Earlier today, Twitter suspended the account of Jared Beck, an attorney representing the plaintiffs in the DNC Fraud Lawsuit. Disobedient Media has consistently covered the ongoing litigation of the suit, which has resulted in questions regarding a number of deaths, bizarre phone calls, and other unusual occurrences.

The historical significance of the Beck’s suit against the DNC and former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz cannot be overstated, as it confronts the heart of the actual election-rigging from which the entire Russiagate scandal was constructed to deflect. Despite this – or because of it – the lawsuit has gained remarkably sparse corporate media coverage.

The suit has forced the DNC’s counsel to admit a number of shocking stances, including statements suggesting that the party had every right to choose candidates in back rooms, and even that election-rigging is protected by the first amendment. DNC counsel had the gall to argue:

“… To recognize any of the causes of action that Plaintiffs allege based on their animating theory would run directly contrary to long-standing Supreme Court precedent recognizing the central and critical First Amendment rights enjoyed by political parties, especially when it comes to selecting the party’s nominee for public office.”

Wasserman-Schultz, we remind our readers, has been a central figure across multiple election integrity and corruption scandals, including the still-unprosecuted Awan scandal, the cheating of Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic Primary, alleged voice-modulated calls left at the offices of the Becks, which included the phrase “Okey-dokey,” likely involvement in the overt rigging of the 2018 midterm race for Florida’s 23rd district, and more. Wasserman-Schultz also publicly embraced a Floridian democrat who openly offered to shoot Julian Assange and Edward Snowden.

One might forgive the Becks for venting their stress and anger on social media, when facing off with such a shamelessly corrupt individual and party, within a judicial system that appears doomed to fail its obligations to uphold the rule of law.

At the time of writing, the specific Tweet(s) which resulted in Beck’s suspension are unknown. Beck has proven himself a fierce critic of the establishment status-quo on Twitter, where in recent days he has openly mocked the presidential bid of Kamala Harris. He has been far from the only voice to raise concerns regarding Harris’s candidacy.

Disobedient Media has repeatedly covered mounting censorship across Twitter and other social media platforms.

While many may strongly disagree with some or all of  Beck’s social media statements, it must be remembered that Beck represents not only the plaintiffs in a historic lawsuit, but a unique and unvarnished anti-establishment voice. One can disagree with someone on social media without advocating for their voice to be removed from a conversation entirely.

Disobedient Media will continue to report on this story as it develops.

Co-Founder and Editor in Chief at Disobedient Media.

11 Thoughts on “Twitter Suspends Jared Beck, Attorney For Plaintiffs In The DNC Fraud Lawsuit”

      • Do you have that poor an understanding of the Constitution that you don’t know that constitutional protection of free speech simply means that the government cannot arrest or prosecute a citizen for exercising their free speech? It has nothing to do with Twitter or any other private entity. The 1st amendment does not protect you from being suspended from Twitter, or being fired from a job, or asked to leave a public place. This is one of those Horseshoe theory situations when the far left sounds exactly like the far right. Just recently the far right was screaming about “innocent until proven guilty” as regards Brett Kavanaugh even though the presumption of innocence applies only to criminal indictments.

        Man, you self-styled political experts sure have a problem not knowing what you’re talking about. This is why you so-called progressives are more of a hindrance to progress than champions thereof. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

  • While I am a fan of your efforts to seek the truth, & the fact that the FBI never collected the DNC server is also disturbing to me, and I am certainly no fan of Hillary Clinton..
    … I must beg to differ on one important aspect.
    The DNC has every right to favor one candidate over another. Even though I agree the superdelegates ruin the fairness, that’s not the issue.
    You see, even the RNC was openly opposed to Trump until he actually won the nomination. There is nothing wrong with that either.
    The issue is not one of any sort of legality at all. The DNC has every right to favor any candidate they wish as an organization to favor.
    However, unlike the Republicans, the DNC was not honest about their stance and there lies the issue.
    Had the DNC told the world they favor Hillary, that would have been fine. But the DNC dishonestly pretended to be “neutral”.
    As far as extensive use of Super Delegates to influence the outcome, those are rules which they have to answer to their own voters for. At least rules like that are out in the open and people know the truth before they vote. Republicans use Super Delegates to a far lessor degree.
    Thank you for the information about Twitter. They are a serious threat. The worst threat is Google.

    • Except that you are incorrect. The DNC mission statement they were required to adhere to PROHIBITED them from favoring any candidate and letting the PEOPLE decide.

      • Since they were accepting money under the statement, any deviation and under the table or back room deals are evidence of Fraud. Misrepresentation, concealment, intent to decieve, with the three out of the five elements of fraud present, the success for the complaint for fraud is assured in a fair court room. The clean hands doctrine falls into line here. If any of the two parties have dirty hands in the matter the court can find that the defendant has no defense and issue a summary judgement on the facts. And baby, the facts are incontrovertible!

      • Actually I am correct. DNC can make whatever rules they want and they are allowed to break them. They can kick a candidate out, or stack the deck just like the RNC openly tried. There are no ramifications other than you can leave the party if you don’t like it.

        A ‘mission statement’ is not grounds for anything legal. It’s not even technically enforceable because you need to make a subjective judgment .

        “Our companies mission is to bring you the best possible automobile”
        You can’t sue the company for fraud based on a fault in manufacturing for that reason.

        DNCs rules also created the super delegates… touche

        They can make and break whatever rules they want.
        They are allowed to declare “We won’t allow Bernie to be a candidate” even if the people vote for him.

    • Nope, not true. Once they held themselves out to be impartial publically and in published mission statements, money collected or donated become the fruit of misrepresentation, concealment and the hacked data shows the intent to decieve. That fulfills the requirement for a finding of fraud.

Leave a Reply