All Episodes
Previous Next
July 13, 2019 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
30:22
SHOCKING! Democrats Argue Their RIGHT to Keep Rigging Elections!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, Stefan Mullany from Free Domain Radio.
We're back with Jared Beck.
Now, he's a practicing lawyer with Beck & Lee Trial Lawyers, and he also founded the progressive grassroots super PAC, JAMPAC.
He's one of the attorneys involved, and we talked about this last time, but boy, has there ever been some updates.
In a class action lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee, you can check out JAMPAC at jampac.us.
That's J-A-M-P-A-C.
His law firm is BeckandLee.com.
And if you really want some scorching, burn-off-your-eyebrows tweets, you can follow him on Twitter.com forward slash Jared Beck.
Jared, thanks so much for taking the time today.
Oh, and thank you for having me, Stefan.
It's really good to be with you again.
So this lawsuit, now I've read through the court transcripts of what occurred recently.
Good Lord, in a sane universe this would all be front page news.
So I wonder if you can just get people up to speed on the lawsuit as a whole and then we can delve a little bit into what happened most recently.
Yes, so very quickly in a nutshell.
This case was filed on behalf of Bernie Sanders supporters and members of the Democratic Party, alleging that the primary process was rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton.
We filed this case last year in June, before the DNC convention in Philadelphia.
And the case has been pending since then in the federal court for the Southern District of Florida in Fort Lauderdale.
And the hearing you're referring to, Stefan, occurred on April 25th when the court heard the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz's second motion to dismiss the case before we even get a trial on the claims.
Now, the basic argument, as far as I understand it, goes something like this.
The DNC has in their charter that they're going to do free and fair impartial elections.
And there's this weird kind of flip, because normally you do a lawsuit and then you get discovery.
But there was kind of like discovery that came out of Guccifer, right?
There was kind of discovery because you got access to a lot of internal documentations that normally you wouldn't get access prior to a lawsuit.
And that, I think, served the foundation for moving forward, hopefully in a somewhat expedited manner.
But they say, we're going to be fair, we're going to be impartial, we're going to be neutral.
And then you get all of these memorandum and emails and other information that they're anything but now it seems to me that's kind of like a confession on tape it's I'm not sure where the challenge is and then seeing what their lawyer or lawyers like there's quite a few we're arguing just seemed it seemed kind of greasy to me even by odd legal standards.
Yes.
You know, you mentioned a very important point, which is that we're in an unusual position in this lawsuit, given the quantity of evidence which has already come into the public domain, not just through Guccifer, but Wikileaks and other sources.
So there's a wealth of information out there already, even before we've gotten to discovery, which shows that the DNC, in fact, was rigging the primaries all along for Hillary Clinton.
Now, the DNC came into court on April 25th, and they made arguments that are in the nature of legal arguments, trying to say, even if all this is true, it doesn't matter because you, being the plaintiffs, and us as their attorneys, can't come to court and get any relief for these claims.
And so what they're essentially saying, and they put forth a variety of arguments, some of which I think and others agree are quite preposterous, suggesting that, and this is stated in open court by the DNC's counsel as an officer of the court,
He stated that the DNC could go into back rooms, smoke cigars like they did in the old days, and pick the candidates that way, and there would be no legal consequences for that.
That's what he said in open court.
So that's one of the major arguments that they're hanging their hat on to try to get this case kicked out of court.
So this is the front page news that I was talking about and I'm glad that we sort of zeroed in on one of the most appalling things that came out in this particular transaction is that they're openly saying well we as the Democrat Party have no obligation whatsoever to pursue free and fair elections for nominations and that is a truly astounding thing to hear because that's not what they say in their charter and I think the argument is if the Bernie Sanders supporters had known
that Hillary was in the bag, why on earth would they have ever sent one thin dime into the DNC or in support of Bernie Sanders, why would they ever have denied anything if it was in the bag from the very beginning for Hillary?
Exactly.
Why would you even think about cutting a check to a candidate when you already know that the outcome has been determined by the DNC?
That's what the claim is.
And they've thrown up a whole bunch of legal arguments to say that tough luck Too bad it doesn't matter how we select the candidates.
The members of the Democratic Party, the Bernie Sanders supporters, have no recourse whatsoever.
