#711: August 2, 2022 dissects Alex Jones’ courtroom evasions—bankruptcy claims contradicting $4M+ damages, attacks on Neil Heslin’s credibility, and Scarlett Lewis’s testimony—while exposing his "apology" as a blame-shifting tactic. His monkeypox-LGBTQ conspiracy rants and judge-calling "goblin" reveal a pattern of deflection, not remorse. The hosts argue his legal strategy fails, as the judge’s guilt declaration overshadows financial excuses or far-right conspiracy tangents like Pelosi’s fabricated China ties. Ultimately, Jones’ performance underscores his refusal to accept consequences for spreading harm. [Automatically generated summary]
Yeah, and so we've been here and we've experienced a lot of the trial and we've seen things, been in the room and what have you.
And we figured that tomorrow being a travel day would be the most economical thing for us to do in terms of being able to be back and respond to some of the results of the trial as opposed to us staying another week.
I think that you see the eyes of a fish when you look at him.
Like, I don't think that...
I feel like if you're expecting to have some sort of an emotional impact or something when you're saying emotionally impactful words, it's kind of a...
At some points in time, the way he looks out and his eyes kind of go in opposite directions, I halfway think his tongue is going to shoot out and get a bug off of one of them.
But it was just kind of like, hey, Alex, why don't you tell us this protracted story about why you're so great and your various accomplishments in the field of roguish journalism.
And then also Alex brought up, and the lawyer had brought up in terms of the line of questioning, the notion that he is not guilty of the things that he is guilty of.
And so we ended on a bit, I mean, you know, if this were a TV show, there's a bit of a cliffhanger aspect to it that is like serious problems are brought up with how things are going.
Direct examination isn't done, so that'll still pick up tomorrow.
Well, Alex started saying that they had been manipulated and shown fake videos and edited videos, and then he went for a handshake with her and then Mr. Hesslin, and that was when the lawyers were like, we're not doing this.
Yeah.
And Alex started to get mad about edited videos again, and it was disgraceful.
I know, but the point is, is that I have my First Amendment.
It doesn't matter if the judges said we can't talk about the First Amendment.
We're going to talk about it.
She put out a motion in Limity, ordering us out to talk about the First Amendment and then withdrew it from the Court of Appeals because she knew it'd be struck down.
This is tyranny being developed and created in here.
And I'm going to tell you the story here I know you won't cover.
It's Neil Heslund and his ex-wife, wonderful lady.
Now that I've had a chance to see her in here and read her book and all of it.
And so, watching it, I truly believe that Alex, when he went up to them at first to apologize, Believed that what he was going to do was express genuine remorse to them.
And then, because he couldn't do it the way he wanted to.
And so, during the break, the clip of this was procured by the plaintiff's team, and it was played.
Oh, yeah.
And Alex then used that as kind of a hinge for him to make a, they're playing edited videos because it doesn't show the part where I said I'm sorry and all this.
Thank you for joining us on this live Tuesday worldwide transmission.
I have a stack of Washington Post, New York Times articles, and other headlines.
Where they say, can we shut Alex Jones down?
And where they admit the goal of the four Sandy Hook trials they have lined up that have now started to shut us down, then they brag on CNN and MSNBC, the top Democrat officials, that the goal is to set this pattern with Alex Jones and then go after everybody else.
They say Fox News is next.
I have articles where they talk about we're taking down OAN.
I'm sure that Alex doesn't have tons of articles that say this, and to the extent that he does have any, I'm sure they're op-eds and not some revelation of a grand conspiracy to shut up the media.
Also, if anyone at Fox or CNN or The View did what Alex did, I think they should be punished just the same.
It's so weird that Alex has so many strong feelings about this, but he doesn't seem to even remember that, like, Seth Rich's parents sued Fox News and settled for an undisclosed amount, or how CNN settled a lawsuit with Nick Sandman, the Covington Catholic kid, back in 2020.
He doesn't bring up any of this stuff because...
He doesn't give a shit about the actual principle of people suing media entities and how that happens from time to time, and it doesn't lead to a complete end of the First Amendment and tyranny and the devil walking among us.
That's why they had to default me in all four cases, saying I turned over nothing.
