In this episode, Alex Jones discusses his legal battles with the Sandy Hook parents and its
implications on free speech. He asserts that he has been targeted by deep state actors who are
attempting to silence him as part of a larger plan to control information flow and manipulate public
opinion. Jones also mentions that President Trump is aware of these efforts, and the outcome of the
upcoming election may have consequences for their resolution. Throughout the discussion, Jones
emphasizes the importance of citizens being informed about ongoing developments in this case and
encourages listeners to engage with the topic and take action as needed.
I mean, look, we've been hearing about what's happening to InfoWars.
I know you did a couple of spaces yourself.
You did a number of shows yourself.
But just let people know, from your perspective, First of all, an overview of what's happening and then we'll ask specific questions about who do you think's behind this.
Last night after my daughter went to bed, my youngest daughter, me and my wife sat around the kitchen table and I said, I cannot believe what just happened.
And I can't imagine what President Trump is going through.
So there's so many little pieces to this, but bottom line, Judge Chris Lopez is a very respected federal judge in Houston, and that's where our bankruptcy was assigned two years ago.
And so it's not the judge's fault.
The way the court system works is there's trustees and chief restructuring officers that are in the pool that basically rotate through, they get picked for the case.
And if you don't object to them, They get assigned.
Well, the plaintiffs that we now know are total, you know, the controllers, the plaintiffs, the law firms are deep state.
Let's come out in court.
They approved of these U.S.
trustee that works for the Justice Department and for the chief restructuring officer, who I later learned were like flaming leftist, you know, anti-Trump, anti-Alex Jones.
So they come in the last two years and they try to, the CRO tries to set me up.
Secret court filings.
I'm stealing money.
The judge sends in high-level third-party investigators and accounting firms at my expense.
We're talking a million plus bucks, three groups.
They tear everything apart, do forensic accounting, and come back and say, no, there's no money hidden.
Jones didn't do this.
So then I go through all this because the media is like, oh, Jones is hiding money.
He's a criminal.
He's Al Capone.
And I only filed for bankruptcy because I was out of money with a whole billion and a half dollar judgment that was rigged, where both judges in Texas and Connecticut found me guilty for supposedly not giving over, you know, evidence and discovery, but I gave them everything, so they found nothing.
So instead they default me.
HBO runs a huge production in both trials with makeup and scripts.
It's a movie set.
I mean, this is next level.
Weaponization.
And the CIA, we now know, was involved.
They were beta testing this whole thing of weaponization.
So, two Fridays ago, now about 16 days ago, 17 days ago, it's 5 o'clock, I'm about to leave the office, I've done my show, most of the crew's leaving, and I notice there's more security guards there.
I have a private security company I've used for years.
I said, what's going on?
They're like, we don't know.
We're told something's coming up tonight at 9 o'clock.
So I call my lawyers.
They go, hey, we just got word.
They're locking the doors at 9 o'clock tonight.
We don't know how they're going to do it.
There's no court order.
Judge Lopez is not called for this.
The CRO does not have this power.
We don't understand this.
The CRO is just an advisor to the court.
And so I literally explained to them, showed them the law, stopped them closing it.
He then, with the next security crew, same company the next day, tries to shut it down again.
His name's Pat McGill.
So I have to sleep up there for three days, and then the media's like, oh, it's not happening.
But then on Monday, the plaintiff's lawyers, Democratic Party, same group suing Trump, same group suing Giuliani, top law firm out of New York and Houston, they go in and file that Monday, now two weeks ago today, to shut me down.
And their reason was, he's crazy, he claims he's being shut down, total gaslighting, so we're gonna shut him down right now.
The judge said, no, we're gonna have a 14th meeting to decide.
They then filed a 14th hearing to take my real Alex Jones and ex, that's AP Reuters, they filed to take the company over and close the doors last Friday, three days ago.
So everybody's got that, okay, see, Alex Jones wasn't crying wolf.
They wanted me kicked out, fired.
And the judge said under federal law, it's an LLC, I'm the owner.
He said, I can't even override that.
If it goes into receivership, I can do it.
But he goes, he told the CRO, who do you think you are?
10 times.
He said, under law, you do not control this company.
And Mr. Jones acts in good faith.
You've had two years to investigate him.
You never filed a lawsuit.
You never made a claim.
because he's beginning the secret filings this guy files saying I'm a
crook the judge has been giving my lawyers that even though this guy
thought it would keep it secret so it's clear the Justice Department other
groups are manipulating this and the US trustee the Justice Department works
with him and and basically she also called for us to be closed Friday so
they 100% did this and Judge Chris Lopez very respected top of the class you know
top school, he said, "We're not doing that."
I'm not shutting down InfoWars.
I'm giving Mr. Jones back his company.
And the U.S.
trustee got up and the other lawyers and said, we pray your honor, which is the old way to say it.
The old courts are a temple.
They said, we pray to you.
We pray to you, your honor.
So they're really worshiping him.
And they say, we pray to you to not give it back to him.
He's a crook.
He's evil.
He's bad.
And the judge says, sit down.
I've heard enough from you.
So this is all I was in the courtroom.
And the federal courts aren't like state courts where there's cameras, but there's a transcript, it's public.
He goes, I've heard enough from you, sit down right now.
And he says, Pat McGill, I've got one more order to you, the CRO.
He goes, you're to hand Mr. Jones' bank accounts back today.
It's his company, you are removed.
And so that was the real victory that I'd already liquidated all my assets the last two years, already sold extra stuff.
So when they hear, oh, Jones had to liquidate, that's in my personal, that was already done.
So the media spun that.
I didn't care about a lake house and a little farm I had.
I never even went there.
I was too busy.
So that, that was my move too.
It's just, you get it all on the line, we're done.
I'll give these plaintiffs the money.
The plaintiffs got up and said, we don't want money.
We want to shut him down again.
