Aug. 29, 2017 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
42:56
3807 DNC Fraud Lawsuit: Shocking Conclusion and Fallout
The lawsuit against Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Democratic National Committee for alleged fraud in rigging the Democratic Primary against Bernie Sanders and for Hillary Clinton is over. Lawyer Jared Beck joins Stefan Molyneux to discuss the the conclusion of the lawsuit and what can be learned from this important process. Jared Beck is a practicing lawyer with Beck & Lee Trial Lawyers and also founded the progressive grassroots Super PAC JamPAC. Beck was one of the attorneys involved in a class action lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee.JamPAC: http://www.jampac.usLawfirm: http://www.beckandlee.comTwitter: http://www.twitter.com/jaredbeckFinal Order of Dismissal: http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/62-D.E.-62-Ord-of-Dismissal-8-25-17.pdfYour support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Hi, everybody. It's Stefan Molyne from Freedom Main Radio.
We're back with Jared Beck.
Now, of course, we were hoping to talk to him when he was doing his victory lap in his bicycle shorts, but we're going to talk a little bit about a lawsuit and what happened.
He's a practicing lawyer with Beck and Lee Trial Lawyers, also founded the Progressive Grassroots Super PAC Jam PAC. He was, oh, the past tense is agonizing.
He was one of the attorneys involved in the class action lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee.
You can check him out at JAMPAC.
That's J-A-M-P-A-C dot U-S. BeckandLee.com and Twitter.com forward slash Jared Beck.
Jared, thanks for taking the time today.
Well, thanks for having me. It's good to be here, Stefan.
I wish we were here under slightly different circumstances.
Why don't we have a quick tour before we look into what happened with the court's decision?
Have a quick tour on the matter at hand.
Sure. So, we filed...
This class action against the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz last year before the Democratic National Convention on the theory that the primaries, the Democratic primaries, were rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton and against Bernie Sanders.
Many people were defrauded out of over $200 million in donations because they donated to the Bernie Sanders campaign believing that the Democratic primary process was a free or a fair process, a bona fide election, when it was not.
And so we filed the class action In the Southern District of Florida, in Debbie Wasserman Schultz's district, we had a very long and substantial hearing on the DNC's motion to dismiss the case based on various theories in April.
And then on Friday, we received a written order from the judge agreeing with the DNC's position that the case should be dismissed before we even have a trial. we received a written order from the judge agreeing with So that's where we're at right now.
Now, before we start diving into the legalese, let me know if this analogy goes somewhat correctly in terms of helping people understand it.
So if I decide to participate in a raffle, you know, they're raffling off a big screen TV or whatever, and they say it's a fair and equal raffle.
It's completely randomized.
And then it turns out that the TV is won by the guy's brother, like the guy who organizes the raffle.
It's won by his brother.
And I say, hey, wait a minute.
I bought this raffle ticket with the assumption or with the assurance that it was a free and fair raffle.
And then there are all these emails saying, here's how we're going to make sure the guy's brother gets the television set.
Then, you know, it's not unfair for me to say, well, that wasn't fair.
It wasn't what was advertised and I want my money back.
Right. Right.
That's a very, very good analogy.
Right. And there's a lot of analogies that we can use to think about this case and the theory that we pled.
I think at the end of the day, when people pay money on the basis of false promises, False omissions, and that money is lost, and the common law sees that as fraud.
And that was the theory of the case that we pled.
Unfortunately, the court did not agree that by virtue of Bernie Sanders supporters paying money based on false representations, that that was sufficient to give him standing To bring these claims in court.
From a rational standpoint, of course, you only give money to a political candidate if you feel that it's an even playing field.
Of course, right?
I mean, it's sort of like if you're going to bet on a, not that I suggest you ever should, but if you're going to bet on a boxing match, you assume that both boxers are on the up and up and trying to win.
If you know ahead of time that one of the boxers is going to throw the match, that he's just going to, you know, he's going to take a dive for money.
Then, of course, you're going to change your bet.
It has to be an even playing field.
