FULL EVENT: DOJ Holds Press Conference Featuring Todd Blanche and Kash Patel - 04/21/26

[0:05] Good afternoon. Today, a few minutes ago, in the Middle District of Alabama, a grand jury returned [0:13] an 11-count indictment charging the Southern Poverty Law Center with six counts of wire fraud, [0:20] four counts of bank fraud, and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering. [0:27] According to the charges in the indictment, the SPLC is a non-profit entity that purports to [0:34] fight white supremacy and racial hatred by reporting on extremist groups and conducting [0:39] research to inform law enforcement groups with the goal of dismantling these groups. [0:45] As the indictment describes, the SPLC was not dismantling these groups. It was instead [0:51] manufacturing the extremism it purports to oppose by paying sources to stoke racial hatred. The [1:00] indictment describes this conduct in detail, but one troubling example is that the SPLC was paying [1:08] a member of the leadership group that planned the Unite the Right protest in Charlottesville, [1:14] Virginia in 2017 that resulted in the death of one person and injured dozens more. This particular [1:24] person being paid by the SPLC allegedly received approximately $270,000 over the course of eight [1:31] years. In total, according to the indictment, between 2014 and 2023, SPLC paid at least $3 million to [1:43] eight individuals at least. These individuals were affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan, United Klans of [1:50] America, National Socialist Movement, Aryan Nations-affiliated Sadistic Souls Motorcycle Club, the Nationalist [1:59] Socialist Party of America, Nazis, and the American Front. Now, as the indictment lays out, [2:08] after SPLC paid members of these extremist groups, it created work product that reported on these [2:14] activities that the members participated in or contributed to. And to that end, it was doing the [2:21] exact opposite of what it's told its donors it was doing, not dismantling extremism but funding it. To [2:29] carry out this scheme, SPLC created bank accounts in the name of at least five completely fictitious [2:35] organizations that had no bona fide employees or legitimate business purpose. The money was passed [2:43] from SPLC to one sham account to a second sham account and then loaded onto prepaid cards to give [2:50] to the members of the extremist groups. This was designed to shield the source of those funds and [2:56] because of this, SPLC is also charged with one count, as I said earlier, of conspiracy to commit money [3:02] laundering. In conclusion, I want to thank the acting U.S. attorney in the Middle District of [3:09] Alabama, Kevin Davidson, who's in his district right now and not able to be with us, for bringing [3:15] this important case along with the FBI team in Alabama for their hard work during this investigation. [3:23] This investigation is ongoing and I'd like to ask Director Patel to say a few words as well. [3:30] Thank you, General Blanche. What we're here today is to announce what the what the general just told [3:41] you. The Southern Poverty Law Center in a massive sweeping indictment has been charged with allegations [3:48] of fraud and using the banking system to perpetrate that fraud. I just want to talk about a couple [3:53] brief things here. The Southern Poverty Law Center themselves advertise to raise money to dismantle [4:00] violent extremist groups for a period of at least a decade. They use their donor network to raise money [4:07] to purportedly dismantle violent extremist groups. However, the SPLC, the Southern Poverty Law Center, [4:14] use the money they raised from their donor network to actually pay the leadership of these very groups. [4:21] I just want to say that again. They use the fraudulently raised money by lying to their donor [4:27] network, thousands of Americans, to go ahead and actually pay the leadership of these supposed [4:33] violent extremist groups. The groups, as the general laid out, include the Ku Klux Klan, [4:39] the United Klans of America, Unite to Right, National Alliance, the National Socialist Movement, [4:47] the Aryan Nation Motorcycle Club, and the National Socialist Party of America, and also the American [4:53] Front. In at least one of these matters, our investigation revealed that funds were used to [4:59] facilitate the commission of further state and federal offenses, totaling over $3 million. Furthermore, [5:08] our investigation revealed that the Southern Poverty Law Center, on top of perpetuating this widespread, [5:14] decade-long, multi-million dollar fraud, conducted more criminal activity. [5:21] They attempted to hide their criminal activity from our financial banking network. They set up shell [5:28] companies and entities around America so that the financial