Chait bait? NY Mag’s ‘collusion’ pusher mocked for doubling down on his Russiagate conspiracy theory

Screen Shot 2019-04-03 at 10.47.21 AM

A writer for New York Magazine has rehashed his most outlandish theory that US President Donald Trump could have been a Russian asset since the 1980s — and has been mercilessly mocked on Twitter for his efforts.

Proving that Russiagate is the conspiracy that just won’t die — even in light of the Mueller report which found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia — New York Magazine writer Jonathan Chait has revisited a piece he published in July 2018 in order to see how well it holds up today.

The article in question — which made the magazine’s front cover — extravagantly contended that Trump could have been compromised by Moscow as far back as 1987. That claim holds up “extremely well” today according to Chait, who doubled down on Twitter on Tuesday, insisting that Russia holds “secret leverage” over Trump.

Screen Shot 2019-04-03 at 10.49.56 AM

But Chait must have read a different summary of the Mueller report than everyone else. In his new piece, he asserts that rather than his “collusion” theories being debunked by the report, his “most important predictions and claims”were actually “vindicated.” Indeed, the clairvoyant Chait claims that he was in fact “ahead of the interpretive curve”last summer and everyone else was just catching up.

Unsurprisingly, Chait was instantly ridiculed on Twitter. Journalist Glenn Greenwald joked that he should “make room for the Pulitzer,” while Russiagate critic Aaron Mate wondered if the Mueller report had made any use of his “damning evidence” against Trump.

Screen Shot 2019-04-03 at 10.53.25 AM

Screen Shot 2019-04-03 at 10.54.10 AM

When NY Mag tweeted out the piece, it faced an onslaught of mocking responses. One Twitter user suggested that Chait’s latest rant was probably ready to publish on Monday, but the editors held off “because it would cause too much April Fool’s confusion.”

Screen Shot 2019-04-03 at 10.55.51 AM

One commenter dubbed Chait “the Alex Jones of NY Mag” while another urged the magazine to fire him, given that he has “no familiarity with facts or burden of proof.”

Screen Shot 2019-04-03 at 10.56.52 AM

Chait also insists in his new piece that journalists skeptical of Russiagate have not managed to debunk his “major conclusions” from last summer — but then again, it’s difficult to debunk crazy theories that exist only in the minds of their hosts, as another Twitter user pointed out.

Screen Shot 2019-04-03 at 10.58.00 AM

{THE SWAMP} – US Chamber of Commerce Opposes Border Shutdown, Supports ‘New NAFTA Agreement’ to End Tariffs

The Chamber is using its lobbying power to stifle President Trump’s ‘America First’ agenda with great effectiveness.

By Shane Trejo

The US Chamber of Commerce is not happy about President Donald Trump’s threats to close down the US southern border, and the organization is using its tremendous lobbying power to curtail Trump on immigration and trade issues.

“Even threatening to close the border to legitimate commerce and travel creates a degree of economic uncertainty that risks compromising the very gains in growth and productivity that policies of the Trump administration have helped achieve,” said Neil Bradley, the Chamber’s executive vice president and chief policy officer.

Thomas Donahue, CEO for the US Chamber of Commerce, appeared on CNBC yesterday where he attempted to downplay his organization’s opposition to the President’s agenda. Still, he expressed some concerns with Trump’s tough talk on Mexico.

“We don’t want to shut down the people that come to the United States everyday to work here across the border that we need. We don’t want to shut down the trade,” Donahue said.

Although Donahue admitted that the migrant crisis at the border is substantial and that “the house is full,” the Chamber is still lobbying President Trump to moderate his trade and immigration policies.

“I think we have conveyed to the President some of the issues he should be thinking about,” Donahue said.

Donahue hopes that Trump’s strong rhetoric on the border is mostly to garner attention and not a serious public policy proposal. He also wants Trump’s trade war with China to conclude as quickly as possible.

“I am not in all of the trade issues enamored with tariffs because, as you know, they’re all paid for by American companies,” Donahue said, in direct opposition to Trump’s trade policy.

“You buy a million dollars worth of steel somewhere that has a tariff on it, you send a check for a quarter of a million dollars to the US government,” Donahue said, deriding the effect of Trump’s policies.

Additionally, Donahue hopes that Congress will pass a “new NAFTA agreement” so Trump’s tariffs can be brought to an end.

