I can't see the administration winning this case. Their claim is that the SPLC defrauded donors by paying informants in extremists groups to gather information about them. Donors are just generally going to testify "Yes, that's exactly what I wanted them to do with my money."
They persecuted Trump for far less than this, it's the same legal doctrines involved.
You cannot claim your "product" is worth 120M if you're artificially inflating the value through clandestine means. In Trumps case? He openly said "hey do your own evaluations" right in the document, but they dragged him to court for it. In SPLC's case? They actually did it! Secretly funding the very groups they "opposed".
Now: when a government does this? It's "perfectly legal". But NGOs, especially non-profit ones? It's akin to treason. Fraud at the very least.
I can't see the administration winning this case. Their claim is that the SPLC defrauded donors by paying informants in extremists groups to gather information about them. Donors are just generally going to testify "Yes, that's exactly what I wanted them to do with my money."
They persecuted Trump for far less than this, it's the same legal doctrines involved.
You cannot claim your "product" is worth 120M if you're artificially inflating the value through clandestine means. In Trumps case? He openly said "hey do your own evaluations" right in the document, but they dragged him to court for it. In SPLC's case? They actually did it! Secretly funding the very groups they "opposed".
Now: when a government does this? It's "perfectly legal". But NGOs, especially non-profit ones? It's akin to treason. Fraud at the very least.