And the judge says, that's outrageous.
It's not in the federal government, not in the U.S.
Constitution, not in Congress's laws to do that.
So he excoriated them.
No less than 10 times, because that's a real judge.
That's why the media was attacking him and had him in my company back.
Now they're going to attack me in the state courts and try to take control of the company.
But he kept control through a new trustee he put in over my personal, because I'm the real owner of the company.
And it just so happens, this amazing, respected special person, the term would be receiver, Uh, would be trustee was just showed up there.
Never met him.
Everybody's like, well, this guy's really respected and he'll actually follow law.
And so now I don't have these low level people that got pushed up by the Justice Department put in.
I've got a respected guy that's fair with the judge.
He's retained control and I hate to sit there and kiss the judge's ass, but he's just following the law.
And so this is a major devastating move against them because America, the judge even said during this, 30 minute closing statement, which he never does.
It was like something out of Kill a Mockingbird.
It was powerful.
He said, hopefully this type of behavior changes with the election.
He was appointed by Trump.
He said, hopefully this type of behavior ends with the election because he's, they were crazy enough, guys, to introduce transcripts of my show two weeks ago, where I talked about the CRO calling me when he filed a secret report against me, saying I was stealing money.
He calls me and denies he did it.
So I record him.
Saying he never did it.
Well, the judge had that filing.
And I recorded him doing all this stuff.
I filed it in the court.
The judge had never listened to it.
They were dumb enough to demand over lunch he read the transcripts.
So he read the transcripts and he came back and asked, is it true you tried to close his business two weeks ago?
They said, yes, your honor.
There were guns in the building.
Well, we have concealed carry.
We have private security.
And the judge goes, what do you mean?
They go, well, there was a crosshair.
The judge said, did somebody threaten you?
No.
The judge said, I've heard enough.
You're done.
So they were literally acting like we had guns pointed at them.
They were literally saying I was going to steal money.
They were running around like chickens with their heads cut off.
And for the first time in six years of me being under lawfare, a judge finally literally stomped on their tail.
I'm going to ask you a few more questions, but I just want to let the audience know because I was like, you know when I heard you talking about the fact that people want to shut you down, I was like, really?
And I know you were one of the four people that ADL didn't want back, right?
Obviously I did a bit of journalism, you know, and I went to quite a few of the student encampments.
And there's various encampments, some have a lot of people from the right, some have a lot of people from the left, some have a mixed bag.
And one of the encampments I went to was very much people from the left.
And they were asking me some questions like, you know, who have you, you know, who have you co-hosted before?
And I said, look, like people like Alex Jones and Andrew Teh.
And as soon as I mentioned, I mentioned a few other names as well, but as soon as I mentioned yours and Tate's name, they were literally, took me out of the camp.
unidentified
They didn't even let the boys ask the questions, even though they're part of the same team.
Well, that's a great question, but let me just segue for a moment.
Anybody can search my name, and the headlines are fake, but buried in Reuters, AP, Bloomberg, they admit, okay, there was a plan to shut it down.
They thought there was a threat.
Okay, they did try to shut it down at this hearing and the next hearing.
Three hearings, they tried to shut me down the last two weeks.
And I get, to me, I didn't believe that the private security firm, bonded, that I'd used for seven years, armed guards, big company, you know, here in Austin, my personal security and some of my friends, were ordered to close the doors 16 days ago, two Fridays ago, without a court order.
I get, that didn't seem real to me.
I mean, the judge said, what are you doing?
You can't, you can't shut his company down.
He told them that Friday.
Just three days ago.
So I know who did this, okay?
And it hid in plain view, because I didn't understand all this until they had the fake judgments by the judges who found me guilty, which you're not supposed to do in America or anywhere, really.
And then the jury set up, you know, how guilty I was, hearings on damages.
They have the head FBI agent in Connecticut at the time, who was the chief counsel of the FBI, so the head of the FBI in Connecticut, He got up in the Connecticut show trial two years ago in November in Connecticut.
It's on video and I can pull it up.
And he said to their own lawyer, how'd you get involved?
What'd you do?
And he said, well, I heard about people questioning Sandy Hook and I got one phone call asking if I was really an FBI agent.
So I went to Toscoff and Koskoff, this big democratic firm, and I organized the families and we sued Alex Jones.
Just type in, FBI agent wins $95,000,000 against Alex Jones.
You'll see his picture and everything.
He organized it all.
Then they get that undercover video, the Project Veritas spinoff, two months ago, three months ago, of them saying, former FBI, current CIA, we ran this.
Well, I knew that.
I mean, I have a family member that's in Asia this week on a trip, business trip.
They were in Thailand and then in Japan.
One morning they get up, front page of the paper's me.
They go to Japan, front page of the paper's me the next day.
This is just last week.
It's like they're invading a country.
I'm not that important.
It's about destroying free speech, scaring everybody else off, and putting the fear of God into people of a billion and a half dollar judgment, if you question narratives, because they're planning new Jussie Smollett narratives, new things.
Whether we're right or wrong, they don't want us questioning them.
So then, here's the worst part.
They said this in mediation two years ago, and again three months ago.
And my lawyers told me, you can't talk about it, it's in mediation.
So I didn't do it.
Didn't violate the court rules.
So the federal courthouse two months ago in Fort Worth, federal mediation in a courtroom, federal judge, like the most official type there is.
This is a court mediation, this is not a regular mediation.
This case is so big.
They get up, and I can only talk about it now because they told my lawyers the next week in a non-mediation, the same stuff, they said, listen, we know Jones doesn't have all this money.
If he just comes out against the Second Amendment and some other things, we will leave him alone.
And my lawyer said, excuse me?
So my lawyer calls me and says, Hey, you can talk about this now.
They just admitted it on the telephone in a conference that it was about trying.
They thought I was about the money.