That's why the money is transferred in the first place.
And that seems to me independent of whether you've eyeballed the charter in any great detail.
Right, right.
And I would also add that the law also recognizes, in addition to fraud on the basis of affirmative representations, it also recognizes fraud on the basis of material omissions.
So you can't hide facts from people.
And it's our position that even if people didn't read the charter, never saw the charter, never saw the obligation in the charter that the DNC has to act in an even-handed and impartial manner in the primaries,
even if a person never saw that, they still did not know the truth Of how the DNC was conducting its elections because the DNC kept that secret.
And we only know the truth of the matter because of the documents that came out through Wikibooks.
Right, so this is from the judgment itself.
As to the fraud type claims counts 1, 2, 3, and 4, plaintiffs fail to allege any causal connection between their injuries and defendant's statements.
The plaintiffs asserting each of these causes of action specifically allege that they donated to the DNC or to the Bernie Sanders campaign, but not one of them alleges that they ever read the DNC's charter or heard the statements they now claim are false before making their donations.
Now, of course, the fact that the DNC rigged the election in favor of Hillary was not a statement that they made publicly, of course.
As you say, this only came out because of the hack.
But the idea that you have to prove that you read the DNC's charter, whatever that means, that all, I don't know how many people, millions I assume, donated to either the DNC or to Bernie Sanders.
The idea that you'd have to take a photo of yourself reading the charter in order to have any.
But the money is transferred only on the assumption that it's an even playing field.
Isn't that implicit in the very transfer?
I completely agree with you.
It boggles the mind that somebody would cut a check to a political campaign knowing that the candidate had no chance of actually winning.
I think that just defies common sense.
And so I Again, we pled this case with the theory that you don't have to actually read the charter or read any statement as a condition of being defrauded.
It's enough that you have the background belief that the elections are being conducted in a fair and democratic way.
And of course, Democratic is in the Democratic Party's name.
I mean, that's part of their brand, is that they're supposed to be a party of democracy.
And what could be more undemocratic than rigging an election?
Well, and if a candidate is taking—this is not within this particular context, but just as far as the principle goes—if a candidate is taking an enormous amount of money from a special interest group and has promised them some favorable legislation in return for their donations— You know, honesty would compel you, I suppose, to say that up front, because otherwise you're voting for someone who's already bought and paid for by some corporation or some union or some other special interest group.
And the implicit assumption is that the statements made by the candidates are how you're going to evaluate them, and based on their relationship to your values, that's where your money is going to go.
This third, like the third-party finger-on-the-scale stuff, And it's important to note for those who haven't read it, and we'll put a link to the statement below, the dismissal.
But the court says, let's just, for the sake of argument, assume that there was all of this underhanded tipping of the scale in favor of Hillary and away from Bernie, even if we assume all of that's true, and it seems that's fairly incontroversial based on it.
You know, what emails came out after the hack.
So if we assume that that's all true, they still couldn't find any reason for cause or for moving forward.
And they also pointed out something else here, which I thought was interesting.
And part of this I agree with, although I don't think it applies here.
So they say, it doesn't create standing if you donate to the DNC or to Bernie Sanders' campaign.
And the quote is, the act of donating to an organization does not of itself create a legally protected interest in the organization's operations.
Donating money to a charitable fund does not confer standing to challenge the administration of that fund.
Now, I can understand that.
If I give $100 to some cancer society, I don't then get to say, well, you've got to fire this guy, you've got to hire this guy, you've got to open up operations over here, you're just donating...
But they're not saying that they want to run the DNC. They're saying that they want the DNC to run honestly, and that's what they expected.
Right. And they're also saying that they want their money back.
And there is a Supreme Court case, which we cited in our briefs and of the hearing, which I think is very important, which says that it doesn't matter if You pay money to a charity as a donation if that charity commits fraud in soliciting your donation.
This is a Supreme Court case from 2006, I believe, and I think that's right on point to this case.
Where we have people who may be making donations, but those donations, again, are being procured on the basis of fraud.