While they sit there and show the juries that are deciding how guilty I am, not if I'm guilty or innocent, showing the juries all these emails and all these videos that we turned over to them, while the judge tells them every day, twice a day, remember, this man's guilty.
You're here to decide how guilty he is.
He didn't give us anything!
He's a bad person!
Even in third world dictatorships, when they have kangaroo courts, they don't have the judge tell the jury this person is guilty.
But also, the judge instructs the jury not to bother with the question of Alex's guilt or innocence because this is a damages trial.
He had every right to participate in the initial trial where he could have mounted a defense and the judge absolutely could not have said that kind of thing, but he chose not to participate, knowing that if he did, he would just lose faster.
No one's claiming that Alex didn't turn over anything.
He did turn over a bunch of stuff, like a 100-plus page professional background check on Lenny Posner that no one at Infowars can explain.
Alex is creating this straw man that he's being accused of not turning over anything because it's super easy to defeat.
All you have to do is show that he turned over something, and just like that, Alex has proven that the court is lying about him.
framing devices of the situation because if his audience sought out any other source of information, his entire argument about what's happened would look pathetically silly.
The last thing he wants is for them to understand how much of an active participant he's been in getting himself defaulted because it raises so many questions about why would you do that.
And the only real conclusion is because-You're guilty as shit.
I mean- For someone who talks so much shit about the amendments that he doesn't understand and cannot read, you know, I was thinking about that idea of, like, you should have the right to face your accuser, you know?
It's an act of rank cowardice to claim your space and be there and run your mouth and say a bunch of bullshit while Neil's got to listen to you and not pay the same courtesy and respect.
I do think that another thing you'd want to do, I mean, I think you should be there to pay respect, or at least give the appearance of respect for that.
But another thing I think you shouldn't do is maybe talk rampant shit about the judge in your case.
If I understand correctly, what we're trying to say is that if I said...
Dan, you're a giant piece of shit that I hope gets lit on fire, and the Dan that I'm talking about is everybody, then you wouldn't at all think that perhaps I was talking about you, correct?
Look, if that's the case, then I would say that Alex needs to get right with this and start calling people like, this judge is up there like the beholder.
unidentified
This judge is like a half-elf dwarf-meaning monster.
I'm hosting this hour, and then I'm going to get in the car and drive down to the Temple of Justice.
Or the Temple of Injustice when you get the establishment judges to testify today in the show trial where the judge again this morning said, because I've got the Twitter alerts from the different courthouse news agencies to the jury, it's a decided issue.
He is guilty.
Remember that.
He's guilty.
You just decide whether you give him $150 million because he questioned the shooting or $50 million.
She didn't say that part, but that's what they've been asking for, which is a complete and total joke.
I still do not understand what you are trying to explain to me, Dan.
I've been in court now seven days, or at least I haven't been in court, but I've watched a trial for seven full days, a damages trial, and I have not seen one full acknowledgement from the defense.
There is just an attempt to pretend you don't understand the situation, because if the audience did understand the situation better, it raises questions, and they are questions that Alex can only answer by, well, I'm stupid, or...
I torpedoed my own ability to defend myself, knowing that I would be incompetent and unable to defend myself, given the opportunity.
And that would be more humiliating than the situation we're in now, where I can just gaslight the shit out of you all, and you'll still give me money.
I mean, what's so ironic about it is that essentially what he's done is he's hired a...
I mean, in his world, a high-powered Democrat lawyer appointed by Eric Holder to stonewall a trial and, I guess, force a mistrial in order to delay even longer so he can just keep maybe trying...
Yeah, the high-powered Democratic lawyer who was hired by Eric Holder, who we should also say is a man of treason at the highest order for Fast and Furious and being involved with Obama and all this, so that probably...
So this is beyond the movie Gladiator where they tie up the top gladiator and stab him in the heart before they send him out on the Coliseum floor to fight.
Neil and Scarlett didn't need to be aware of Alex himself to have experienced the effects of his actions.
Even if Alex were portraying the situation honestly, what he's saying doesn't in any way invalidate their position.
This is another straw man because Alex can't really address the case on its merits.
If he did, he would have to reveal that he isn't a gladiator who was stabbed to soften him up for the big showdown that he would win easily otherwise.
It's more similar to a gladiator who was politely asked to show up for their showdown for years, who instead decided to not show up, not have their fight, but instead spent hours and hours ranting publicly about how he was going to win that fight.