So they thought if they did this, they didn't want money at the courthouse steps.
They literally thought I would finally become their creature.
And now they're finding out there's no price tag on Alex Jones.
So, this was 100% run by the State Department, the CIA, and the Justice Department as a beta test, just like the State Department, CIA is running the censorship, the control, the ADL is their lapdog.
I'm the big target because they said, that's a big populace.
He, just like the FBI agent, CIA agent said, he's the loudest voice, he was the lead elephant.
It's not that I'm that important, it's just that I was the biggest up front six, seven years ago.
Now it's Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, above that Elon Musk.
So I'm kind of, you know, a backbencher now.
I mean, I'm still reaching tens of millions a day, but nothing compared to Elon or, you know, Joe Rogan.
But that's what happened.
I was picked because I had 30 million viewers a day, every day, seven years ago.
And so I did have the biggest show of political talk in the world then.
I don't mean like 30 million had impressions.
I mean, I had 30 million people on radio, TV, and dialing in, 10 million a day on my website.
We could see their IP addresses.
So they went, holy hell, this guy is popular.
We better shut him down.
But it didn't work because the emergency transmission already got out.
But this was run by Obama's Stay Behind Network in the Defense Authorization Act of 2017.
Which they, you know, funded the year before, before he left office, in the Countering Foreign Disinformation Propaganda Act.
And I talked to a top U.S.
Senator yesterday, in person, in Detroit, who pulled me aside.
I won't say names.
And said, tell me about this.
And I explained it.
He goes, yeah, we know that.
We're getting ready to go after him.
We understand the networks.
And they just, they said, how did you know this?
I said, well, I read the legislation.
So the good news is, Trump is aware of this.
Trump knows what's going on, and so they're in a lot of trouble now.
That's why they're so scared.
Not of retribution, not of prison, not of us trying to hurt them, but the fact that they committed this coup against America.
Well, they're totally desperate with 140 days left to the election.
And...
I'm not that important.
They just chose me because I was popular and flamboyant and did some quirky stuff.
They thought they could pull that out of context, you know, gay frog stuff, and then say this guy's a lunatic, and then once people accepted... There was a Wall Street Journal article six years ago.
It was like a 30-page article, and it was a subscription article that said, we're going to shut down Julian Assange.
When the left doesn't defend him, we'll have the left.
And we're going to shut down Alex Jones.
If they don't defend him, we'll have them all.
And NATO was actually involved in the meeting.
It was in the Wall Street Journal.
And so that was their plan.
And so I don't see this as me as being that important.
I see it as I've been designated as a test case.
And so they're like, well, we can't even get rid of the test case.
Get him.
They kind of see me as the first target.
And so because I haven't fallen because of all your support, They just keep doubling down, doubling down, but now it's kind of like Stalingrad, where you've got 5 million Germans and 7 million Russians, and they just decided to slug it out in that one city.
They could have fought anywhere in Russia, there were a bunch of other cities on the line, but the Russians and the Germans decided to slug it out at Stalingrad, and Alex Jones is basically Stalingrad.
So it's not me, I'm just the chosen...
Myself and Trump are the chosen battlegrounds in the social war, and they thought Trump's goofy, he can be discredited, Jones is goofy, and I am goofy.
But it didn't work, because I am goofy, people realized I'm real.
And so now, not even me, but my name, and who I am, has become this archetype of this tug-of-war battle.
Does that make sense?
unidentified
I have a quick question that I'd like to ask Alex.
You said that the judge reprimanded the attorneys for the Sandy Hook parents, or I'm sorry, yes, for the Sandy Hook plaintiffs.
In what way did the judge reprimand them?
Because I don't recall that in listening to that portion.
I have several questions, but I'll just limit it to one for time purposes.
I've seen lately a lot of people on X and on other social media platforms claiming that since the creditors are coming after you and these people are coming after you for all this money, this crazy amount of money, that you must have been onto something when it came to Sandy Hook.
In court, you admitted that you were wrong about Sandy Hook.
I'm pretty sure.
I'm pretty sure, right?
Can you tell these people that you weren't going to do anything and that you clearly got it wrong when it came to the Sandy Hook victims?
Okay, let me explain something, Brian, to you, okay?
And this is the truth.
I am not the Sandy Hook man.
I did not make money off these people.
They entered 22 minutes of evidence into the Texas and Connecticut trials that were completely choreographed, where I was already found guilty by judges in default, claiming I didn't give discovery, which was not true.
I gave four years of discovery.
They found nothing in there.
I didn't make money off of them.
That was a lie.
Now, about a year into Sandy Hook, which was a blip on the radar, I'm sad it happened, There were professors in Florida and Wisconsin and California and a school safety official named Wolfgang Halbig that put out all this information claiming it didn't happen.
I then, because it had hundreds of millions of views on YouTube, it was a huge story, did one debate and five shows on it.
Before they sued me, I didn't talk about it for over three years.
I stopped having these people on.
Because I learned they were either paid to act like this or they were crazy.
They were going to like Catholic schools and stuff six, seven years ago before I got sued, believing the kids were still alive and doing all this stuff.
And I learned some of the stuff they said was not true.
So, so I was already saying and having debates with them seven, eight years ago before they sued me, Saying, no, I think Sandy Hook happened.
Then the media went, oh, Jones is weak.
He's backed off this.
Let's claim he made this up.
And they hired PR firms to run thousands of articles in 2016, 2017, 2018, before they sued me, claiming I was currently peeing on graves, going to their houses, sending people and I never did any of that and no evidence
was put on about that.
So that's the reality.
So you tell me, get people to stop saying it didn't happen.
They were saying it before I ever said, "Oh, I can see your point.
Yeah, they lied about WMDs, you know, all Jussie Smollett, all this.
Yeah, maybe it's fake."
And I didn't say that in the current tense.
I'm repeating what I said earlier.