And so I take issue with that part of the court's opinion because it's not, you know, the essence of the standing that we attempted to plead in this case is not that we're trying to have a say Our clients are not necessarily saying they want to dictate how the DNC conducts its affairs,
but what they're saying is that they paid money on the basis of false representations and omissions that were promulgated by the DNC itself in the course of the primaries.
So I think there's an important distinction there.
Yeah, I mean, to refer back to the original example that I provided of the, you know, you're entering some sort of lottery and some sort of raffle.
If it turns out that the raffle is fraudulent, if it turns out that the TV went to the guy's brother and that was going to happen no matter what… If I want my money back, I'm not saying, well, I want to go run the raffle now.
I want to be in charge of the raffle.
It's like, nope. Just they didn't give me the honest goods.
They didn't give me a fair shot.
My money was taken. I just want my money back.
I'm not saying I want to now run the raffle in perpetuity.
That's a completely separate issue.
Right. Right. Exactly.
I think that example is exactly on point.
Now, the court makes the case, of course, that to some degree they make the case that the donations are made regardless of outcomes, right?
So even if the playing field is tilted, even if someone's got their finger on the scale, even if the DNC is helping Hillary over Bernie, then, well, it doesn't matter.
Your donations are going to be made regardless of outcomes.
But of course, you know, after candidates drop out, then of course people should just continue to donate to them because regardless of outcomes, right?
I mean, but of course we know that once a candidate drops out, or once a candidate suspends his campaign, the donations dry up.
So it's very clear that people donate in order to help somebody win, and they don't donate regardless of outcomes.
So the fact that the outcome was modified or affected is foundational.
Right, exactly.
And I would also add that ever since the Supreme Court I think there's an important point that that case makes,
which is that donations are really the way in which people participate in the political process in the US, perhaps in a way that's even more important than voting, because it's all about I mean, let's face it, our electoral system in this country is all about money.
It's all about getting as much money from as many different sources as possible.
And in some ways, voting is really a secondary form of political participation.
So when people were giving money to Bernie Sanders, they were In my view, they believed that they were participating in a bona fide electoral process A political process in the way that the Supreme Court has made very clear is really the essence of how you participate in politics in this country.
And in fact, the process itself was not a bona fide process.
It was rape. So I think, you know, at a very fundamental level, we are talking about fraud and misrepresentation here at common law.
Okay, I understand that.
So the argument being that the dollar democracy is necessary but not sufficient for your candidate to win.
They need to have financial resources basically to show up anywhere on the ballot, to show up at debates, to have ads, to run their campaign.
So the dollar democracy is in some ways even more important or foundational than the actual ballot.
And of course, if the actual ballot was subject to this kind of finger-on-the-scale manipulation, Well, that would be clearly illegal.
But the dollar democracy is being excluded from that, which is particularly chilling.
Yeah. Yeah, I agree with that.
And, you know, in a way, the courts are putting us in a bind because, on the one hand, they're telling us I think, you know, the phrase dollar democracy is very evocative here.
They're telling us, you know, this is the way you participate in the political process, but then they're not, at the same time, they're not willing to really provide the protection of law at common law, which has always said that you can't defraud people.
And so, in a way, if what the conclusion of this order is, if this conclusion is ultimately true and holds up as a matter of law, then the way I see it is you've really removed the protections of laws against fraud from the political process.
And it's basically a free for all in terms of what these political parties and candidates can do to suck as much money out of people as possible.
Oh, of course. And we've all heard the stories of really, really poor people who are scrimping and saving and returning pop bottles and so on to scrape together 20 bucks to send to Bernie Sanders, who represents their thirst for what they see as justice in the democratic process.
I mean, it's particularly brutal.
And I want to get to the implications in a sec.
But there are two other things that I didn't quite follow, which I think are important.
So one thing...
The ruling said, for their part, the DNC and Wasserman Schultz have characterized the DNC charter's promise of, quote, impartiality and evenhandedness, end quote, as a mere political promise, political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts.