The Chamber, along with Koch Industries and other globalist lobbying interests, have driven the pro-trade, open immigration status quo of the Republican Party for decades. Donahue’s comments make it clear that the Chamber’s agenda has not changed in the Trump era.

“Immigrants have long been a vital part of our economy, and they can help fill those gaps now…. Our nation must continue to attract and welcome the world’s most industrious and innovative people and finally fix our broken immigration system,” Donahue said last year.

“The United States is fundamentally out of people,” Donohue said.

The lobbying push by the Chamber toward Trump to persuade him to abandon his electoral mandate seems to be working as Trump’s rhetoric on immigration has shifted drastically in recent months.

Organizations like the Chamber are never going to make it easy to repel globalism from the Republican Party.

 

DEMS SUBPOENA MUELLER REPORT WHAT IS BARR HIDING?

By Emily Tillett

The House Judiciary Committee voted to authorize subpoenas for special counsel Robert Mueller’s full report  on his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and potential ties between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. The resolution passed Wednesday morning 24-17 in a party line vote. The committee will now also move to subpoena all underlying documents related to Mueller’s findings.

Before Wednesday’s vote, Republicans largely blasted the Democratic-led effort as violating the law, claiming the public release of the full Mueller report would present national security issues as much of the report is expected to contain redacted materials pertaining to grand jury information.

Republican members on the committee also claimed the resolution was a continuing effort to undermine the Trump presidency, with some claiming Democrats were pursuing the subpoenas as an attack on the president.

“As much as Democrats may hate the president, I would hope you love America more,” said Colorado Republican Rep. Ken Buck. He said that “if love trumps hate” Democrats should afford the attorney general enough time to properly release the findings.

Meanwhile, as Democrats continue to push for transparency, President Trump pushed back, calling out committee Chairman Jerry Nadler for opposing the release of independent counsel Ken Starr’s report on the investigation of former President Clinton.

“With the NO COLLUSION Mueller Report, which the Dems hate, he wants it all. NOTHING WILL EVER SATISFY THEM!” tweeted Mr. Trump on Tuesday.

Screen Shot 2019-04-03 at 10.09.14 AM

Committee spokesman Daniel Schwarz said in a statement on Tuesday that the debate in 1998 “was not about Congress receiving evidence” but rather about “what type of material from the underlying evidence in the Starr report should be made public.”

“Our expectation is that Attorney General Barr will be as forthcoming now as Mr. Starr was in 1998,” added Schwarz, saying Barr “should provide the full Mueller report to Congress, with the underlying materials, at which point we will be in a better position to understand what Special Counsel Mueller uncovered during his investigation.” 

The House already overwhelmingly voted 420-0 on a non-binding resolution to release the full Mueller report, but Sen. Lindsey Graham blocked a vote on the resolution in the Senate.

As a result of the resolution, Nadler’s committee will also issue subpoenas for a variety of Trump associates. They include former White House Counsel Donald McGahn, former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks, former Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and former White House Counsel Chief of Staff Ann Donaldson.

They are being subpoenaed as part of the Judiciary Committee’s separate investigation into possible threats to the rule of law by the president.

“Because we may have to go to court to obtain the complete text of the Special Counsel’s report, and because the President may attempt to invoke executive privilege to withhold that evidence from us, it is imperative that the Committee take possession of these documents, and others, without delay,” explained Nadler.

Highlights from the Judiciary Committee vote below:

Nadler pushes for report release

Speaking before Wednesday’s vote, Nadler said in opening remarks that on multiple occasions, he asked Barr “to work with us to go to the court and obtain access to materials.” Nadler claimed however that Barr has “so far refused.”

“I will give him time to change his mind.  But if we cannot reach an accommodation, then we will have no choice but to issue subpoenas for these materials. And if the Department still refuses, then it should be up to a judge—not the President or his political appointee—to decide whether or not it is appropriate for the Committee to review the complete record,” said Nadler.

Republicans blast committee probe

Ranking Member Rep. Doug Collins, R-Georgia, meanwhile slammed the committee’s ongoing probe of the president and investigation, saying time would best be spent on issues like the crisis on the Southern border. Collins said the asks for further documents was “reckless, irresponsible and disingenuous.”

“What’s the rush? Spring break probably, we don’t want to wait until May,” Collins suggested of Nadler’s calls for subpoenas as Barr has vowed to testify before lawmakers in early May. He claimed Democrats were simply calling for the subpoenas of documents to make headlines after Mueller didn’t make a determination as to whether Mr. Trump committed obstruction of justice.