So I thought they literally wanted an apology.
So I said, "Yeah, I think your kids died."
They went, "Oh my God, we've got you."
I mean, again, why do I have friends and people that go to foreign countries and they open up the newspaper in Japan and it's about my court case currently.
It's like we're invading Iraq or something in 2003.
Why is the number one thing on every channel for weeks, me and Sandy Hook?
because it's about making me the Sandy Hook guy to make the popular Sandy Hook guy.
And because everybody, most people don't trust the media and the government now, I see it everywhere.
Hey, why don't you restate your question again, because I forgot the second part.
You're not letting me finish.
It's not lying to say, yes, I thought there was some anomalies.
I thought it may not have happened.
And then I questioned it.
You try to keep me on the horns of that.
When I said five, six years ago, before I was sued, that I thought it happened.
I'm on record.
I questioned it.
It was my First Amendment right.
This is all about destroying the First Amendment.
I explained that.
Now to answer your second question.
They have spent, in the bankruptcy hearing alone, they have filed in federal court $34 million in two years trying to find me in a crime to put me in jail.
They're so pissed I'm clean.
They spent $25 million in the four years previous prosecuting their lawsuits and claimed in court I had hundreds of millions of dollars hidden.
Remember all that?
I was going to go to jail.
None of that was true.
The judge has seen the private investigations he put in.
I've been through the whole ringer.
None of it was true.
This has been a giant media extravaganza and the whole Sandy Hook combine of PR firms, Democratic Party, has used me for years in Facebook and Google and Twitter and X ads to raise money off my name To take a popular talk show host who was already number one six years ago and take a few things I said out of context to maybe the Sandy Hook man so they own my identity and raise money off of me.
They didn't want to take $55 million in a settlement, which is more money than I've ever made personally.
And the judge talked about that Friday.
They want to use me as the bad guy, as the villain coming after them to raise political contributions to their gun control groups.
When you're reporting, I mean, sometimes, obviously, I agree, someone might be doing it deceptively, but sometimes you can just get the information wrong, right?
Like, I don't know which one of you two brothers, but didn't you guys Did any of you guys claim that there was an Iranian passport or didn't one of you guys claim that there was Jihad day or something?
So like, doesn't sometimes happen that a person gets misinformation or it relays the information in a manner that they think isn't problematic but could be problematic?
So the way defamation works is that if you go out of your way to say something that's not true, and you know it's not true, or you maliciously attack them, or if you didn't take the proper precautions in reporting it.
I mean, Jones clearly stated that Sandy Hook was a false flag operation.
You asked, you asked, Krasnostein, you asked, Krasnostein, you asked a question.
Do I feel like they should be paid money?
No, I believe this is all a political thing to demonize the First Amendment and scare other people from asking questions about future narratives.
That said, I offered them $55 million three months ago, more money than I've ever made in my life, certified by federal court in 30 years on air, $55 million that I would try to pay them over 10 years And they said, we don't want your money on the courthouse.
They said, we want him shut down.
So you said, oh, do they owe anything?
They don't want $55 million.
They want me silenced because they don't want people to be able to hear what I have to say for future narratives.
Yeah, it was the first time I've ever been in a courtroom like that.
So it was an amazing experience.
Some of it was really boring, as you'd imagine.
Other parts of it were very riveting.
And Alex said it best earlier in this space, the final speech from the judge was a lot like the end of To Kill a Mockingbird.
It was emotional.
I believe the judge lost his father in the last few months and he was upset that it was Father's Day coming up.
I mean, it was a very solemn, serious, edge of your seat kind of dynamic and ultimately It's very obvious that the plaintiffs in this case, whether they're right or wrong, that that issue is a side issue.
It's very obvious that their desire is to make it impossible for Alex to be on the air in any way, shape or form.
So they filed a motion, for example, to try to take his personal Twitter account, which is basically unprecedented as far as I understand it.
And yes, it is the case that they offer an $85 million deal with, you know, all sorts of stipulations that were untenable for us.
And we counted with 55, but ultimately it's very obvious that if they're spending millions upon millions of dollars and we're trying to settle with them and they want to liquidate everything for less than 10 or less than $5 million worth of gear and hardware.
here that the objective is to silence Alex.
So, regardless of what you think about Alex or his statements in the past, or whether he got the story wrong, or whether he was intentionally lying, regardless of what you think about that, I do think that there is a real issue here when the civil courts can be used to totally eradicate a person's ability to speak to an audience that wants to hear what they have to say.
That's what's so troubling to me about this, regardless of all of the emotional details and issues around this case.
unidentified
Chase, what were the terms that were untenable as far as the $85 million suit?
And Alex could speak on this better than I could, but Sarah, to answer your question, I believe they wanted to put a board of directors in here, for example, to manage the company and sort of dictate what Alex could say or not say on air.
That's the type of stuff that we specifically, Alex, was unwilling to tolerate.
They said, listen, we want you to not defend the Second Amendment.
And I said, tell them what else they want.
I wanted to see.
And it was, well, we'll give you a big list.
So it was basically, I would become their creature.
No money.
Keep it forward going.
And then they would just let me operate as long as they had a board of directors.
That's the scandal that Kravitz's team doesn't want to talk about.
They literally wanted me to be their creature.
So at the end of the day, that's what happened.
And that's what they did.
The judge said, I'm not shutting down Alex Jones.
I'm not doing this for you.
So finally, we had an honest judge that said, no, this is tyranny, folks.
I mean, tell him a few other observations, Chase, because you're really good at explaining it.
You're only in the room like four hours.
You're outside doing interviews.
How many times did you see the judge say, Alex Jones owns this, and the CRO Hey Alex, I'm more than happy to talk to you about any of those things you want to talk about.
I didn't come here to talk about those though, but go ahead.