The court does not accept this trivialization of the DNC's governing principles, dot, dot, dot.
So they say, you know, boy, wouldn't that be great?
You know, you sign a contract and later on you can say, well, no, I didn't really mean it.
I mean, I just signed it in blood, you know, with my soul and Satan as a witness.
But I didn't really mean it.
It was just something I said in the moment.
I mean, you can't have any contracts.
You can't have any promises.
You can't have any enforceability.
Of statements or contracts if you can say later on, well, it's political rhetoric.
Oh, yeah, yeah. No, I said I'd pay my visa bill, but hey, visa man, that was just political rhetoric.
How on earth can you create this separate category called political rhetoric?
So then they say, well, we don't accept this trivialization of the DNC's governing principles, which seems to me that they're saying, okay, well, it was a promise that's enforceable by law, and then they dismiss the case.
Help me understand that particular maze.
That's a very critical passage, which you just read, because I don't consider this order to be a total loss.
In fact, I think there are pieces of this order which are quite important, and the passage you just read being one of them.
This was one of the major arguments that was made by the DNC at the hearing, which, as you just said, is this concept that they can put whatever they want in the charter, but ultimately it means nothing because it's at the level of What they call political rhetoric.
In other words, you know, the classic example being when George Bush said, read my lips, no new taxes.
That had no meaning whatsoever because politicians can say whatever they want to get elected and there's no way of holding them accountable.
The judge actually He goes out of his way to reject that argument in this passage.
And as you quoted, he says that he does not accept that trivialization of what the DNC has set forth in its charter.
So he's not accepting the view that this is just political rhetoric.
And I think it goes on to say that, you know, he believes that the DNC has, in fact, bound itself to a higher purpose through the language in its charter, which requires DNC to run its elections in a fair and impartial manner.
So this, I think, is very, very important.
In some ways, it's almost at the level of the judicial finding in terms of what the significance of this charter is.
Now, of course, the order dismissing this case doesn't leave this particular case as an avenue for enforcing the obligation in the charter.
But then there are other parts of the order which I think That point to mechanisms by which the court believes the charter could be enforced.
And so that's an important aspect of this order that I think is within the language, and you have to tease it out a little bit.
But there are pieces here that I would say are very much victories in terms of Right.
Well, and of course, as you point out, political promises by politicians are completely unenforceable after the fact.
Boy, that just sure gives you a lot of confidence in that whole process.
And now, if even organizational promises of equity and evenhandedness are unenforceable before, Then we have complete unenforceability within the political process.
Huh, strange how politicians might really like that unenforceability, but I mean, it does take any kind of enforcement mechanism for fairness out of the entire political process.
Since we know it doesn't happen post, if it doesn't even happen pre, that is a big mess.
Now, again, there's one other thing I wanted to sort of try and figure out.
Later on in the document, Jared, I ended up in a kind of whirlwind of things like citizenship and residency and all of this kind of stuff.
And I read it a couple of times, and then I went, I'll just ask Jared, because I don't know what this means.
So what is it that they're saying that you need, what, some people in every state, that you have residency, but citizenship questions or complications or overlaps?
What was the argument for rejecting the case based upon that?
Are you referring to the issue of the diversity jurisdiction and Yes.
I mean, there's one where they talk about, well, you can show up even if you're not a registered Democrat, so you can still vote, and therefore, therefore.
I kind of got that one, but that to me would make it wider rather than non-valid.
But yeah, the other thing, the diversity stuff, I couldn't follow for the life of me.
Well, yeah, let me talk about this concept of the...
You know, it's very interesting.
We had another theory of the case alongside the fraud theory, which is the theory that, look, you know, you're a member of the Democratic Party.
The Democratic Party has a charter that obligates it to do certain things.
And so just like In any company, for example, if you're a shareholder of a company and the board of directors acts against the interests of the company, then you have a breach of fiduciary duty claim that you can bring against the board of directors.
I mean, this is common in securities class actions and so forth.
