Acting Attorney General Blanche holds news conference at Justice Department

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