Angelo, were you going to make a general point or did you want to specifically ask
Alex a question?
unidentified
Well, I wanted to make a point, not specifically ask Alex a question, but I hear what everybody
is saying and I'm not really fully in tune with the whole controversy and the court case
and all that, but I will say that this axiom by which the deep state is going after Alex
Jones on the Sandy Hook thing.
It doesn't really matter whether or not there are suspicious aspects or whether or not Alex specifically targeted the victims of Sandy Hook.
He did not, and there are suspicious aspects of Sandy Hook.
You know, whether it's the evacuation drills that don't make sense with the official footage that was recorded or the bulldozing of the site or the alleged shooter, anything like that.
That's really besides the point.
What really matters is this is a direction by which the Deep State is trying to take down Alex Jones.
And so long as...
That is the perfect example, everyone, on why InfoWars is so dangerous, using the First Amendment to protect itself.
Because if you really look at, we're all missing the fact, we're talking deep state, CIA, blah blah blah, look at my right hand while everything that's important is in my left.
Number one, Alex Jones created a video after the Sandy Hook shooting, and that video, he stated that Sandy Hook was a false flag attack.
He edited video, put video clips together, and he made it look like it was a false flag attack.
And then that video went viral, and many people started believing Sandy Hook was a false flag attack, when in fact it was not.
And this, that specific action, is what Who decides?
Who decides what's disinformation?
should be about. It doesn't matter if they're just out to get them to shut down Infowars.
As long as we have someone using their platform to spread disinformation to millions of people...
Who decides what's disinformation? That's the problem. Let me respond. Let me respond.
I'm almost there, may I have 30 more seconds? You're full of crap.
No, I want to respond to the lie you already said.
Let me respond first.
It is on record that in the first year, I didn't say it didn't happen.
And he just lied and said, I created a video that created everybody questioning it.
No, there were hundreds of millions of views.
And let me finish.
There were hundreds of videos with hundreds of millions of views.
Someone had 100 million apiece.
Literally, 50 million, 20 million that were questioning everything that happened and everything that unfolded.
That is all I did was cover the internet.
I am not the first person that questioned Sandy Hook.
And I have a right to do that.
But he just lied and said, Mr. Jones created this.
Mr. Jones did this.
Now, I've since learned what really happened, and if you guys want to hear it, I've mentioned it for 30 seconds two weeks ago, and they flipped out and called and said, we'll settle.
Stop.
Stop.
Don't say it.
Because I learned what really happened.
Real kids were killed, and it's in the police report, and the truth is so horrible, you can't even believe it.
It's in the police report.
That the police and EMS got there and they opened the bathroom door and there was a pile of dead kids perfectly piled up, a pyramid, and there was no blood.
And it's in the police report that they said the kids must have been moved there.
I was saying that.
Men in the woods in camo.
Helicopters.
Police drills.
I don't know.
They killed real kids and brought them to that closed school.
And I said that the first year.
And then the CIA, I believe, and 4chan put out the fake thing that nobody died so I would pick it up and set me up, just like with Pizzagate.
When it was in the actual documents of WikiLeaks with Aleister Crowley Rituals and John Podesta at farmhouses with pools with seven-year-old kids delivered for his enjoyment.
It's in the emails.
And then they said, oh, it's a pizza place in D.C.
That's where they do it because it wasn't happening there.
I only cover what was being covered.
And they turned around and said that I was sending people the pizza place and that I said it.
No, I covered CNN and The New York Times saying the pizza place.
Hey Alex, can I just ask you a very factual clarification?
its nest acts like its wing is broken. So you don't find its nest. That got set up
in Sandy Hook. They killed real children. And the police report and the EMT said they
went into a closed school and found a pile of dead bodies with no blood. That is in the
police report and they are scared of that and they don't want that covered. And I got
set up and it's coming out.
unidentified
I want to ask you a very factual clarification. Alex, in one of the reports...
I truly believe that there was a PSYOP that was targeting the Sandy Hook families as well as InfoWars, Alex Jones, and the many people, like Alex was saying.
I mean, this was a story that the whole internet was paying attention to, and the internet was calling out the many irregularities and things that were wrong with the reporting on this story.
Here, those of you guys who have your computers in front of you, I want you to look up the name Jonathan Lee Riches.
Type in Jonathan Lee Riches and Sandy Hook.
Your mind is going to be blown.
So a man named Jonathan Lee Riches, he actually showed up to the memorial site and he claimed that he was actually Adam Lazza's uncle.
Okay?
And he did all these interviews in the media.
He was photographed by all these media outlets, kneeling in prayer in front of the vigil.
And all these people were looking at these interviews and they're like, "This doesn't
seem right.
Something seems off here."
Right?
And that's partly what led a lot of people to actually go down this path of, "This seems
weird.
This seems staged.
Something's not right here."
Okay?
And that just ended up getting buried and no one ever, I guess you could say, fact-checked
There was no loud announcement that that happened.
But also, just to prove that this Jonathan Lee Riches is a character involved in many psyops on the people, He actually was involved in a PSYOP, if you look up his name again, Jonathan Lee Riches and George Floyd.
He actually was involved in a PSYOP where he posted a photo of himself wearing Make White Great Again as a MAGA hat.
That photo, he claimed in the post on social media, he claimed that he was Derek Chauvin.
the officer that knelt on George Floyd's neck.
And people circulated the image saying, "Look, the officer that knelt on George Floyd
Okay, my point is that there are PSYOPs actors out there who have been engaged, and if you look them up, like Jonathan Lee Riches, he's in a multitude of different PSYOPs, and he did play a big role in fomenting a lot of uncertainty surrounding Sandy Hook.
So I'm saying that what I'm telling you right now, there's evidence that supports what Alex is saying.
that he and many others were targeted with a Psy-op so that people would pick up and run with stories
that later that would get them essentially caught up so to speak
because Ice Cube for example even retweeted the Derek Chauvin piece that Jonathan Lee Riches put out and it was
attributed to causing the riots in the George Floyd race riots.
unidentified
Thanks for that Milly. Psy-op in deep state is fun in social media but it is not a different.
