'That's A Yes Or No': Neguse Clashes With Alliance Defending Freedom Lawyer Over SPLC Indictment

[0:00] Mr. Chairman, thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today and for your testimony, [0:04] reviewed all of your written testimony, and appreciate the opportunity to ask you a couple [0:07] of questions about it. Mr. Bangor, you work for Alliance Defending Freedom, correct? Yes, sir. [0:14] Okay. I reviewed your written testimony. Safe to say you disagree with the Southern Poverty [0:21] Law Center's designation of your group, right? We do. Okay. And based on your written testimony [0:28] and based off some of what I found on your website, some deep resentment about that [0:31] designation. Fair to say. Sir, we don't resent them. We disagree with them. Disagree with them. [0:36] Okay. Well, as I look at your testimony and as I review your website, it is pretty clear that you [0:42] view Southern Poverty Law Center as an adversary. Is that a fair characterization? We have disagreements [0:47] with them on a number of issues, including policy and otherwise. That's how you would describe [0:51] them? Disagreements? I mean, the words that you use to describe the Southern Poverty Law Center do not [0:57] strike me as a simple matter of disagreement. It seems pretty clear to me. Based on your website, [1:01] based on your testimony, I don't know why you'd be walking away from that now, that you vehemently [1:07] disagree with the Southern Poverty Law Center, that you are pleased that they have been indicted. [1:12] You have called. I mean, this is from your recommendations for congressional action, [1:17] direct banking regulators to investigate ECOA and Regulation B compliance at institutions using [1:23] SPLC linked vetting tools, right? So you are calling for investigations into the Southern Poverty Law [1:29] Center. That doesn't sound like something that you would do with someone you disagree with. This is, [1:33] am I wrong? Well, Congressman, anytime that a designation by a nonprofit that's politically [1:41] unaccountable is being used by federally regulated banks to discriminate based on religious belief, [1:46] that's something that the government should be aware of and should look into. Okay, and so I'm simply [1:50] saying that I didn't expect to have this much of an extended back and forth on the premise of the [1:56] question. I think that your bosses at Alliance Defending Freedom, if they were testifying here, [2:01] would say, we vehemently disagree with Southern Poverty Law Center. They're an adversary. They're [2:05] an enemy. We are glad that they have been indicted, and we are calling for more investigations of them, [2:11] which you did in the written testimony that you provided to this committee. Do you think it would [2:16] be inappropriate to harness a criminal prosecution of an entity to pursue the enemies of your organization? [2:27] Would that be an inappropriate thing to do? Well, Congressman. No, that's a yes or no question. [2:31] You can ask if it's, if you don't think it's inappropriate, you can say no. If there's true [2:36] criminal activity, then of course the government has the right to investigate. Sure. But if there's [2:40] no criminal activity, it would be wrong to do that, right? Well, it depends upon what the facts [2:45] ultimately show. Mr. Mr. Binger, this is why I asked the question. You are a former attorney. I think [2:49] you know why I'm asking you the question. You're a former deputy attorney general within the Texas [2:53] office of attorney general. You went to the FBI and gave a whistleblower complaint about Ken Paxton, [3:01] the attorney general of Texas. You did so because you believed that there was criminal wrongdoing. [3:05] Let me read this quote. In my view, the criminal process has been, had been harnessed to pursue the [3:13] business enemies of an individual who also happened to be under intensive investigation by law [3:18] enforcement. That's your quote from an article a few years ago after you went to the FBI about Mr. [3:24] Paxton. It is very clear that Alliance Defending Freedom and a wide variety of other organizations [3:30] that have been designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center, resent it, vehemently disagree with it, [3:37] have been demanding a criminal investigation and indictment of SPLC, and they have now gotten their [3:42] wishes from the president's personal lawyer, who of course, as we know, now serves as the interim [3:47] attorney general of the United States. And I just think it's important for us to be candid about that. [3:52] I don't know if the chairman agrees with you going to the FBI about Ken Paxton. I'm not sure if Mr. Gill [4:00] or Mr. Roy or some of my colleagues here, maybe they'll ask you a question or two about the [4:06] Republican attorney general of Texas and why it was appropriate for you to go to the FBI with [4:11] allegations of wrongdoing. I'm certainly glad that you did that. I would tell you that like you, [4:17] the SPLC, as I understand it, has gone to the FBI on many occasions to provide the FBI with information [4:25] about suspected criminal activity. And in fact, that criminal activity, the reported criminal activity [4:33] has ultimately been prosecuted, by the way, not by President Biden's Justice Department, but by Donald [4:40] Trump's Justice Department. And the best example of this, which was brought up earlier, [4:44] was the potential mass terror attack at a synagogue in Las Vegas. Mr. Fair, I think you've already [4:52] attested to this. But just to be clear, your organization gave information from a paid informant [4:59] to the FBI when Donald Trump was president. And Donald Trump's FBI used that information to prosecute [5:08] someone to prevent them from engaging in this mass terror attack. Is that true? That is correct. [5:14] That is correct. Thank you, Mr. Fair. Thank you, Mr. Bankert. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. [5:18] Time to the gentleman's bar. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gooden. Mr. Fair, [5:23] during the Biden-Harris administration, the SPLC included many mainstream conservative groups in their [5:28] head and Stewart. But the senior body of the US will always be in bed and the private sector [5:39] in the presidential office. So I hope you've also switched Ihres to the man and проход the [5:41] field. I'm interested in having a post-brand report that we have, you know, and you are [5:44] in a position on the floor. I'm interested in my office with the staff that we have, like, [5:46] step 1 in the middle of the position of the board and you are in position today. So I just [5:48] know, I'm interested in this space in a way that we have a bow. I'm interested in it, [5:49] I'm interested in my office where I'm interested in, I'm interested in this space in the [5:51] context of the vaccination and the destination. So I'm interested in my office [5:52] within the Україa class that I think we're going to offer. I'm interested in a