And I think that's a very, very dangerous argument.
Not only is it incorrect as a matter of law, But it really casts a dark shadow on the nature of our political system, because if that's how the DNC thinks, I think, you know, we have a serious problem with democracy in this country.
Well, and sort of a carnival analogy came to my mind while I was reading this, Jared, which went something like this.
You know, like you have those carnivals and they have those milk bottles and you're supposed to throw the rings over the milk bottle tops and then you get a prize.
And the guy says, step right up, try your luck, you know, lots of people win and so on.
And then it turns out when you measure it that the rings are actually smaller than the milk bottle tops and can't possibly fit over it.
Now, that of course is wrong, you should get your money back and so on, but the defense of the Democrats, of the DNC, seemed to be something like, hey man, it's free speech!
I should be able to say to people, come and try your luck in my carnival game, even though they can't possibly win, it's free speech!
Who are you to shut down my free political speech, you fascist!
I mean, that seems kind of a strange argument to me.
It's a bizarre argument, and you're exactly right.
They're taking shelter in this very ironic and strange way behind the First Amendment, and saying, we as an organization have a right to free speech, we're engaged in political activities, and we are, at the end of the day, a private organization protected by the freedom of association, which is also in the First Amendment, and because of that, It doesn't matter if people were defrauded out of money based on what we said.
We get First Amendment immunity for anything that we say and do with respect to the primaries.
And that's just flat wrong.
It's not supported by a shred of case law.
They haven't cited a single case which even remotely stands for that proposition.
In fact, The cases that we've cited from the Supreme Court contradict that proposition substantially.
So not only is it legally incorrect, but when you think about it from a common sense perspective, it really makes no sense why the Democratic Party would want to make an argument like that in the public domain.
Because when you think about it, what kind of political party is this?
Do you want to be a part of a political party that believes it has no obligation to its members?
To select or to run the primaries in a democratic way?
It makes absolutely no sense.
Free speech does not protect fraud.
You know, some guy can't go on the dark web and try and get someone to kill someone and say, hey man, it's free speech.
I'm allowed to type what I want.
It's like it does not cover fraudulent activities.
That's not protected speech.
It's very, very, very basic law that we're talking about that even, you know, this is this is stuff that a first year law student would understand, which is that, yes, the Constitution contains very important rights, such as the right to free speech.
But we also have a common law legal tradition that predates the Constitution and includes such rights as the right not to be defrauded.
And so, yes, I mean, you are protected to say certain things by the First Amendment, but there's never been a case that has said that protection extends to defrauding people.
And so I really think this is a very, very weak argument that they put forth.
There is a moment of truly existential derangement for me in sort of reviewing what's gone on, Jared, and it is a very Clinton-esque kind of a depends-what-the-definition-of-is-is moment, where it seems, and I'm no lawyer, so correct me where I go astray, but it seems to me that the DNC, I'm sorry, let me keep a straight face, the DNC is making an argument which says, well, okay, maybe we took some money from people who thought that Bernie Sanders had a chance, when it seems like he really didn't.
We can't possibly give any restitution because there's no conceivable way to figure out who a Democrat is or not.
The DNC, the Democrat, it's in the actual party name and they have no idea.
Across America, no idea to figure out who a Democrat is.
I'm going to just go out on a limb here and say that the people who donated to Bernie Sanders through the DNC or using the DNC's promises You're not missing anything.
And you know, my jaw was practically dropping open when I heard that argument in court made by the DNC's lawyers, which you know, you're not exaggerating it at all.
He got up in front of the judge and said, Another reason that this case can't go forward, Your Honor, is because there's no real thing as a Democrat.
There's no such thing.
So here's the lawyer for the DNC, the leadership organization of the Democratic Party, which takes so much money from people on the basis that they're Democrats, and this is what good Democrats do, coming into court and saying, actually, there's no such thing as a Democrat.
I think it's absolutely bizarre.
My favorite moment, and just by the by, maybe you could explain a little bit of my favorite moment, was actually nothing to do with the law.
But when the judge had to interrupt what you were saying, say, sorry to interrupt you, Jared, it's not your issue, but if people could stop cheering every single time you make a point, I'd be a little bit more able to concentrate on the proceedings.
