Twitter Bans Trump Campaign – It’s Time They are Taken to Court

Trump campaign official Mike Hahn said Thursday that Twitter suspended the Trump campaign’s official Twitter account, @TeamTrump, after it posted anti-Biden content which called him a liar. They do nothing about Democrats and this is now crossing the line where they are as guilty of interfering with an election and they all accused Putin and Russia. The only difference was that the Russians could never shut down people’s accounts to prevent them from campaigning.

This is absolutely outrageous. What either candidate says is typically believed by their supporters. It is called preaching to the choir. Such things rarely change the mind of free-thinkers. Likewise, if someone wanted to post that all blacks, Jews, or Baptists should be killed, the normal person would see this person as a crazy. The authorities would then know to at least watch him. But blocking such posts that will never influence the majority is just absurd.

Zuckerberg has crossed the line and is becoming the American version of Putin. He is a disgrace to everything that a free society stands for and the socialists he is working with for Climate Change will then turn and devour his empire. The answer is very clear. To be a social media, they CANNOT be allowed to censor content. They claim they are making editorial decisions, but those decisions are interfering with the election which is a violation of EVERYONE’s civil rights which is actionable in court that their immunity cannot override. If they have donated money to the Democrats and not Republicans, this will only strengthen a case against them for interfering with a federal election.

In Trump’s tweet, he called for a repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a rule that protects tech companies from liability over the content posted by users on their online services while allowing them to moderate it. Either END moderating or they are libel for this type of deliberate interference in an election.

It is a criminal act to do what they are doing if the person is in any way connected with the government: 18 U.S. Code § 595. Interference by administrative employees of Federal, State, or Territorial Governments. It states that if they are “interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”

This statute should be expanded to all journalists and social media. This 2020 election has revealed outrageous behavior that was identical, but far worse, behind the allegations that Russia interfered in the 2016 elections. All of these social media guys would get a taste of tax-free living where your meals are prepared for you but you do have to clean your own bunk. The mean may be marked “not fit for human consumption” but that is because it is the excess sent for testing they don’t bother to test and send it to the Bureau of Prisons for free.

There is a statute that a class-action suit could be brought under Conspiracy Against Rights: 18 U.S.C. § 241 which makes it unlawful for two or more persons to “conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Violations are punishable by imprisonment for up to ten years or, if death results, by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or by a sentence of death.

The Supreme Court long ago recognized that the right to vote for federal offices is among the rights secured by Article I, Sections 2 and 4, of the Constitution, and hence is protected by Section 241. United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941); Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884).

Therefore, Section 230 cannot overrule a constitutional right. The Supreme Court held “We have rejected the view that the applicability of one constitutional amendment pre-empts the guarantees of another.” US v James Daniel Good, 510 US 43 (1993) see also Soldal v Cook County, 506 US 56 (1992).

Therefore, Section 230 CANNOT repeal the civil rights statute. They need to be brought to court and this power needs to be stripped from them as unconstitutional and let the jury take their billions and redistribute it to all Americans fulfilling their socialist dreams.

Section 241 has been an important statutory tool in election crime prosecutions. It has long been held to apply only to schemes to corrupt elections for federal office. It has been applied to stuffing a ballot box with forged ballots, United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385 (1944); United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 (1915) as well as  preventing the official count of ballots in primary elections, United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941), which may come in handy in this election. This means private suites can be filed claiming that interfering with the ballots is a civil rights violation to all in the country.

Destroying voter registration applications is also applicable (United States v. Haynes, Nos. 91-5979, 91-6076, 1992 WL 296782, at *1 (6th Cir. Oct. 15, 1992)), as well as destroying ballots (United States v. Townsley, 843 F.2d 1070, 1073–75 (8th Cir. 1988)).

Anyone who exploits the infirmities of elderly or handicapped people by casting absentee ballots in their names is also a violation of civil rights, United States v. Morado, 454 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir. 1972), just as anyone who illegally register voters and cast absentee ballots in their names, United States v. Weston, 417 F.2d 181, 182–85 (4th Cir. 1969).

Anyone who threatens injury, threaten, or intimidate a voter in the exercise of his right to vote is also a serious actionable issue under this statute, Fields v. United States, 228 F.2d 544 (4th
Cir. 1955). This even extends to someone who impersonates qualified voters, Crolich v. United States, 196 F.2d 879, 879 (5th Cir. 1952).


Indeed, we can used this statute in this 2020 election. It also covers anyone who discards or fails to count votes and to alter votes counted, Ryan v. United States, 99 F.2d 864, 866 (8th Cir. 1938); Walker v. United States, 93 F.2d 383, 386 (8th Cir. 1937). It would apply to anyone who steals votes by changing the votes cast by voters at voting machines, United States v. Thompson, No. 6:09–16–KKC, 2013 WL 5528827, at *1 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 4, 2013).

Section 241 does not require that the conspiracy be successful, United States v. Bradberry, 517 F.2d 498, 499 n.6 (7th Cir. 1975), nor need there be proof of an overt act. United States v. Colvin, 353 F.3d 569, 576 (7th Cir. 2003); United States v. Whitney, 229 F.3d 1296, 1301 (10th Cir. 2000). But see United States v. Brown, 49 F.3d 1162, 1165 (6th Cir. 1995) (stating in dicta that Section 241 requires an overt act).

Section 241 reaches conduct affecting the integrity of the federal election process as a whole and does not require fraudulent action with respect to any particular voter. United States v. Nathan, 238 F.2d 401, 407 (7th Cir. 1956).

Section 241 prohibits only conspiracies to interfere with rights flowing directly from the Constitution or federal statutes. This element has led to considerable judicial speculation over the extent to
which the Constitution protects the right to vote for candidates running for non-federal offices. Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964); Blitz v. United States, 153 U.S. 308 (1894); In re Coy, 127 U.S. 731 (1888); Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1880); see also Duncan v. Poythress, 657 F.2d 691, 699–706 (5th Cir. 1981).

The use of Section 241 in election fraud cases generally falls into two types: “public schemes” and “private schemes.” A public scheme is one that involves the necessary participation of a public official acting under the color of law. A private scheme is a pattern of conduct that does not involve the necessary participation of a public official acting under color of law, but that can be shown to have adversely affected the ability of qualified voters to vote in elections in which federal candidates were on the ballot. This is the way to attack these social media anarchists.

Examples of private schemes include: (1) voting fraudulent ballots in mixed elections, and (2) thwarting get-out-the-vote or ride-to-the-polls activities of political factions or parties through such methods as jamming telephone lines or vandalizing motor vehicles. Private schemes can be prosecuted under Section 241 only when the objective of the conspiracy was to corrupt a specific federal contest, or when the scheme can be shown to have affected, directly or indirectly, the vote count for a federal candidate, e.g., when fraudulent ballots were cast for an entire party ticket that included a federal office.

This is the basis to attack social media in a similar manner that they accused Russia of influencing the election. All that rhetoric of they and Hillary can be used against what they have been doing.