I mean, to his argument directly, though, which is absurd...
And the media brought in the clip of Owen talking about Heslin on...
Megyn Kelly to make him mad and to sue me.
That all came out in court.
So, again, it's all these lawyers and all these Democrats and all these operatives going out to the families and then trying to recruit them to sue me.
And, you know, there's a name for that and you can get disbarred for it and that's being investigated right now.
Alex is attempting to deprive Mr. Heslin of having any agency here.
The goal is to make sure the audience accepts the idea that the lawsuit isn't something that's an organic decision Heslin would have and did make.
It's something that he's being put up to by the media and these lawyers.
Alex is doing this in order to appear like less of a monster because it's easy to play like you're the good guy when you yell at a nefarious lawyer plot than it is when you attack a guy whose son was murdered You already lied about him a bunch.
You may notice that Alex is going a little bit harder towards discrediting Neil, and there's a reason for that, and that's that Alex knows that as far as the material he's produced, he's not said Scarlett's name on air, and so their legal complaints are different.
He has a defamation case from Neil, but an intentional infliction of emotional distress case from Scarlett.
Alex knows that the one where he said the guy's name is a bit more of a clear-cut case where he fucked up.
So being able to assassinate this character and insist that he wouldn't have even sued if it wasn't under the sway of some globalist lawyer conspiracy against Alex is him attempting to cover up the more serious of his fuck-ups while giving lip service to the other one that he feels is less serious.
But the point is that you gotta have some fun with this.
She said last Friday when we said, hey, we've declared bankruptcy this afternoon, but we're gonna let this trial go forward.
We're gonna remand it back on Monday morning.
She goes, I don't care.
I'm going to go forward no matter what you do in federal court.
She can't.
But they don't care because this is all a giant exercise in raping our freedom and setting the precedent to go after conservatives and populists and patriots.
They've been planning, as we've been talking about the last year, to bring back lockdowns, masks, and all the hysteria, either right before or right after the midterms.
To do that, they've got to start ratcheting up the fear and beating the drum because they use behavioral psychology to incrementally say, okay, now mask indoors again.
Okay, now only certain businesses are essential.
Okay, now that's what they're establishing.
New California Governor Gavin Newsom declares monkeypox a state of emergency.
Same thing in Europe.
Same thing in New York.
It begins.
Democrats in New York City, Illinois, declare state of emergency over monkeypox.
NAP has the headline.
Biden's COVID sequel.
Back on the balcony and the dog for company.
And he's announcing all the same stuff that we saw right before the lockdowns we've already witnessed.
So Alex seems to have interpreted this headline, Biden's COVID sequel, about being like Monkeypox is the sequel to COVID, but it's actually about Biden getting a rebound case of COVID and having to go back into isolation.
The way Alex is reporting this, and the headline, the way he's using it, is just made up.
And of course, he's boughten in quite heavily into the right-wing narrative and the very dangerous talking point of associating the LGBTQ folk with monkeypox.
Germans will be able to legally change their gender once a year.
Oh my goodness.
How about, just like you have a handicap sticker on your car, handicap deal on your visor or your rearview mirror, you can just maybe have like a big light on the top of your head.
Or maybe you just have a light bulb placed on the top of your head and you just screw in the color light bulb.
You want to go out and identify yourself as...
Again, they're getting rid of all of our basic rights, getting rid of our right to not be surveilled, bringing in a global social credit score, bringing in the carbon taxes, bringing in the you'll own nothing, you'll have nothing.
Great reset.
It's all being announced.
But you can paint your hair green or purple, and you can go eat poop in the street.
Yeah, so I was pretty surprised by this, because essentially what you have here is Alex is taking a very old, old homophobic kind of smear, disgusting characterization, and that is, oh, you eat poop.
Because we're sitting right there, they're sitting right there.
That guy's real.
And I thought it was an act when I saw some of the stuff on TV just because he came off as so...
Let's just say he's a nice man and it's not an act.
He is being manipulated by some very bad people.
I mean, I'll just say it because I've got to be honest.
He's slow, okay?
And his ex-wife is not.
And I don't think he's stupid.
I'm just saying he's...