institutions that we rely on as everyday [5:33] Americans were deceived in believing that money was not coming from the Southern Poverty Law Center [5:39] in the perpetration of this scheme and fraud, but rather fictitious entities they stood up to [5:43] perpetuate this ongoing fraud. This is a serious and egregious violation of a group that purported to [5:51] dismantle violent extremist groups, but in turn actually only fueled the hatred. This is an important [5:58] case brought by President Trump's administration. We're thankful for the President for his leadership and [6:03] funding of not just the FBI and DOJ, but his commitment to go out there and wipe out fraud and [6:08] conspiracy and waste and abuse wherever it occurs, including the Southern Poverty Law Center. [6:14] Even though this money was made to appear to be coming from legitimate people and legitimate [6:19] entities, we at the FBI with our great partners at the Department of Justice and in the state of Alabama [6:25] were able to comb through a decade worth of material, a scheme that took a decade to build, [6:31] so that we were able to follow the money because money never lies and they got caught. As the [6:37] Attorney General said, these charges are varying. They are widespread and wide ranging and this [6:43] investigation is very much ongoing. Today we're here to announce the charges of the Southern Poverty [6:48] Law Center and this investigation and the individuals who are responsible will be brought to justice. [6:53] Thank you, General. Thank you, Director Patel. Any questions? I'd like to know why individual [7:03] people are not mentioned in this indictment. Is that something that's going to come down the pike? [7:07] Is this just an indictment of the entity? Can you kind of explain could people face charges here [7:11] or is this the indictment and you're done? So yes, I mean, as we said, the indictment, [7:16] this investigation is very much ongoing and today the grand jury returned indictment against [7:22] against only one entity, the Southern Poverty Law Center and we'll go from there. But as you'll see from [7:29] from the indictment itself, the the it should be obvious from the indictment that the investigation [7:35] is is ongoing. I just want to make sure I understand you're alleging that the Southern [7:40] Poverty Law Center was paying the leaders of KKK and other groups to continue their operations. Is that [7:49] I'm not alleging it. The grand jury returned an indictment that says that. And so what what the what [7:54] the investigation found according to to the indictment that was returned today is that they [7:58] were paying. So so the Southern Poverty Law Center is raising money, asking folks to to give them money [8:04] to dismantle racism. And over a very long period of time, they were using some of the money they raised [8:10] from donors to pay to they call them field, you know, basically to informants to for information, [8:19] for access to just pay them for for certain to do certain things. And so, yes, that's exactly what [8:26] the indictment charges. I was wondering if this is going to expand perhaps to more groups, perhaps [8:32] there's been a lot of accusations about particular groups like the Patriot Front that get a lot of [8:37] traction and more so is the government or is this indictment, I should say, making the case that some [8:43] of these matters where they've tried at great lengths to sort of make connections to [8:50] people on the right percent. I mean, Charlottesville was very much associated by, you know, the media [8:56] with being sort of like, you know, part of a right wing kind of thing. You know, they're like good people [9:01] on both sides type of thing. I mean, is this are we seeing a sort of the Southern Poverty Law Center was [9:06] trying to create narratives using these types of groups to, you know, shape American public opinion? [9:12] Look, I think what what the Southern Poverty Law Center has has said over the years is available to [9:18] the for the world to see. It's on their website. It's in other forms. The indictment speaks for itself. [9:23] I'm not going to talk outside the four corners of the indictment. It lays out what the what the grand [9:28] jury found. And obviously there's a whole body of public information around what the Southern Poverty [9:34] Law Center has done over the past, you know, several decades. I mean, in some of these instances, [9:41] these are groups that have been either their membership has been dismantled or they've [9:46] definitely fallen out of public view. I'm just wondering the legal theory of how, [9:49] you know, these payments allegedly went on to actually benefit the groups. Did you see [9:54] the money go to the groups themselves rather than just the individuals who were paid informants [9:59] essentially? And then