So what was going on in the courtroom that the judge made that comment?
Well, this is the second hearing we've had in the case, and both hearings have had extensive crowds coming into court wanting to watch the proceedings, which I think is great because one of the benefits of this process, even before we get to a trial, which I think is great because one of the benefits of this process, even before we get to a trial, which we're hoping we'll get to because But one of the real benefits is that the proceedings are happening in public.
The transcripts are available.
People are able to watch what's going on.
They're able to see the arguments.
And so and when the DNC's lawyer gets up in court and says something as an officer of the court, that's really very important because it's not the type of thing that you can easily back out of, such as we see politicians all the time. that's really very important because it's not the type of
So I think what you're seeing at that point in the transcript is just an indication of the extraordinary enthusiasm and interest that this case has generated thus far, even though I think, as you mentioned at the top, we're in the middle of a real mainstream media blackout, we're in the middle of a real mainstream media blackout, With respect to this case, but it hasn't stopped the public from being very very engaged so far.
Right, right.
Now the judge as far as I understand it does have a reputation of being against corruption which may be positive and I know reading judges can be a little bit like reading tea leaves but there was something where the judge made a comment or asked a question of the DNC's defense and he said all right Let me ask the defense.
We're going to go into the issue of standing now at this point.
Let me ask counsel.
If a person is fraudulently induced to donate to a charitable organization, does he have standing to sue the person who induced the donation?
Now, the fact that he was asking that of the defense, and to me it just seemed like a whole bunch of convoluted stumble-bum nonsense that came out after that, but that does seem a fairly clear indication that The judge at least has some understanding that there is something very important going on in the courtroom.
Yes, and I agree with your take on that, and I would add that that particular question, I believe, was motivated by one of the most important Supreme Court opinions on point, which is in our favor, and was issued in 2003, in which the Supreme Court unanimously held that
A charitable organization is not immune from state fraud claims simply by virtue of the fact that it's engaging in speech.
And it was making... The charities were making the exact same argument that the DNC is making in this case, which is that, you know, in their case, they were saying, well, we're a charitable organization.
We're engaged in First Amendment activities.
You know, this isn't commercial speech.
So, the fraud claims shouldn't be allowed to proceed against us, and the Supreme Court rejected that in a unanimous decision.
Right.
Now, the argument from the DNC's lawyers seemed to be something along the lines of, OK, well, if I get a bunch of money and I run up a charity, I run a charity, I get a bunch of money, and then I go and buy a Mercedes and I go and buy a condo somewhere in someplace warm and sunny, well, clearly that's fraud and blah, blah, blah.
But the DNC is no way doing anything like that.
But I think that people give money to the DNC with the idea that they're going to stand by their charter and do free, fair and impartial elections.
So I don't think that's really an analogous situation.
No, I think the DNC's argument, its premise is incorrect to begin with, but I totally agree with what you're saying, Stefan.
I I just don't see, I mean, at the end of the day, The Supreme Court in the United States has ruled in Citizens United that money is equivalent to speech and that one of the ways people participate in the political process in the United States, whether they're corporations or individuals, is that they give money to political campaigns.
But people aren't going to give money to political campaigns if the candidates are running in rigged, meaningless elections.
I mean, that's just a very, very basic premise, and it goes to the heart of why people would give money to begin with.
The representations and the false statements that are at the heart of this lawsuit by the DNC, which are found not only in their charter, but in multiple statements that Debbie Wasserman Schultz and other DNC officials were making throughout the primaries, You know, these go to the heart of what it means to live in a democracy and why people would participate in politics by giving money.
So I just think these are absolutely material false representations and that we have standing to pursue our claims under the applicable case law precedent.
Right, right.
I mean, if you are in a casino with a game that heads you win and tails you lose, and it turns out That it's a double-tailed coin?
Well, that's not particularly in a free speech.
Now, one thing I can't quite understand, and again this is probably due to my long non-legal training, but it seems to me that when you're kind of caught dead to rights, like when you have a charter that says we do things freely and fairly, and then when you have revelations coming out through WikiLeaks and through hacks and so on, that you're not doing that.
