11–20 of 20 posts
I guess Fidelity doesn't want to help fund hate groups. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-grand-jury-charges-so...
They were paying confidential informants for tips they would use in investigations and pass to law enforcement. Not QUITE the same as being a hate group.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were paying confidential informants for tips they would use in investigations and pass to law enforcement. Not QUITE the same as being a hate group.
Sure, sure - that's why they went to lengths to ensure the money wasn't traceable back to them, right?
It's truly a sad reflection on the state of our government that when I read the DoJ's press release about these charges, all I could think is that the charges are probably not legitimate and are instead politically motivated. This administration has no credibility left whatsoever. Then to see Fidelity take a political stand - well, given my terrible experiences with that company, I can't say I'm surprised.
The Trump regime's campaign to radicalize as many people as possible continues unabated.
DAFs (U.S. tax law) were never meant to benefit charities, they are a way to give donors a tax break today by putting money in the hands of for-profit entities like Fidelity in exchange for a vague promise to maybe someday donate to an actual charity. https://blog.charitywatch.org/the-dark-side-of-donor-advised... I wonder if Fidelity is putting a similar restriction on those age 70 and above who wish to make a Quali…
It's truly a sad reflection on the state of our government that when I read the DoJ's press release about these charges, all I could think is that the charges are probably not legitimate and are instead politically motivated. This administration has no credibility left whatsoever. Then to see Fidelity take a political stand - well, given my terrible experiences with that company, I can't say I'm surprised.
It's truly a sad reflection on the state of our government that when I read the DoJ's press release about these charges, all I could think is that the charges are probably not legitimate and are instead politically motivated. This administration has no credibility left whatsoever. Then to see Fidelity take a political stand - well, given my terrible experiences with that company, I can't say I'm surprised.
It's astonishing that the left is upset about the SPLC being indicted for funneling money to white supremacist groups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, sure - that's why they went to lengths to ensure the money wasn't traceable back to them, right?
You mean like undercover cop trying real hard not to show his pay slip to mob members?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean like undercover cop trying real hard not to show his pay slip to mob members?
I'll point out that undercover cops are paid the same way as any other officer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll point out that undercover cops are paid the same way as any other officer.
We're not talking about undercover cops, we're talking about confidential informants, people who by definition are not police.
That said - in the US, confidential informants are also paid directly by the agency or police department. While they sometimes (often?) paid in cash, the purpose and disbursement of those funds is closely tracked internally and auditable.
They're _not_ using shell companies to hide the fact that they're paying people for information. SPLC is. Why?
If paying in cash is sufficient for law enforcement, why would it be a problem for the SPLC? It seem clear to me that the intent is to hide the fact that they're doing it at all, not to protect the identities of their informants.