no question whatsoever that Beirich is guilty of fraud. Beirich played sugar-mommy with the 1.2 million USD she paid to the "informant", ie her lover, and used about 210,000 USD for herself and her boyfriend in accounts she held with her sugar baby.

Edited August 15Aug 15 by Cameroni

11 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

There is no question whatsoever that Beirich is guilty of fraud. Beirich played sugar-mommy with the 1.2 million USD she paid to the "informant", ie her lover, and used about 210,000 USD for herself and her boyfriend in accounts she held with her sugar baby.

If they can't prove the wire fraud in misleading and defrauding donors, and about $4 million of the $700 million raised went to informants of any sort, then maybe this is no slam dunk and the other charges might not hold up.

2 minutes ago, JerryM said:

If they can't prove the wire fraud in misleading and defrauding donors, and about $4 million of the $700 million raised went to informants of any sort, then maybe this is no slam dunk and the other charges might not hold up.

I don't think the wire fraud is the sole basis for fraud here. Yes, sure, Beirich did set up fake corporate accounts. They may get her on that. But the whole point is that Beirich set up accounts for herself and her lover, where she funnelled the donation money into to pay her living expenses, and those of her lover.

So even without wire fraud, there would be enough for a fraud conviction. Because the money Beirich used for her own purposes, ie living expenses, was not meant for that. The donors gave it to fight hate groups. Paying Beirich's rent and electricity bill is not fighting hate groups clearly. So she defrauded the donors.

13 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

I don't think the wire fraud is the sole basis for fraud here.

COUNTS ONE THROUGH SIX

(Wire Fraud)

17. Beginning in or about 2014, and continuing through at least August 2023, in the Middle District of Alabama, the defendant,

SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER, INC., devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud donors, and attempted to do so, and to obtain money and property belonging to donors by materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, and omissions.

Materiality: The legal test relies on whether a "reasonable donor" would have considered the withheld or misrepresented information important when deciding to give.

ORDER as to Heidi Beirich: Arraignment set for 8/25/2026

Edited August 15Aug 15 by JerryM

11 minutes ago, JerryM said:

COUNTS ONE THROUGH SIX

(Wire Fraud)

17. Beginning in or about 2014, and continuing through at least August 2023, in the Middle District of Alabama, the defendant,

SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER, INC., devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud donors, and attempted to do so, and to obtain money and property belonging to donors by materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, and omissions.

Materiality: The legal test relies on whether a "reasonable donor" would have considered the withheld or misrepresented information important when deciding to give.

ORDER as to Heidi Beirich: Arraignment set for 8/25/2026

You are quoting from the original indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Centre.

Full text here:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1437146/dl

There a considerable focus was on the fact that the SPLC had set up accounts to disguise the origin of funds, and had defrauded donors.

However, since then a second superseding indictment adds a further defendant, ie Beirich, and adds further charges.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdal/pr/second-superseding-indictment-adds-defendant-and-charges-southern-poverty-law-center

See the DOJ can add defendants and charges. Since Beirich clearly defrauded donors by using their money to pay her living expenses, and those of her sugar baby, she herself has to be indicted for fraud, not just wire fraud, since she misappropriated donors' money.

Beirich embezzlement -- if that's what it was -- amounted to less than 1/10 of 1% of funds raised while she was there.

The superseding document just added Beirich's name to the above.

And since she left SPLC in 2019, those charges may be out of date.

Edited August 15Aug 15 by JerryM

1 minute ago, JerryM said:

Beirich embezzlement -- if that's what it was -- amounted to less than 1/10 of 1% of funds raised while she was there.

And since she left SPLC in 2019, those charges may be out of date.

The FBI was really not investigating Beirich originally, she was caught by accident. The FBI were investigating the SPLC originally. In the course of their investigation they discovered the extent of Beirich's appropriation of donor funds for her personal and her sugar baby's use.

So this explains why the SPLC was indicted first. The SPLC was the original target of the investigation.

Once the extent of Beirich's misappropriation of donor funds became apparent, she was personally added to the indictment and further charges were included. As far as I can tell the second, amended, indictment has not been put online yet.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdal/pr/second-superseding-indictment-adds-defendant-and-charges-southern-poverty-law-center

Reading the above press release carefully, it would seem that Beirich is clearly the defendant that was added, and the charges against her are:

1) conspiracy to commit wire fraud

2) conspiracy to submit false statements to a federally insured bank

3) conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering

It also further charges the SPLC with an additional count of concealment money laundering. Clearly more evidence is unfolding. And we cannot be sure what the ultimate charges are as the DOJ can add to the charges at will.

So far the SPLC is charged with wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering.

Under Alabama law embezzlement is "knowingly obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over the property of another with the intent to deprive the owner of it". In essence this could apply here, but they chose not to pursue this, most likely due to evidential issues. There are no actual fraud charges against Beirich. At least not yet. Much easier to nail Beirich and the SPLC on the above counts, as the FBI has iron clad evidence for those.

Since this is a federal prosecution, it may also explain why a civil fraud case is not pursued. Not yet anyway. Once Beirich is found guilt on the federal charges, those donors who made sizeable donations, could in theory go after Beirich for fraud.

Alabama is notorious for weak fraud laws though, fraud there is generally prosecuted under "theft by deception".

This is chicken feed compared to what the Republicans are up to , but

Democrats or Republicans all corruption needs to be investigated it's

a sad fact that politicians World wide are corrupt

regards worgeordie