What would be the cost to them for just saying, you know, we can't let this whole integrity thing get away from us a little bit, you know, we welcome the course correction, you know, we're going to clean house, we're going to fix things up, we're going to do things right, we appreciate this, you know, it was a wake-up call, slap to the face, we wandered off the path, you know, however they would put it.
It seems that they're doing more damage to themselves.
I mean, objectively, they're doing more damage to themselves by holding on to this position and trying to shred what remains of their credibility by making statements in open court like, yeah, we've got no, we've got no real goal of having free and fair elections.
What about just copping up and settling?
And I mean, what is their strategy, if you could guess it, here in taking this approach?
I don't personally think they have a strategy.
I think that we're looking at an organization that is in freefall for a variety of reasons, and this case is just one aspect of that.
This would be the equivalent if a company like Apple came into court and said, you know, as a legal matter, We, the board of directors of Apple, have no duty to our shareholders.
The next day, I think everybody would agree that the stock price would probably plummet into the ground because who would want to own shares in a company where the board of directors could do whatever they wanted with the assets of the company and they believe they have no legal accountability?
It's the duty that they have to their shareholders, which is a legal duty, that keeps the people from looting companies and running them into the ground.
You know, we have a situation in this case which I think is analogous, except it's happening in the political realm as opposed to the market or economics, but it seems to me that there's a real failure of leadership in the Democratic Party.
I mean, that's all I can really conclude from this because it seems to be such a bizarre strategy.
It does.
And I think one of the effects, Jared, of having the media cover for the Democrats for so long, like not bring this kind of stuff up, keep it buried and go after, I think, fairly inconsequential things on the Republican side, is that the Republicans have in a way been forced to have more integrity because they get so exposed and so harangued and harassed by the media.
But the fact that the media keeps covering up for the Dems, I think, is one of the reasons why this rot has set in.
The whole point of the media is to speak truth to power, to shine the light in dark places, but because they do the exact opposite with the Democrats, I think the rot might have gone too deep to self-correct.
Yeah, no, that's a really great point.
I think the media, you know, by which I would say, you know, I would use that to mean the mainstream media that has typically been favorable to the Democratic Party has, you know, by its actions, it's been responsible for the lack of accountability That the Democratic National Committee has now come into court and said that it believes, you know, it itself believes that it's accountable to no one.
That's what it's telling the court.
And, you know, you have to ask, why does it have that attitude?
And I think you're putting your finger on it, which is, well, one way is because the media hasn't been holding the Democratic Party accountable.
And, uh, we're seeing, you know, I mentioned a media blackout of this case.
Why is there a media blackout of this case?
Why is no one talking about it?
Why is, uh, well, I mean, you know, we know how, uh, you know, Americans love to follow legal dramas.
I mean, look at O.J.
Simpson.
Look at Casey Anthony.
Of course, you know, not a word in the mainstream media about this case, which I think is raising very, very important issues.
Right.
to the corruption in our political system, well, to me, I think it fits in with what you're saying. - Right.
Now, let's talk a little bit about some of the other stuff that's been floating around and what's been going on.
So your firm hired a process server named Sean Lucas.
And I've seen some fairly prominent journalists talking about Sean Lucas and Seth Rich in the same breath.
I wonder if you could tell people, what is the story with Sean Lucas?
Do you think it has any relationship to what might have happened to Seth Rich?
Well, I'll just tell you the facts as I know them about Sean Lucas, and people can draw their own conclusions.
We hired, when we first filed the suit back in June of last year, we hired a process-serving company in the DC area to effect service of process on the two defendants, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC.
Uh, and the process server ended up being a young man by the name of, uh, Sean Mucus.
And, uh, at the time we thought it would be interesting and, uh, uh, for us to live stream the actual service of process at DNC headquarters just to show people, uh, who were interested in the lawsuit that, you know, the lawsuit was getting off the ground and being served.
So we had A camera person followed Sean into the DNC headquarters and videoed him as he was making service of process.
Now, what happened after that is that the DNC's lawyers made an appearance in the case and their first motion to dismiss was based on the claim that Sean Lucas had not served process correctly.
And so our First, we had it on videotape, and we were basically in the process of reaching out to Sean's process firm in D.C.
to get an affidavit from him to counter the DNC's allegations in their motion, when we learned through social media that he had suddenly died.