I have an off topic effort. So the the look, I want to be careful to keep [10:05] any comments that we make inside the indictment. And so what the indictment lays out is is payments [10:13] to individuals who had leadership positions within these organizations. If if that's what the grand [10:19] jury found. And so to the extent that that those individuals receiving one received over a million [10:25] dollars, OK, to the extent over over several years, to the extent that that there's any link between [10:30] that individual receiving the money and benefits to that organization, that's not in the indictment. [10:37] But the because again, it's not that that individual who's charged with a crime. It's that individual [10:42] was a informant or what have you. And it's Southern Poverty Law Center that made those payments to the [10:49] individual. But it wasn't, you know, look, the payments were not made to these individuals [10:55] in exchange for a service separate and apart from their work within these organizations. So [11:01] you know, that's that's I think speaks for itself an off topic. Obviously, you've read the Atlantic [11:07] article that's now a subject of defamation lawsuit. I absolutely did not read that article, [11:11] but go ahead with your question. I just, you know, without obviously it's in litigation now. [11:16] Have you separately just heard any concerns given your supervision over the FBI director about any [11:24] problems with drinking? I have a lot of I have a lot of concerns and my concerns are completely [11:30] around the anonymous reporting that comes forth constantly that that, you know, reporters have [11:36] an obligation to report and and they have due diligence that they're supposed to do. And when [11:40] an entire article is based on anonymous sources and there's things in the article suggesting, for [11:45] example, for example, apparently that senior DOJ personnel were informed of something, that's me. [11:52] I wasn't informed. No one called me about that. So like, listen, I did not read that that article. [11:57] It is the subject of litigation. But but, you know, I've already spent too much time talking about it. [12:02] Next question on that Todd. I'm sorry. The the FBI director is on camera with the US Olympic hockey [12:08] team chugging a beer. I mean, do you think that that's appropriate conduct for the FBI director? [12:12] That is nothing to do with the article. I mean, look, there's an there's there's there's there's [12:18] there's complete hit pieces. And you guys are in this business and you know what they look like. [12:24] And the fact that you're asking repeated questions about them almost is an admission of such. [12:29] But when you have a bunch of people who are hiding behind closed curtains, saying things but not willing [12:34] to say it publicly. And there are certain parts of the of the article that are blatantly false because [12:39] apparently I was told something that I wasn't. It's suspicious in the back. [12:44] Thank you, Mr. Acting Attorney General. Can you explain again what the fraud is here exactly? [12:50] Are you saying it's illegal for the SPLC to pay money to people that are in hate groups or something [12:56] about the way this was done makes it illegal? Because it's not automatically illegal, is it? [13:02] No, that's right. This is a good question. So again, I summarized the indictment and it's now public [13:07] for everybody to read. But but SP the Southern Poverty Law Center is a 501c3. OK, they're required [13:12] to under the laws associated with a nonprofit to have certain transparency and honesty and what they're [13:19] telling donors they're going to spend money on and what their mission statement is and what they're [13:22] raising money doing. And so as the indictment points out, there's different ways that they raise money [13:29] and and no and no fundraising efforts that that the investigation found did they say, oh, and by the [13:36] way, we're going to give a million bucks to the Ku Klux Klan. So that's so that's fraud. So that's wire [13:41] fraud. So and then the bank fraud part of it is is you have KYC, you have an obligation to tell your [13:46] financial institution what what the what the what the corporation or the entity that you're opening an [13:51] account for does. And the allegations in the indictment are that these were fictitious companies [13:57] that were set up. And so there are certain information sworn to by SPLC executives about [14:03] what the entities were doing that that we allege is false. Can I just follow up on can I follow up [14:10] on the hiring of Joe DiGenova to work for the department? Can you just tell us a little bit? [14:15] I understand you went down to Florida, perhaps to take part in his swearing in or bring him on board. [14:21] Can you explain why he's being