“This is great political theater,” he added, arguing that asking Barr to release any grand jury materials was illegal, citing potential national security issues.

Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado echoed Collins, saying the public release could “comprise intelligence sources and methods” that Barr previously expressed concerns about this to the committee.

“As much as Democrats may hate the president, I would hope you love America more,” said Buck. He said that “if love trumps hate” Democrats should afford the attorney general enough time to properly release the findings.

Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas meanwhile urged a subpoena of Robert Mueller himself, saying the committee should let Mueller speak about “whether or not he thinks the report he created should be disclosed without considerations of redactions of classified information.”

Fellow Texan Louie Gohmert blasted Democrats claiming they were the ones who colluded with the Russian government. He called the ongoing probe an “outrageous assault on the office of the president even after the truth has come out.”

“It’s time to go back and clean up the mess that’s been made,” added Gohmert.

Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida agreed with Gohmert, saying Democrats are in denial over Muller’s report, saying the report’s initial release is the the “death rattle of the Democrats’ Russian collusion lie.” He said they’re going through the “stages of grief” in real time over Mueller’s less-than-fruitful findings into obstruction of justice and collusion.


CBS News’ Rebecca Kaplan contributed to this report.

Texans Living Over 70 Miles North of Border Terrorized by Illegals, Cartels

Tuesday, April 02, 2019

Terrified residents desperate for border wall, protection

Americans living roughly 75 miles north of the Mexican border are being terrorized by foreign gang members and illegal aliens, according to a resident of Encino, Texas, who says a border wall is needed to protect U.S. citizens.

A woman identified only as “Soila” told NBC affiliate KVEO that “hundreds” of illegal aliens pass through her neighborhood on any given day, while Mexican cartel members threaten her family and friends — and even attempt to invade her property.

“We no longer can go out without a gun; you can’t go for a walk,” Soila said. “My neighbor and his daughter were chased by men with masks. She was riding her 4-wheeler down 281 — they saw her and they jumped the fence and started chasing her.”

“Huge groups — and we’re not talking 10 or 15, we’re talking about 40, 70 — and the last few months it’s getting worse. They really need to go after the coyotes because we have seen so many abandoned families, women with children just left out there. These people are not educated — they don’t know east or west, they don’t know where the sun rises and sets. You ask them, ‘Have you ever seen a map of Texas?’ They don’t even know how big Texas is.”

Soila tells of multiple confrontations between her husband and gang members who use intimidation to silence and control opposition, adding that her neighbors are scared to call Border Patrol due to threats.

“12 young men dressed in black — my husband automatically stops, and they just put a finger to their lips and it’s like, ‘You better not say anything,’” Soila said. “They know what we drive, they know where we live.”

“There was a young man, [my husband] kept telling him to stop right at the gate, but he kept coming. My husband cocked the gun, and right on his left-hand side, 12-15 more pop out. They were trying to get in towards the house.”

Soila says a border wall is desperately needed, and that those who oppose it are foolish or protecting their short-term financial interests.

“Whoever tells you there is no danger out here and we don’t need the wall, they have no idea what they’re talking about,” she said. “They don’t care as long as the businesses keep thriving in McAllen or Brownsville.”

Democrat Presidential Candidate Julián Castro: Open the Borders

By Neil Munro

The Associated Press

Democratic presidential hopeful Julián Castro is hoping to win primary voters by urging an open-borders policy, even though his plan would likely shrink wages and spike rents for the party’s base of lower-income voters.

Castro, a former housing secretary in President Barack Obama’s cabinet, announced his innovative promise to cut voters’ wages via a friendly interview in the Washington Post:

Democratic presidential candidate Julián Castro offered a far-reaching plan to remake the nation’s immigration policy Tuesday with a new call to end criminal penalties for migrants entering the country without permission and a plan to remove detention as a tool for most immigration enforcement.

By repealing the criminal code that allows the Trump administration to prosecute people who enter the country, Castro would remove the mechanism that previously allowed the administration to separate asylum-seeking parents and children after detention. Trump has since stopped those prosecutions, though single adults continue to face criminal penalties. Castro said he would impose a civil legal process for sorting out refu­gee applications and deportations, with an emphasis on jailing and removing those with criminal records.

Castro also wants to amnesty the population of at least 11 million illegals in the United States, to accelerate the chain-migration of foreigners into the United States, to boost the inflow of refugees, and to end construction of a border barrier. He would also block the power of ICE to enforce the nation’s immigration laws, so further reducing the already small threat of repatriation for the growing population of at least 11 million illegals in the United States.