Um, and, uh, you know, this was, uh, Um, you know, maybe, you know, I want to say 10 days after the DNC had filed their motion and we were in the process of preparing our response.
And, you know, that was a very shocking, uh, piece of news because, you know, Sean Lucas, um, you know, he was, uh, seemed to be a very healthy man, young man in his, uh, twenties.
Um, you know, he seems, you know, you can watch him on the video.
He's very robust.
Uh, so, you know, Very unexpected, uh, and, um, this, I believe this happened, uh, I want to say maybe a couple weeks after the Seth Rich murder.
And so there was already in the air, you know, a lot of speculation and wonderment about what had happened to this young DNC staffer on the streets of DC, supposedly murdered in a botched robbery, but they didn't take his wallet or his watch.
And so, Eventually, we got an email from the DC police basically indicating that, and I should tell you that he had been found on his bathroom floor by his girlfriend at like 8 in the morning.
That's what we eventually found out.
when we first learned that Sean had passed away.
Later on, the DC police issued us an email concluding that the death had been accidental, and it listed three different drugs that were detected in his body.
How they ended up ruling his death accidental, there's no indication, and we haven't had any information on that.
That's some sobering stuff and it's something that people need to keep in mind when thinking about or dealing with these issues.
So, two more quick questions.
The first is in the transcript.
The question was brought up, are political promises or promises made during a campaign speeches, the famous example being the elder George Bush's, read my lips, no new taxes.
I went ahead and raised taxes.
You can't get sued for that.
And it seemed like the DNC's lawyers were trying to sort of hide in a sense under that umbrella that, you know, it's like a political campaign promise to say we're going to have free and fair elections.
It's not something that can be enforced.
Right, right.
That's one of their big arguments is to try to say, this is a political squabble.
You know, our clients are just angry that their preferred candidate didn't win.
And that's not the type of thing the court should get involved in.
You know, there's a number of responses to that.
One is that this has nothing to do with politics anymore, at any level, and it never did.
You know, the, I mean, the People in the class, you know, they gave money to the Bernie Sanders campaign, but I can tell you that many and many of them ended up voting for Donald Trump.
Um, you know, others, you know, didn't vote.
Um, you know, so people of all different, uh, you know, sides of the political spectrum, so to speak.
Um, you know, and so I, I think, you know, to even locate it in the Bernie Sanders campaign, I mean, obviously the Bernie Sanders campaign is get what originally gave rise to it.
Because that's what motivated people to give the money in the first place.
But, you know, at this point in time, you know, this is not a political case at all.
This is about very core principles that apply to, you know, I think, you know, applies to any organization that's a major political party in this country, whether it's the DNC or the RNC.
I don't think, you know, I think everybody should be concerned about what's happening in this case.
Right.
Now, what are the next steps?
You know, it sort of reminds me of an old Dickensian thing about the slow grinding process of law.
What are the next steps?
And do you have any sense of how long it might take to resolve?
Right, so the next steps will be dictated by what the written order from the judge says.
We don't have a written order yet.
The judge said that, you know, he said very candidly that it was going to take him some time to work through the legal issues given the magnitude and complexity of the issues at stake.
Uh, if we get to the next phase, which means we get past the motion to dismiss, then we'll be into discovery, which means that not only will we be entitled to issue subpoenas
for documents and records beyond what's already leaked into the public domain, but we'll be able to depose all of the material witnesses, including not just the Congresswoman, but all of the key players and witnesses involved with the events of the DNC primary process.
And in terms of a total time frame, I mean, at this point, you know, it's anyone's guess.
I mean, litigation can take years and years to resolve.
It's just the way it works in the U.S.
litigation process.
So, you know, and there's no scheduling order in place.
So I can't give any estimate on that.
Right.
Well, you know, from a marketing standpoint, all you have to do is keep showing up to all of your hearings in a white bronco.
I'm sure that that will really help get people's attention.
So I really, really urge people, we'll put a link to the transcript below.
Court transcripts, they don't sound exciting.
This is gripping stuff.
This is like fantastic Hollywood grade script material.
It's very interesting to see how the process works.
I certainly appreciate that the work you're doing, shining the light on these dark places.
Wanted to remind people, go to JAMPAC.
Well, thank you for having me.
▲
Export Selection