brought back to the department after 40 years? [14:25] So, I mean, look, I think that we everybody in this administration, whether it's department [14:31] justice or elsewhere, we're always looking for good people. And he's somebody who has a deep bench, [14:36] as you said, he's been in this business for for decades. And and when we had the opportunity to [14:41] ask him to join the team and help, we readily did. I have an on topic and an off topic, if you'll allow [14:48] me. Um, are you able to explain a little bit more about what led to this investigation? Were you guys [14:52] tipped off by a former employee? Or how did how did you guys discover this? No, I can't talk about that. [14:59] But it's been going on for a long time. There was a time that it was it was shut down for a while [15:06] during the last administration. I don't know why. And and it was started again over the past year or [15:13] so. And and and that brings us to today. You mean the investigation began before this [15:19] administration and then was shut down during the Biden administration? That's my understanding. I [15:23] don't have information beyond what I just said around that. I wanted to ask about the Brennan and [15:29] the John Brennan investigation. If you can explain why the career prosecutor who had been leading that [15:34] investigation was removed. And if you have you have or had concerns that that investigation is [15:39] not moving quickly enough. I don't have any concerns about that investigation. And again, the [15:45] reporting around that really is just a source purely from leaks and not actually accurate [15:50] reporting is not something I'm going to comment on and never will comment on. Can I ask you just to [15:56] clarify one thing? Obviously, the Bureau had a long relationship with the SPLC. Is it your understanding [16:02] that the previous leaders at the Bureau knew this was happening and didn't view it as a crime or is [16:08] that the Bureau did not know this was happening? It is it is my understanding that SPLC never told [16:15] anybody in law enforcement that they were paying off the Ku Klux Klan. And I don't think that should [16:19] surprise anybody. Thank you, Mr. Acting Attorney General. I'd like you to both weigh in on a recent memo [16:27] from the Office of Legal Counsel declaring the Presidential Records Act unconstitutional, [16:31] so saying that presidents no longer need to preserve their documents or turn them to the government. [16:36] What do you say to critics who suggest this basically eliminates transparency and accountability [16:41] around how White House operates, especially given how much time you guys are spending investigating [16:46] the previous administration? Well, look, I think there is no dispute that this administration in [16:52] just 14 months has been a lot more transparent than the last administration or in any administration. [16:57] So if critics are suggesting that somehow we're not being transparent, I don't find that credible in [17:02] any way, shape or form. As far as the recent OLC opinion regarding the PRA, that is something that [17:09] has been heavily litigated in D.C. and elsewhere. And OLC issuing that is not the first that's not the [17:16] first place that you see that that it's unconstitutional. I mean, I think there's a lot of places that you can go to [17:21] to think through why that is. The memo speaks for itself and and and and I don't have much to say [17:28] about it beyond that. Yeah, do you want to weigh in on that? The president has this pending [17:34] billion dollar lawsuit against the IRS. He sort of said that this is like he's negotiating with himself. [17:40] How can you assure can you do anything you do to assure the American people that taxpayer dollars [17:44] are being protected? How are those negotiations being handled? I'm most certainly not going to talk [17:49] about ongoing litigation and it wouldn't be appropriate for me to to comment about about [17:54] that case given given its status right now. Probably with the you know, the various interests, [17:58] the competing interests there, right? You have the president in the White House pressing obviously [18:02] for some personal money and then you have him being your boss. How how do you sort of just [18:07] broadly speaking, how do you sort of handle that sort of issue? I mean, we we handle the Department [18:11] of Justice handles complicated decisions involving those type of issues every day all day, [18:15] not just this Department of Justice, every Department of Justice handles issues like that. I mean, [18:19] you have decisions that an attorney general or his or her staff have to make that are difficult and [18:26] complicated and we do it. Attorney generals before me have done it and we'll be able to handle it in [18:31] an appropriate and ethical