So the sort of alternative theory that we had in this case is the concept That by virtue of being a member of the Democratic Party, you have standing to sue the DNC,
which is like the board of directors, for breaching its duty to you as a member of the party when it conducts its elections in a way that's contrary to what the charter requires them to do.
And so the court I looked at that theory, and essentially what it said is that, and this is sort of built on the argument that the DNC presented at the hearing,
which is that members of the Democratic Party Party are not really members of anything in any meaningful sense because, as you put it, there's sort of this idea that, well, you know, you're just talking about generalized grievances on behalf of all voters.
You're not actually... Talking about members of a real organization.
And this is, you know, very, very strange to me because the Democratic Party is a corporation.
I mean, it's set up as a corporation like any other corporation.
It doesn't make money by selling products in the marketplace, but it makes money by selling candidates to voters and getting a lot of money in the door, which they spend in the political...
A campaign industry, and yet the same breach of fiduciary duty claim doesn't apply.
And ultimately I think what the court is ultimately coming down on the side of is this concept that politics is somehow different from the economic marketplace.
When we talk about politics, the same rules of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, they just don't apply.
And I think there's something very, very wrong with that because I've never seen anything at law which suggests that you get out of the laws of fraud or breach of fiduciary duty just because you're in the realm of politics.
It seems to be a concept that has no real support in law, and yet here we are with an order of dismissal.
Well, and I, to be perfectly frank, Jared, I would much rather have enforceable contracts in the realm of politics than in the realm of economics, because economics are generally a voluntary situation, whereas politics tends to get imposed on political rules, political laws get imposed on the general population, often against their will.
So I'd much rather have enforceable contracts in the political realm if I had to choose.
Now, the thing that troubles me the most, and I want to get your thoughts on this, Jared, is, you know, I view the law, think of a car, right?
The car has a big, giant windshield, which has you looking ahead.
And then there's a little tiny rearview mirror, side mirrors looking behind.
In other words, for me, the law is more about the future than it is about the past.
You know, there's this old argument that says the reason we punish people for stealing horses is not just for stealing horses, but so that horses won't be stolen in the future.
And my concern in particular, along with the sort of, I think, heartbreak of this particular decision, what the hell does this mean going forward?
Does this just mean it's carte blanche for fraud for political organizations from here on in?
I mean, this is really quite astounding.
What kind of dominoes might be set in motion through this?
Yeah, that's a really good question.
And, you know, I think you said something very important about the enforceability of contracts, In economics as opposed to politics.
Here's the thing about the political market in the United States.
It's not a free market in any sense of the word.
You have two political parties that dominate everything.
They're a total duopoly.
They have written the laws so that third parties have no Effective means of challenging them in elections.
It just is an impossibility.
And so these two political parties control everything.
And they have an incentive in any duopoly situation to work together and continue to work together to ensure that no challenger ever enters the marketplace with them.
And yet we look to the government for trust busting and monopoly busting.
I just wanted to point that out. It's kind of hypocrisy, but go on.
Absolutely. Absolutely.
And, you know, anybody that is, you know, understands how markets works, understands that just as you said, antitrust is an important component of preserving free markets because if you get monopolists in economics,
You know, they can work, you know, either on their own or in duopoly situations to erect barriers to competition and basically crush the free market.
And they do that usually in conjunction with state power.
But anyway, go on. Right.
And that's exactly right.
But that's what the situation has been in the political market for as long as we can remember in this country.
And it's almost even worse as opposed to economics because the consumers, the voters, have no choices when it comes to their political choices.
The political parties are so entrenched.
I mean, they run the government, so they will continue to do everything in their power to make sure that there never will be viable competition in the electoral marketplace.
And so unless there is a way of somehow breaking through that, I don't see how the situation changes from the standpoint of A political choice in this country.
And so I guess that's a long way of answering your question.
Where does that leave us?
Where does this order leave us?
I think it just leaves us maybe still collectively scratching our heads and wondering how it might be possible to break through this duopoly.