Overall, Castro’s policy would explode the population of non-Americans in the United States and so further expand opportunities for Latino politicians and power-brokers. In February 2019, Breitbart reported Castro’s political roots in Latino identity politics:

Castro’s mother, Maria del Rosario Castro, or Rosie Castro, was a major leftist organizer who co-founded La Raza Unida, an extremist third party separatist group in the 1970s. La Raza Unida literally translates to “The Race United,” and the group sought to create a new country in the American Southwest called Aztlan. Breitbart News has run a number of pieces over the years on this group and the Castro family’s connections to it, but perhaps the most interesting thing about Castro’s presidential campaign launch is that he did not shy away from this radical upbringing; he embraced it.

The Washington Post reporter, Michael Scherer, did not ask Castro how Americans voters would gain or lose amid of flood of blue-collar and white-collar labor. The reporter did not address how a massive rise of the immigrant population would help lower-income Americans keep their homes in neighborhoods that are already seeing rising real-estate prices, such as New York and Los Angeles.

Instead, Castro and Scherer treated the migration issue merely as a matter of the migrants’ welfare. This skew hides the greatest economic impact of migration — the transfer of blue-collar wages and white-collar salaries earned by ordinary Americans and legal immigrants up to wealthy, older recipients, including investors, CEOs, and real estate owners.

Also, Castro and Scherer treated the migration as only a humanitarian crisis, and portrayed the migrants as helpless victims, which are described as “asylum-seeking families.” Castro told Scherer that “We see this administration’s approach to immigration is a total failure. Instead of marching forward with cruelty, I believe we should choose compassion.”

That approach dismisses the strong evidence that the migrants are rationally exploiting the many legal loopholes which are being held open by Democrats, judges and business lobbyists, to win jobs and residency for their children in the peaceful, prosperous United States.

Scherer did not reply to questions from Breitbart News.

The focus by Castro and Scherer on the migrants’ welfare and on humanitarian concerns also echoes the bipartisan claim that the United States is a “nation of immigrants,” not a nation of and for Americans.

Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 3.52.17 PM

The voting public is likely to strongly oppose Castro’s open-borders and cheap-labor policy.

Each year, roughly four million young Americans join the workforce after graduating from high school or university. But the federal government then imports approximately 1.1 million legal immigrants, refreshes a resident population of roughly 1.5 million white-collar guest workers and roughly 500,000 blue-collar visa workers, and also tolerates about eight million illegal workers.

This federal policy of flooding the market with cheap white-collar graduates and blue-collar foreign labor is intended to boost economic growth for investors. This policy shiftsenormous wealth from young employees towards older investors, widens wealth gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts children’s schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines millions of marginalized Americans, including many who are now struggling with fentanyl addictions.

But the Washington Post article also put a racial, class, and regional skew on the rational public opposition to elite support for cheap-labor migration:

Some Democratic strategists are wary of turning off white voters in swing states of the upper Midwest who Trump has been able to sway with anti-immigration rhetoric.

Those views of “white voters” have been validated by President Donald Trump’s “Hire American” policy which has raised wages in 2018 by limiting the inflow of new workers in 2017 and 2018:

Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 3.53.11 PM

Amnesty advocates rely on business-funded “Nation of Immigrants” push polls to show apparent voter support for immigration and immigrants.

But “choice” polls reveal most voters’ often-ignored preference that CEOs should hire Americans at decent wages before hiring migrants. Those Americans include many blue-collar Blacks, Latinos, and people who hide their opinions from pollsters. Similarly, the 2018 polls show that GOP voters are far more concerned about migration — more properly, the economics of migration — than they are concerned about illegal migration and MS-13, taxes, or House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

Exclusive: Tom Cotton Pushes IRS to Investigate Southern Poverty Law Center’s Tax-Exempt Status ‘the SPLC’s defining characteristic is to fundraise off of defamation’

By Matthew Boyle

Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 3.39.22 PM

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) is pressing the IRS to investigate the tax-exempt status of leftist group Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an organization that has been mired in scandal.

Cotton argues that a series of recent reports regarding the leftist group’s patently political activities are troubling, and in a letter to the head of the IRS provided to Breitbart News exclusively ahead of its public release questions whether these actions warrant removal of the group’s status as a nonprofit organization.