manner. Thank you, acting attorney general. A question for you and then a [18:37] question for the FBI director. You spoke about the timeline of the investigation. I know you said you [18:41] have not much more to say about that, but I am curious if you can talk about if it started in 2017, [18:46] 2018. And just given what you said about the Biden administration turning it off, [18:50] how is the Department of Justice ensuring this investigation remains, remains free from political [18:55] influence? Well, I mean, look, it's free from political. There is nothing political about this [19:02] indictment or this investigation. SPLC has lawyers and if they think that I'm wrong about that, [19:07] they're going to be free to make a motion in front of judge like every other defendant in the country. [19:10] As far as what I just don't know information, it wasn't that far ago. It was within the past four [19:16] or five years, but there was a decision made. I don't have any insight into why it was made [19:22] to not pursue the investigation. And we started it again and that brings us to where we are today. [19:29] I do want to give you an opportunity to respond directly to the allegations in the Atlantic article [19:36] that your unexplained absences created a national security risk. And beyond that, [19:41] can you say definitively that you have not been intoxicated or absent during your tenure as FBI [19:47] director? I can say unequivocally that I never listened to the fake news mafia. And as when they [19:53] get louder, it just means I'm doing my job. This FBI director has been on the job twice as many days [20:00] as every director before me. What that means is I've taken half as many days off as those before me. [20:07] What that means is I've taken a third less vacation than those before me. What that means is that this [20:12] FBI with this Department of Justice has dropped the murder rate 20 points. What that means is this FBI [20:18] with this Department of Justice has captured eight of the top 10 most wanted fugitives in the world, [20:23] twice as many as the Biden administration did in its entire four years. What that means is this FBI [20:29] has seized enough fentanyl off the streets to kill 178 million Americans, a 31% increase. What that [20:34] means is this FBI and this DOJ has arrested 43% more spies in 14 months in the entirety of the Biden [20:41] administration. What that means is this FBI has seen a reduction in opiate overdose deaths up to 20% [20:49] alone. What that means is that we have found 6,300 child victims, 6,300 families have their kids back. [20:57] That is a 22% increase from the Biden administration. I'm on the job. I'm the first one in. I'm the last [21:04] one out. I'm like an everyday American who loves his country, loves the sport of hockey, [21:08] and champions my friends when they raise a gold medal and invite me in to celebrate. [21:12] I've never been intoxicated on the job. And that is why we filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit. [21:18] And anyone of you that wants to participate, bring it on. I'll see you in court. [21:22] Can you explain the computer login issue? Just explain the computer login issue. You were not [21:26] able to log into the, your lawsuit contends that you were not able to log into the system. [21:30] What did you think after you were unable to log into the system? [21:34] Let's have a survey. How many of you people believe that's true? Hang on. [21:38] Did you communicate? You asked the question, [21:39] let me answer it. No, no. Did you communicate with [21:42] anyone that you thought you were fired after you were unable to log into the system? [21:46] The problem with you and your report. Don't cut me off. You asked a question. [21:49] Straight forward question. [21:50] The problem with you and your baseless reporting is that is an absolute lie. [21:54] It was never said. It never happened. And I will serve in this administration [21:59] as long as the president and the attorney general want me to do so. [22:02] And every time you guys report false lies, every time you guys raise baseless questions, [22:08] when we are here to talk about the Southern Poverty Law Center's $3 million decade-long scheme [22:14] to fraudulently fleece Americans, you are off topic. [22:18] It's a simple, straightforward question. Did you talk to anybody about whether you thought you were [22:23] fired? The simple answer to your question is, [22:25] you are lying. And every time you do so, I've answered your question. [22:31] It's simply as follows. I was never locked out of my systems. [22:34] Your lawsuit says the opposite. Your lawsuit can check. [22:38] Anyone that says the opposite is lying. Thank you. [22:41] The lawsuit that you filed says that directly. [22:43] Man, stop. You're being extraordinarily rude. And I know maybe