Dave Weigel, a reporter for The Washington Post, called a class-action lawsuit against the DNC and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) “largely frivolous” in a May 20 article, and blocked the plaintiffs’ lawyers on Twitter when they challenged him on the description.

Elizabeth Beck, one of four trial attorneys representing supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) during the 2016 election, shot back at Weigel’s “largely frivolous” comment on her Twitter account.

“The Cranky Lawyer”: “@daveweigel u sorry excuse 4 a journalist what is this crap out of your brainless head? Frivolous? #DNCFraudLawsuit is NOT frivolous!” and, in subsequent tweets, called Weigel a “weasel”; The Washington Post, “a worthless, crap rag.”

More from LifeZette TV

MORE NEWS: Ep 46 | Stark Contrast in Biden and Trump Town Halls, Easy Questions for Former VP, Not Challenged

[lz_third_party includes=https://twitter.com/eleebeck/status/866160808832761857 align=right width=530]

[lz_third_party includes=https://twitter.com/eleebeck/status/866164346438725633 align=right width=530]

Do you agree that protesting is acceptable, but rioting is not? Yes No Email Address (required) By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement Results Vote

Weigel, apparently miffed, blocked both Beck and her lawyer husband Jared Beck, who tweeted to his wife, suggesting they sue the reporter. “So @daveweigel just blocked me. What a damn hack. Want to sue him for defamation @eleebeck? If we only had the time right?”

[lz_third_party includes= align=https://twitter.com/JaredBeck/status/866308089598939137 right width=530]

What’s most remarkable about The Washington Post comments on the DNC fraud suit — which were stuffed into an article about the coverage of the Seth Rich murder — “The Seth Rich conspiracy shows how fake news still works” — is that it appears to have been the first time the paper (whose new motto is “Democracy Dies in Darkness”) has written anything at all about the sensational lawsuit, which is backed by thousands of Sanders supporters who are seething with anger at what they see as a corrupt Democratic Party that rigged the 2016 Democratic primary.

Sanders’ supporters are suing the DNC and its former chairwoman, Wasserman Schultz, in federal court in the Southern District of Florida, asking for a return of all contributions to the Sanders campaign and all contributions to made to the DNC by Sanders supporters, plus punitive damages, legal fees, and expenses. The total amount they’re asking for, though yet to be named, will likely exceed $300 million.

MORE NEWS: Ep 385 | The Siege of the White House!

“Ha!” said the lead plaintiff, Carol Wilding, when reached by phone by LifeZette on Monday and told that The Washington Post called the case frivolous. “There’s my comment.”

“It’s not frivolous?” LifeZette asked.

“Yeah, hardly,” she responded.

Wilding, who lives in Pompano Beach, in Florida’s 23rd congressional district, which is represented by Wasserman Schultz, is one of 151 named plaintiffs. She contributed $445.50 to the Sanders presidential campaign via ActBlue, according to the lawsuit, which was filed on June 28, 2016.

The lawsuit was triggered by the release of DNC emails and other documents by Guccifer 2.0, who has identified himself as a Romanian hacker. One document in particular, a memo dated May 26, 2015, showed that the DNC was working to promote the candidacy of Hillary Clinton from the very start of the campaign cycle, though Sanders had already announced in April of 2015 that he would also seek the Democratic nomination.

[lz_ndn video=31200580]

The plaintiffs accuse the DNC and Wasserman Schultz of fraud — for pretending to be neutral in the primary — for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence, and for failing to secure the donors’ personal information on the committee’s computer networks.

At the hearing on April 25 on the motion to dismiss, the judge, Reagan appointee William Zloch, gave no indication that he viewed the case as frivolous. At one point he remarked that the issues raised were “very interesting” and asked sharp questions of the DNC lawyer, including one about the issue of legal standing, saying, “If a person is fraudulently induced to donate to a charitable organization, does he have standing to sue the person who induced the donation?”

The DNC’s lawyer’s response was long and winding, arguing for the DNC’s right to conduct its affairs however it wants, without interference from donors.

A full transcript of the hearing can be found here.

No mainstream media organization covered the April 25 hearing at the federal courthouse in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and the media blackout of the case would be total and complete if not for the Internet and a handful of digital news outlets that initially covered the suit.

One other mainstream news organization, however, did cover the suit in recent days, but in similar fashion to The Washington Post; that is, in such a way as to discredit it.

In a story in Newsweek on May 17, entitled “Did the DNC help Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders? Fraud Lawsuit Takes Aim at Leadership” the writer helpfully answers the questions posed in the headline for readers (with the assistance of a Democratic strategist who happens to be a Clinton supporter.) The answer, of course, was no.

[lz_related_box id=796528]

The suit, if it moves forward, the writer says, could give Sanders supporters a chance to shape “how the DNC and the Democratic Party conduct their business.”

But then there’s a “but.”

“But progressives should instead focus their efforts on working within the DNC right now to stop ‘the real opponent’ currently in Washington,” it says, quoting Democratic strategist Scott Bolten. No Sanders supporters are quoted in the piece, and it concludes with another quote from Bolten, who says you “can’t prove” Sanders didn’t get enough votes to beat Hillary because of the committee’s actions” and that the best thing to do is to “move forward together.”

Somehow, it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen.

A copy of the suit against the DNC and Wasserman Schultz, amended July 13, 2016, can be found here.