“I am writing to urge you to investigate whether the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) should retain its classification as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization,” Cotton wrote in the Tuesday letter to IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig. “Recent news reports have confirmed the long-established fact that the SPLC regularly engages in defamation of its political opponents. In fact, the SPLC’s defining characteristic is to fundraise off of defamation.”

2019 SPLC Cotton Letter VF by Breitbart News on Scribd

Cotton noted in the letter to the IRS commissioner, citing SPLC financial documents, that the leftist organization has made lots of money by targeting conservative groups with allegations that they are hate groups–regardless of the veracity of such allegations.

“This business model has paid well. The SPLC has accrued more than $500 million in assets,” Cotton wrote. “According to the group’s most recent financial statement, it holds $121 million offshore in non-U.S. equity funds. The SPLC uses these assets to pay its executives lavish salaries far higher than the comparable household average.”

Cotton’s letter cites a number of recent investigative reports by the media into SPLC’s standards and culture, including a recently-published CNN exposé where staff alleged racism and sexism running rampant throughout the leftist group’s organizational structure.

“Famous civil rights group suffers from ‘systemic culture of racism and sexism,’ staffers say,” was the headline in CNN’s March 29 article by Nick Valencia and Pamela Kirkland.

“Some employees at the Southern Poverty Law Center say the legendary civil rights nonprofit group suffers from a ‘systemic culture of racism and sexism within its workplace,’” Valencia and Kirkland wrote. “The SPLC, which has been on the front line of the fight against racial inequality and injustice in the United States since 1971, has been thrust into chaos after allegations over its treatment of minority and female employees. The claims have been followed by changes in its leadership and a company-wide review.”

Cotton also cites New York Times report from Alan Blinder published on March 22 that Cotton noted described the SPLC as “in turmoil” while citing SPLC employee claims that the organization and its leadership are “complicit in decades of racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and sexual harassment and/or assault.” Both Richard Cohen, the organization’s president, and Morris Dees, the organization’s co-founder, have been pushed out in recent days amid these scandals — and the SPLC has named an interim president to lead the group for now.

“Based on these reports, and in the interest of protecting taxpayer dollars from a racist and sexist slush fund devoted to defamation, I believe that the SPLC’s conduct warrants a serious and thorough investigation,” Cotton wrote to the IRS commissioner. “Engaging in systematic defamation is not a tax-exempt purpose: Federal law requires nonprofits classified as 501(c)(3) organizations to comply with IRS guidelines and have a ‘tax-exempt purpose.’ While IRS guidance lists several examples of tax-exempt purposes, engaging in defamation as a business model is of course not one of them. The SPLC defames other organizations in several ways.”

From there, Cotton cites Washington Post piece by David Montgomery published in November 2018. The piece in the Post notes how the SPLC, which used to simply target hate groups like the KKK, Neo-Nazis, Black Nationalists, White Nationalists, and others, has expanded in recent years its so-called “hate map” to target mainstream conservative organizations to tarnish their reputations in order to push a leftist agenda.

“Today the SPLC’s list of 953 ‘Active Hate Groups’ is an elaborate taxonomy of ill will,” Montgomery wrote in the Post on Nov. 8, 2018. “There are many of the usual suspects: Ku Klux Klan (72 groups), Neo-Nazi (121), White Nationalist (100), Racist Skinhead (71), Christian Identity (20), Neo-Confederate (31), Black Nationalist (233) and Holocaust Denial (10). There are also more exotic strains familiar only to connoisseurs: Neo-Volkisch (28; ‘spirituality premised on the survival of white Europeans’) and Radical Traditional Catholicism (11; groups that allegedly ‘routinely pillory Jews as ‘the perpetual enemy of Christ’ ‘). Then there are the more controversial additions of the last decade-and-a-half or so: Anti-LGBT (51), Anti-Muslim (113), Anti-Immigrant (22), Hate Music (15), Male Supremacy (2). Finally, the tally is rounded out by a general category called Other (53) — ‘a hodge-podge of hate doctrines.’”FB

Montgomery noted that the SPLC hate group list for many years — decades, he says — “was a golden seal of disapproval, considered nonpartisan enough to be heeded by government agencies, police departments, corporations, and journalists.”

“But in recent years, as the list has swept up an increasing number of conservative activists — mostly in the anti-LGBT, anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim categories — those conservatives have been fighting back,” Montgomery wrote. “[General Jerry] Boykin, of the FRC, recently sent a letter to about 100 media outlets (including The Washington Post) and corporate donors on behalf of four dozen groups and individuals “who have been targeted, defamed, or otherwise harmed” by the SPLC, warning that the hate list is no longer to be trusted. Mathew Staver, chairman of the Christian legal advocacy group Liberty Counsel, told me 60 organizations are interested in suing the SPLC.”