that's part of your profession, [22:48] but please just stop. If you ask a question, he can answer it. [22:51] He's not answering the answer to the question. [22:52] Now you're interrupting me. Just a little bit of respect, man. Just a tiny little bit. Try it sometime. [22:58] Go ahead. [22:59] Earlier today, Senate Majority Leader John Thune once again was pleading for [23:05] an end to the Justice Department's investigation and to Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. [23:10] How do you respond to a direct request like this from someone in your own party? [23:14] I haven't received the response, the request, you know, formally yet. I mean, listen, [23:20] this is an ongoing investigation. And that's something that we can't talk about aside from [23:24] saying, yes, it's an ongoing investigation. And the senator knows that. And other senators know [23:29] that as well. And we'll get through it. But it is an ongoing investigation. And we can't really talk [23:36] about it, especially not in public. But we'll try to address any senator, not just a senator from [23:42] the Republican Party's concerns about that. [23:44] Director Patel, you said in an interview over this weekend regarding the election into whether the 2020 [23:51] presidential election was stolen, you said that there were going to be arrests coming. And I promise you, [23:56] it's coming soon. Hoping you could just elaborate a little bit on what that meant. [24:00] Sure. We have many ongoing investigations into large scale conspiracies. And like we did today, [24:09] we'll be announcing those arrests when the grand jury returns those indictments. [24:12] All right. Just one more question, sir. [24:15] I have an on topic and off topic. On the Southern Poverty Law Center, [24:19] my understanding was from the video that the group posted today that this program about paying the [24:24] informants had ended. I wasn't clear about when that was. Can you do you have any information about [24:30] when this program stopped paying informants and then if there's a statute of limitations issue there? [24:35] I just wasn't sure how far back we're talking. And then I'll have another on topic. [24:39] So look, all I can tell you is the indictment alleges a very long period of time that includes up to 2023. [24:45] So that's that's I can't speak beyond, you know, when it, you know, if anything has been happening since [24:51] then just what the grand jury found. And then I also wanted to ask a follow up on Joe DiGenova. [24:57] You know, looking back at he's he's been very vocal over the years about his thoughts about the 2016 [25:02] investigation, about the intelligence assessment assessment. One quote that he said in an article [25:08] in 2020 was there's no doubt John Brennan was the primogenitor of this entire counterintelligence [25:13] investigation. It was John Brennan who went to James Comey and basically pummeled him into starting a [25:19] counterintelligence investigation against Trump. Brennan's at the heart of this. Given those prior [25:24] statements, isn't there possibly a conflict of interest or at the very least a perceived conflict [25:31] of interest having him oversee this investigation? And has he been vetted for conflicts prior to being [25:37] hired at the Justice Department? I don't know. I'm not sure what the conflict of interest would be [25:42] because somebody has said something in the past about about a particular matter that doesn't create [25:47] a conflict necessarily. That's not what the conflict, you know, conflicts are designed to [25:52] for just that. And I think creates a sense of bias, doesn't it? Like he's coming into the [25:56] investigation with preconceived views about a target of your investigation. Isn't that a problem? [26:01] I mean, I just completely disagree with the premise. I mean, look, if you look at what happened [26:07] during during the president's investigations, there were prosecutors that were actively involved in the [26:13] 2016 information with Barr and what what AG Barr was doing. They readily joined the case and one of [26:20] them was actually stood up in court. So I don't think it's unusual and it's not something that, [26:26] sure, he has he has to make sure that he's doing everything ethically. I'm sure that he would. [26:30] He has to make sure that everything he's doing is not in conflict with with whatever rules, [26:34] the rules that we have in this in this building. But the mere fact that he has spoken about [26:40] about his perception. He he didn't have he didn't have access to grand jury information. He didn't [26:45] have access to witnesses. And so like like any prosecutor, I expect that that he will follow the [26:51] facts and and those facts come from witnesses and grand jury information. All right. Thanks a lot, [26:56] guys. I appreciate it.