So second question, like I remember watching the trial many years ago,
and I mean, again, I don't know if you had this perspective, but I felt like the judge,
like maybe in America it's different, like judges are like very flamboyant
or very opinionated or whatever.
But in the UK, we don't have that.
Like a judge is just right down the middle.
They don't show opinion.
They don't show emotion.
You don't even know whose side they're going to be on.
When I was watching the trial and I was seeing like the judge literally attacking him, I know he made comments about the judge, but in the UK, Once the verdict is reached, the judge is no longer required to... No, during the trial, so before the verdict was revealed.
That's a different kind of trial than you're used to.
Let me just fully ask my question, right?
So, before the judgment was made, I was shocked, and maybe it's a UK thing, maybe US, you guys have judges who are literally, like, very opinionated, but I was shocked that, like, I knew what the judgment was, like, in the UK, I never had that, but I knew what the judgment was going to be, obviously based on the actions and the way the judge was communicating with Alex Jones' team.
And the question is about intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Which both courts found you liable for, right?
I'm looking at some of the videos that you posted.
Here's one from 2018.
The title was, Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed.
Here's one, The Ultimate Sandy Hook Debate as the Second Anniversary Looms.
Sandy Hook, the lies keep growing.
Alex Jones responds to Sandy Hook anti-free speech lawsuit.
Creepy Illuminati message in Batman movie hints at Sandy Hook's school.
And these are all videos that you published that had hundreds of thousands of views.
Did at any point you not consider that you might be wrong there?
And how do you feel about actually knowing that you inflicted severe emotional distress on the people that filed these lawsuits and the court agreed with them and found you liable for that?
But I can't have it where literally you ask him a question which he needs to give a detailed answer and then people interrupt him and not let him answer.
Like, that's bang out of order, right?
Like, you're asking very tough, hard questions.
He's being pretty cool that he's here answering those questions, so you need to let him answer, right?
So you've asked the question and nobody interrupted him.
If you go watch that, Sandy Hook Vampires, I talk about the lawyers manipulating the families and raising money off of their name and my name, and I say in that video, I believe Sandy Hook happened.
So you're taking headlines and you're manipulating what you think people believe off of the headlines.
By 2016, I was saying I believe Sandy Hook happened.
So you're taking videos where I go, Sandy Hook vampires.
I mean people feeding off Sandy Hook.
People living off it.
I don't want to ever talk about it again.
The families have said to their lawyers, we never talk about it again.
Great, they have HBO specials, they're raising money on my name, they use my face everywhere to say I'm attacking them to raise money.
I've actually told them, stop talking about me, I'll stop talking about you.
Again, we're not talking about WMDs in Iraq, we're not talking about nuclear war in Russia, we're not talking about the fake shots, we're talking about Alex Jones' fake news.
Which is a diversion from all the admitted controlled fake news put up by the Pentagon and the CIA against America and the world.
And that's what this is about.
He put all about Alex Jones.
All about him.
All about how he was mean to these families.
All about how he put them through distress.
And then they put on evidence with no evidence that I peed on graves.
unidentified
Alex, that was the letter that one of the Sandy Hook parents received stating that a man peed on their grave, their child's grave, because they didn't believe that they were dead.
The judges found me guilty of defamation without a jury trial.
You're so upset because it goes against jurisprudence and English common law, just like with the Trump campaign where he supposedly raped a woman with no evidence 30 years ago.
I'm sitting here with like full wireless, full four bars.
I don't know what's happening.
Sandy Hook is a very small part of what I've done in 30 years.
I covered people questioning it, and so I don't mind coming on shows to talk about it, but it's not really where I'm at.
The best thinking I've got is from the police reports, which no one wants to talk about, The first police show up, they go in, the bathroom door won't open, they push it open, and there's a pile of dead bodies and a pyramid of children.
And the police go, there's no blood, we believe they're moved here.
That is in the police report.
So I believe they had disinfo operatives come in and say it didn't happen, to create a big national debate, which they would put all over the news, they pushed the links, they questioned it, because their false flag was being exposed, they killed real kids there, And then they brought it into this thing that didn't happen as a diversion.
That's a conspiracy theory, that's speculation.
99% of what I do is on record, hey, Biden doesn't know where he's at, or inflation's high, or we have this many illegal aliens come across.
I just cover real stuff.
And the few times I would speculate, oh, maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong, becomes who I am.
So bottom line, I believe real kids were killed there.
They caught men in the woods in camo and all the rest of the stuff that's on record.
They don't want it debated.
I believe real children died, and they don't want us to investigate what really happened there.
unidentified
And do you think the purpose was to ban guns?
What do you think the reason would be behind that?
Yeah, I mean, it was Obama that were trying to ban the guns then.
I mean, I don't know.
The police reports are real.
The EMT reports are real.
People go look them up.
They get there, and they go in the bathroom, and there's all the dead kids in a pyramid, like a ritual.
And there's no blood.
The cops say in the police report, we believe the body's removed here.
But notice the media won't cover this.
I've been saying this since the police report came out a year later.
So I was all over other shooters, other people, and then these professors, all these people came forward, and they put up a compelling case that they learned was fake.
And I started debating them, saying, no, I think kids died.
And that's when they went, oh, Alex Jones!
And then that's when the CIA came after me.
So I figured it all out in hindsight.
unidentified
Alex, can I ask you a factual clarification question?
So in one of the reports on the latest developments, there is an assertion, this is in the New York Times, that you are currently routing purchases of your diet supplements through your father's company, and the Connecticut lawyers are claiming that that's proof that you don't intend to pay your fine because you're, you know, moving around money.