Yeah, my particular concern as well, Jared, is that American law is turning into this Dickensian parody of justice, wherein it's this weird fishing net where it catches all the tiny fish, but all the big fish mysteriously swim through the fibers and escape.
And there is this idea of like, well, you know, there is a class of people in America who are above the law, who are I'm concerned about cynicism.
And when you get a population that's cynical of the law, that has little to no respect left for the law, and the more that the ruling elites pillage the law for their own benefit while applying it harshly to those without power, you end up with a game of cat and mouse.
And the law cannot function unless people in general respect it.
Small deviations can be handled, but if the majority of people view it as a cat and mouse game, as a tool of power to oppress the powerless individual, then people will cease to obey the law voluntarily and will wait for it to catch them and...
And there simply aren't ever enough resources in any civilization to pursue people who view the law as an unjust game of whack-a-mole on poor aspirations.
Right, right.
And I think we are moving into an era where respect for the law, respect for governmental institutions, Generalized cynicism is at an all-time low,
and I think you can see that in all domains, and people are losing, you know, on an ongoing basis, they're losing confidence in their leadership, in their system of justice, and, you know, that leads us to a situation of disorder on many levels.
Well, I think as a society in general, we're squandering built-up capital from generations and respect for the law is one of the great built-up capital from previous generations.
Once it's squandered, it's very hard to rebuild.
Now, what has happened, Jared, for the reaction or what has happened from the reaction from the media, from your colleagues, from the Bernie Sanders supporters in this, what I think is a very momentous legal milestone in America?
What has the reaction been in general?
Well, I think, you know, The reaction is really across the board in terms of the whole gamut of emotions.
I think there's a lot of despair, a lot of anger, a lot of frustration that goes along with this feeling that if we can't Have some accountability.
And I think a lot of people view this lawsuit as a channel of perhaps getting some accountability over the politicians in this country.
Well, if we can't have that, Where do we go from here?
What I've noticed as the most sort of predominant reaction among people that have been following this lawsuit, especially from the Bernie Sanders donors and supporters,
is that there's starting to be a real call for boycotting the DNC. And, you know, boycotting at the level of no more donations to Democratic candidates, no more votes for Democratic candidates.
And when you think about it, you know, maybe that is the channel of accountability that exists.
And in fact, the court pointed to this in its order.
It said that to the extent that The plaintiffs in this case have generalized grievances with the Democratic Party.
The channel for addressing those grievances is at the ballot box and through freedom of speech, as well as the DNC's own internal processes.
And when you think about it, what does free speech mean?
What does the ballot box mean?
I think a lot of people are sort of seeing, maybe taking the judges' words to heart at some level and saying, look, the way that you make a change here is you just don't give the DNC any more of their hard-earned money, and you just don't vote for any more of their candidates.
And at the end of the day, like any corporation that Fails to deliver a viable product and rips off its customers.
The way to bring down that company is for the customers to stop patronizing the store.
And so maybe that's what will come out of this order.
I don't know. But to me, that's sort of the most interesting reaction that I've seen.
Well, and of course, economic ostracism is something that a lot of progressives argue for.
And I think there's very, very good and strong applications to redress grievances.
Because my view, and it's just my particular personal opinion, Jared, is that through this process, you know, there's an alternative path the DNC could have taken.
They could have said, you know what?
Political ambition got the best of us.
Sometimes you listen to the angels.
Sometimes you listen to the devils.
We listen a little bit too much to the smoky voice in the left ear.
And so we're going to clean house.
You know, we're going to figure out what happened.
We're going to do a rigorous self-examination.
We're going to open up our books.
We're going to open up our whole process.
We're going to recommit to honorable and fair and decent democracy.
We're going to find those responsible.
We're going to fire them or we're going to do what they could have reinvented themselves, having looked in the mirror and seen something come back.
On the other hand, though, saying, well, yeah, we make promises, but they basically that's political rhetoric.
It doesn't really mean anything.
And fighting tooth and nail to get this dismissed and now succeeding in getting it dismissed and blaming Russia.