Conservatives’ efforts to expose the SPLC as a fraudulent group that does not represent an honest arbiter of what is a hate group and what is not have been effective, Montgomery noted.

“There are signs the campaign is having an impact,” Montgomery wrote. “Last year GuideStar, a widely consulted directory of charitable organizations, flagged 46 charities that were listed by the SPLC as hate groups. Within months, under pressure from critics, GuideStar announced it was removing the flags. The FBI has worked with the SPLC in the past on outreach programs, but Attorney General Jeff Sessions has signaled a very different attitude. At a meeting of the Alliance Defending Freedom in August, Sessions said, ‘You are not a hate group,’ and condemned the SPLC for using the label ‘to bully and to intimidate groups like yours which fight for religious freedom.’”

In his letter to the IRS leader, Sen. Cotton noted that the SPLC regularly defamed reputable conservative groups in its hate map designation–which runs as he already detailed contrary to IRS regulations and federal statute regarding nonprofit status for organizations.

“Each year, the SPLC publishes a so-called ‘hate map,’ which ostensibly identifies hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Nation of Islam. But under the guise of its ‘hate map,’ the SPLC also lists its mainstream political opponents and faith-based groups, including reputable organizations such as the Family Research Council, the Alliance Defending Freedom, and the Center for Immigration Studies,” Cotton wrote.

Cotton also noted that the SPLC has regularly engaged in defamation of individuals, citing reports from the Washington Examiner‘s Emily Jashinsky and National Review‘s Douglas Murray.

“The SPLC also defames individuals. It labeled the civil-rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the British political activist Maajid Nawaz as ‘anti-Muslim extremists,’” Cotton wrote. “Last June, the SPLC agreed to pay Nawaz – who is himself Muslim – $3.375 million following a defamation lawsuit.”

Cotton noted too that the leftist group’s defamation of conservatives has real-life serious consequences as well, citing the shooter who attacked the Family Research Council in 2012.

“The SPLC’s defamation has not just damaged the reputation of these mainstream organizations and individuals by lumping them in with the Ku Klux Klan and Nation of Islam; it has resulted in injury and the threat of the loss of life, including an attempted mass murder,” Cotton wrote. “In 2012, Floyd Lee Corkins entered and shot up the Family Research Council’s headquarters, while carrying fifteen Chick-fil-A sandwiches that he planned to smear in his victims’ faces. Corkins told investigators that he selected the Family Research Council because the SPLC labeled the organization as a ‘hate group.’”

Cotton cites a 2013 CNN report on Corkins’ trial, where Corkins admitted he targeted the FRC–a leading mainstream conservative group–because of SPLC’s false labeling of it as a “hate group.”

Cotton then turns to how the organization has abused its tax-exempt status to enrich its leadership, including the now-removed leader Dees. To make these points, Cotton cites New Yorker investigation into Dees and the SPLC published on March 21, as well as the SPLC’s own financial documents including the group’s 990 form filed with the IRS and a report from the Nonprofit Times.

“The SPLC operates as a tax-sheltered slush fund to enrich its leadership: In addition to failing to have a tax-exempt purpose, the SPLC’s peculiar financial situation warrants your attention,” Cotton wrote. “Federal law prohibits tax-exempt organizations from inuring to the benefit of any private individual. Yet the SPLC has accrued more than $500 million in assets as of October 31, 2018. Reportedly and inexplicably, $121 million of these assets are parked in offshore accounts. In 2017 alone, these funds were used to pay the organization’s founder and longtime leader, who was recently removed for unspecified inappropriate conduct, more than $400,000. This payment came despite reports that Morris Dees, in addition to allegedly engaging in sexual misconduct, had ‘ratchetted down his involvement with the organization.’ This is more than nine times the median household income for Montgomery, Alabama, where the SPLC is headquartered.”

Cotton concludes the letter by asking Rettig, the IRS commissioner, to take “immediate action.”

“Perhaps the SPLC was founded for noble purposes and decades ago performed some good work, but what is left of the SPLC is no longer operating in a manner consistent with IRS guidelines and applicable law,” Cotton wrote. “Based on this concerning information and the flood of recent reports, I encourage you to take immediate action.”

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