So if you could just address that, if that's true.
And then secondly, slightly different topic, but you mentioned before that you were in Detroit last weekend.
Yeah, it's like asking if Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer has a red nose.
My dad is a doctor and he helped create Dr. Jones Naturals.
He helped create InfoWars supplements, InfoWars Life.
And so for a decade, He has advertised with us and for a decade he has promoted other websites and stuff.
So he is an official sponsor under the bankruptcy for a supplement company he has, and I'm glad my dad's making money, but he pays that into the company.
The judge totally shot that down.
There's contracts.
It's there.
My dad's worked at InfoWars for 13 years.
Notice the judge.
Didn't respond to that.
The judge, he already knew all that.
The judge has done his homework.
So hell yeah, my dad's been involved for 13 years with my company.
He has drjonesnationals.com, which has amazing colonel silver products, nano silver products, just amazing supplements, drjonesnationals.com.
And he's a great sponsor of InfoWars and free speech systems.
And again, it's like acting like the sun comes up and you're hiding it.
This is a long term sponsor And it's all on record with the court.
Just like they said, we had guns at the office and all this to shut us down.
So it's just, it's completely insane.
It's completely crazy.
And finally, you know, we've got to judge this in buying.
I think the issue, right, is that Alex is being held liable for actions of other people.
I think Sarah said, well, someone went and peed on, you know, a grave or someone did this or went inside a house.
Well, Alex Jones didn't do that.
Alex Jones didn't tell these people to do that.
He just reported.
Sorry, of course, I'm making noise.
He just reported, right, what happened, what he thought happened at the time.
And if you look at intentional motion, intentional affliction of emotional distress, which that one speaker was talking about, that's rarely if ever found.
And I don't think it's ever really been found on a purely speech issue.
The famous case there that the Supreme Court heard was Phelps, Snyder v. Phelps, where the Westboro Baptist Church would actually go and picket soldiers' funerals.
And, you know, with these very incendiary signs and kind of just kind of blame the soldier's death on their, you know, on the family and stuff.
So the family sued, they wanted a lower court, you know, went all the way up to the Supreme Court.
They basically said, listen, free speech trumps even the worst type of speech, even people who would go and pick at soldiers' funerals.
And I mean, the Westboro Baptist Church was also posting very incendiary stuff about the family, post-fact, and they still said, you know, this isn't, free speech trumps all of us, right?
As long as it's a matter of public concern, which talking about Sandy Hook, which was being used to limit Second Amendment rights, um, kind of goes to that.
So that's what kind of the court that heard Alex's case should have probably filed that George Prudence and they did it.
And secondly, with all this, um, you know, stand-up stuff, they're doing the same things with gun companies, right?
They're trying to hold, you know, the gun companies liable for what Adam Lanza did and say that, you know, bring lawsuits that way.
So it's just a two-pronged approach where they're going after, you know, the right of free speech and also the second minor right.
Well, I mean, he's absolutely right.
The Westboro Baptist Church are horrible people.
They go scream at dead troops' families and say, your son deserved to die because America's a godless whatever.
He's just, he just, if we said the sky was blue, he'd say it was red.
It doesn't matter.
Let's go to some other people.
The point is I'm on record as saying it did happen the first year or so.
Then I questioned it.
I didn't do anything they claimed.
They raised money off of me.
It's a giant PR operation.
They're trying to crush everybody's free speech.
Everybody knows that it's disgusting.
unidentified
Alex, what did the Autopsy Report show?
If I could pose a point here.
Interestingly, Alex Jones is being attacked, but there was a book written by James Fetzer called Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, and nothing has happened to this author and his co-authors.
A 450-page compilation of essays about this, and nobody said a word.
Nobody's gone after them.
The reason Alex Jones is being attacked is because he is a public figure of incredible reach, and because They want to make an example of him.
And I believe that these Sandy Hook parents are certainly proxies for the actors that Alex has pointed to.
And I would like to ask one question of Alex, if I might.
Alex, who do you think was really responsible for the shootings?
He forced open the bathroom door, it's in the police report, and there was a pile in a pyramid, he said placed there, of children stacked on top of each other with no blood.
And in the police report he says, I believe they were moved there.
Then the EMT show up, their report says the same thing.
So no wonder whatever happened.
They put out this info and got us all to cover it.
And I took the bait.
I'm smarter now.
I'm 50.
But I don't know what happened.
I just know the police got there and there was a pile of dead kids in a pyramid in the bathroom with no blood.
So Brian, I just want to ask you a question on this.
I think I had a conversation with someone offline about this.
Alex, this is how I understand it.
He didn't kill the kids.
He did not cause the situation or the atmosphere that caused the kids to be killed.
Those who disagree with him make the argument that after the fact he questioned things that could have hurt the feelings of the parents.
I mean, did he hurt the feelings of the parents?
The question is, was he or should he be allowed to ask those questions if I've understood it right?
And then his argument is, and then I'll add my own a bit and then I want to ask you the question, his argument is that there's people who have directly caused the death of people and there's been no action towards them.
You know my feeling about many of the people, including yourself, who basically perpetuated this lie about Jihad Day, which caused an extreme atmosphere of Islamophobia, and later either directly, indirectly, or the atmosphere did cause a kid to die.
So, and I'm not sure if that's direct or indirect.
So, I mean, based on that, one may even argue you're much more liable if there was some form of liability and yet no action was taken against any of these people.
No, I was responding. And what I'm saying is it is entirely relevant to the discussion.
Because Alex was reporting on what was already going on during that time period all over social media.
And that is why what I brought up earlier is very relevant to the discussion.
When you have trolls out there, and I believe psyops actors out there like Jonathan Lee Riches, who literally went and showed up to the Sandy Hook shootings memorial site and was interviewed by several credible media outlets, You can use me.