Russia is not who got Bernie Sanders shafted in this electoral process.
What's frustrating to me is they could have done that.
And we don't often see the road less traveled when we look at an organization defending itself.
But now, by finding this tooth and nail, by getting it dismissed, to me what they're saying is, we are now fully committed to corruption.
We're now fully committed to cheating.
We've defended it. We've now got judicial permission to continue of it.
And... That, to me, is the great tragedy of what could have happened.
You know, we all have times in life where we get tempted by things and we slide down the path of temptation.
We pull ourselves up short and we say, okay, no more cheesecake for me or whatever it's going to be, right?
And this, to me, it really shows the true nature of where the DNC has gone and where it commits to go, I think, even further in the future.
Yeah, I think that's right.
I think that at the end of the day, sometimes...
Justice is obtained not necessarily in the result, but in the pursuit of justice.
And lawsuits are not just a means by which you get or attempt to get a judgment that's favorable to you, but you're also channeling your grievances in a forum that's public and it's part of Getting the truth of an issue out into the light of day.
And so I think you're absolutely right.
The DNC, if anything, we have no excuse for not being fully cognizant of the DNC's true motivation in nature now, because they've put it on display for everyone to see.
And so if Ultimately, understanding the truth is the predicate for political change.
Well, maybe that's the first step that's been taken here.
And just for those who don't know, Jared, I'm curious, just sort of at a personal level, how this is going for you.
I know how much lawyers love to talk about the touchy-feelys.
But, I mean, just for those who don't know, like Jared's firm, Beck and Lee Trial Lawyers, funded most of this lawsuit.
This has been not in any way a moneymaker.
in fact a significant money loser.
I can't imagine the amount of billable hours that were shredded in this process.
You very heroically and bravely and courageously, and I'm sure some would say foolishly idealistically, though I think these kinds of tests are very important in the public sphere, you guys burned countless amounts of money and hours of your own resources in pursuit of this.
You did not have control over the outcome in the future.
In my particular outside view, you guys argued an excellent, excellent case.
And the response is, I don't know, it makes Swiss cheese look solid, in my opinion.
How has it been for you now that you and your firm, you're getting attacked from lots of different directions, criticized and so on?
How does that feel to be on the other side of this process with all of this going on?
You know, I think it's to be expected.
In a lot of ways.
I think when you file a case like this, you know, you'd be a fool not to expect that you're going to get attacked and that you're going to be facing a lot of animosity because there are so many interests that are tied to the continued operation of the DNC. The Democratic Party in terms of politics as usual.
And in my view, those interests are fighting for their life right now.
I really do think that we are in a process of great transformation in this country.
I think that a lot of these interests that You know, not only behind the Democratic Party, but have been basically running the show in the US for decades.
You know, I think that they are under siege right now, and that's behind a lot of the, you know, not just the political discourse, but the events that we're seeing all across the country now on A daily basis and, you know, the mainstream media's continual obsession with attacking the administration in all sorts of ludicrous ways.
So, you know, I think that, you know, it's sort of the, all of the things that we've experienced are really just part and parcel of that You know, obviously we're not the only people that are getting viciously attacked right now by any means.
I mean, there's a lot of people out there that are making huge sacrifices for their country.
They've pretty much dropped, you know, their business as usual and their family and personal lives because they really do see A great moment of crisis in the US that needs to be addressed.
And these are people across the political spectrum, on the left, on the right.
And so, you know, I guess at the end of the day, I really can't feel too sorry for myself because there's a lot of people that are making sacrifices.
And I think that number is I'm growing on a daily basis.
I really do think there is an awakening in this country.
The question is going to be whether it's too little, too late, in my opinion.
Well, I think that's up to everyone to decide and where they're going to commit their energies.
And of course, what your firm has done, Jared, is they've exposed the DNC and where it stands with regards to these issues of honor and integrity and honesty to its donors.
So I thank you so much for your time.
Thanks, of course, for the suit.
We'll put a link to it below. It's well worth reading.
It's actually not too bad in terms of understanding it.