You can use me if you want.
and his crazy things, that actually had a rippling effect on social media where people started questioning,
So one of the issues that came up in this conversation is fairly poignant.
So the argument is that because of Alex Jones's large audience and because he speculated as to the details of Sandy Hook those years ago, it resulted in death threats for the family and emotional damages.
That's the general argument here, right?
And there's a couple of things I just want to throw out there as additional variables.
First thing is, you know, I was in the courtroom on Friday and Alex Jones is the one that needs a bodyguard.
And you don't see plaintiffs walking into the courtroom with their own bodyguards.
So this argument they actually genuinely feared for their Lives is something I'm very skeptical about maybe it was different five years ago or six years ago when this was a hotter topic Or something like that, so I don't deny that you know maybe they got some flack from the audience But I just don't really buy that there's a legitimate fear of for the lives the second thing I want to draw everyone's attention to is
The estate of Adam Lanza was sued for 1.5 million dollars.
And so Alex Jones has been sued for 1.5 billion dollars.
According to the court of law, if you just look at the numbers, he's somehow a thousand times more monetarily culpable than the actual killer of those kids, which I find incredibly bizarre.
Now you could say, well, Adam Lanza didn't have any money.
That's why Alex Jones also doesn't have $1.5 billion.
And I just think there's something very malicious going on with the way that this has been litigated that is unjust.
And this is not me apologizing for any mistakes that Alex might've made or saying that he was right
or just trying to be totally an apologetic person.
Let's go to Joah.
here. I'm just saying this is so obviously screwed up regardless of whether or not Alex
made some genuine mistakes that I think people should really try to look at it from that
perspective. That's all I wanted to add to the group.
Letitia James, put in by George Soros in New York, that's run the prosecution against Trump, came out and never filed charges, she claimed she would, claiming, I was claiming a COVID cure, I never did.
Topically, sunlight kills COVID.
So does water.
I sell colloidal silver products and never claim that.
You just tried another lie.
Silver is just another antibiotic.
Everybody knows that and you literally just sit there with your federal feed attacking us.
unidentified
Maybe you shouldn't have said the government doesn't want you to know about the cure for coronavirus.
Yeah, I was the CT defendant that was actually dismissed by the plaintiffs, which according to state law that was brought up to the Connecticut Supreme Court, should have legally dropped the entire case from the state of Connecticut to begin with.
And for the record here in the phone call, Alex, this is the first time I believe I've ever talked to you regarding anything, and I'm going to say, for the record, we have never met Uh, in which the plaintiffs, uh, originally in the case in Connecticut, said that apparently we did a marketing scheme.
Yeah, I don't know who you are, so we're supposedly in business?
unidentified
Uh, apparently so, Alex.
And, uh, regarding Wolfgang Halbig, again, he was just a small, tiny acquaintance on a bigger version of a controversy.
But with the people that were following me, uh, what, what are we going back now?
Seven years ago?
In a FOIA office who got me on camera that decided to say hey this guy's doing a marketing scheme so for the record for everybody I know some of the individuals in this case and I am the Connecticut taxpayer and never had a say in the entire Sandy Hook case to begin with but yet the entire media across the board said me and him are business partners Yet not a single ounce of evidence has ever been produced from the original complaint, which should have killed this lawsuit dead in its tracks to begin with.
So everybody who is a near hearsayer up in here that I've been listening to for six years, none of you know what you're talking about.
None of you are probably even a Connecticut taxpayer.
And for the record, my voice is just as important in this case because this case should have gotten dismissed The instant that the plaintiffs voluntarily removed me from it.
Explain it, because we're not understanding your point.
Go ahead.
unidentified
So, individual lawsuits had started to happen in 2018 to where I was actually out of the state and a lawsuit appeared at my neighbor's door saying that I was a defendant in the case in Connecticut.
Pretend like someone doesn't know what you're talking about at all, and say, guess what?
X happened and I was involved because of Y. Go ahead.
unidentified
Okay.
Because I was so caught off guard, I was served with a lawsuit about a binder book thick, being claimed as a defendant, again, with Alex Jones, with multiple other defendants, in which parties here in the state of Connecticut had served a defamation case against us.
Why were you a defendant in the case?
no no understanding of I didn't know who the defendants I'm sorry any of the
other defendants were or any other plaintiffs except mr.
Hal big that was quoted in the case problem is I didn't understand why Alex
Jones was actually brought into the case at all because I personally did not
know him why were you a defense look why were you a defendant in the case
unidentified
according to the actual complaint in which mr. any of these guys right here Brian
you two can bring up I just explained to me.
I, I, I allegedly, uh, created a marketing scheme and business transaction slash, uh, I don't even know what you would word it as some sort of scheme to create money for Alex Jones.
The only case in Connecticut is the Sandy Hook case to where basically my fellow taxpayers were suing me as another fellow taxpayer for no reason and lied within the case.
Because a film crew that happened to be in a FOIA office that was allegedly around my face, they decided to use me because there's the only Connecticut defendant there that they could tie to any individual that was in the office.
It sounds like what he's describing is that they used this guy to get jurisdiction for Connecticut, and then he was removed later from the case, which should have removed their jurisdiction.
unidentified
Yeah, that makes sense.
100%.
And that is my argument to this day.
And I feel I'm obligated to at least speak that because that is the missing point that the media And I know a lot of attorneys across the nation know exactly what I'm saying.
This case should have never been moved forward at all.
Thank you for taking your time out to come on the space and answer a number of questions both for and against you.
We did have a number of questions from both sides.
I think we gave the space some justice because, and that's what makes it different, because there has been spaces, Alex has been spaces himself on this, but what we did different was we provided a conversation from both sides, debate from both sides, and I think there was a lot of tough questions asked to Alex, and there was a lot of people who also defended Alex's position and provided the other side.
We are going to be wrapping up the space now, unless, yeah, we are going to be wrapping up the space now.