I've got family members that are really smart in a lot of ways, but they're just real kind of quiet and have this way about them, and they move at a different pace.
Like, they're fast in some ways and slow in others, and he's...
I mean, I think Hesselman acts like somebody on the spectrum.
And it makes me feel like an even bigger jerk.
But when I saw him, I'm like, there's something about this guy.
This doesn't look...
And now that I've been around him for over a week, I'm like, okay.
Now I know.
Folks, I don't have some calculated point, just to bring that up here.
It's just that I'm around these people, and I'm looking at it, and I'm watching what's being said and what's going on, and it really then makes it clear what happened.
I didn't watch a lot of the court yesterday because I was busy getting ready for my own testimony and trying to re-research all the stuff they're going to ask me.
I mean, his argument, obviously, is that if I was allowed to play for the jury, that I magnanimously admit the people I'm sitting across from, nearly less than ten feet away, are, in fact, real.
And basically, without even watching the trial, I said, this is what happened today, right?
And they said, yeah, so you've been watching?
And I said, no.
I just now have such clear sight into all this stuff that I'm not even a victim of it.
I'm more like a fly on the wall, and it's fascinating at this point.
It's just fascinating to see how the scammers work, and to see how the ambulance chasers work, and to see how the Democratic Party works.
And that's really what the Democratic Party is, is a bunch of ambulance chasers that then get into government who work for the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, who are just mad scientists, crazed.
So the argument that he's laying out is essentially that Neil and Scarlett, but mostly Neil, who he's taking aim at, they are unfortunately have been fooled by these ambulance chasers into doing this lawsuit.
And now, I mean, I think that there is an element of this that...
It's dangerously close to the things he's being sued about.
Because, in essence, at the core of the claims about crisis actors, it is these are people who are filling a role that is deceitful about what is at the core of it.
There isn't somebody who died, according to this theory, and they are acting as if they are in order to attack the Second Amendment.
In this case...
The argument that Alex is putting forward is they don't actually care about what I said.
Normally in a defamation trial where you're trying to determine innocence or guilt, then at the time you can then say, these people are only out for money.
Because if they're only out for money, then maybe I'm innocent of the charges.
Well, I mean, at very least, this attempt at depriving Neil and Scarlett of the agency with which they are using to sue him is a means of trying to defang the criticism and the critique.
The appearance that Alex can get out of insisting that it's better if it's longer is basically the exact same game that he plays with all of his clips.
Well, if that's your only excuse to just about any time anybody ever plays a clip, then it's glaring that because we play the entire clips, he does not talk about us.
So that is the apology that Alex was so insistent that the plaintiff's attorneys didn't include in the clip, and therefore were trying to mislead the jury with an edited video.
This was the basis of the fight that Alex and the plaintiff's team got into at the end of the day, and what Alex was talking about outside, and it's a load of shit.
This isn't an apology.
This is a statement disguised as an apology.
In order to accept this apology, you need to accept Alex's framing of what he's apologizing for, and that's not based in reality.
He's not apologizing for what he actually did.
He's apologizing if the questioning he did of anomalies around Sandy Hook hurt them.
That's not a real apology in any way, and I'm entirely certain that the jury would be able to understand that, and the plaintiff's attorneys could easily put that in its proper context.
You wouldn't want to play this whole clip, though, because it's long, it's stupid, and it really mostly is just Alex whining to his listeners about everyone so mean to him.
This falls back on the fundamental defense Alex seems to have to offer, which boils down to, I did the thing you want me to have done just a little bit after that clip ended.
He's essentially appealing to the unknown, the part of the knowledge base that isn't available, in order to undermine the premise of the plaintiff's argument.
It's pretty dumb, but it's kind of how information works in his world.
It's kind of like, I mean, I hate to fall back on this a bit, but it's basically what children do.
If I were in the jury and I was the lawyer for me in the jury, then I would play that whole clip and I would be like, here's where he goes into that sales pitch.
Do you remember on the stand whenever he suddenly started telling you about his pills for some reason?
They're trying to get me up there for months in Connecticut.
That's why we did the bankruptcy, because we don't have the money to do three trials at once, and because I've got to be on air or we don't bring the funds in.
And just separately, I'm almost resigned to all of this because we're now inside the new world order.
Things are going to get so much progressively worse from here on out that...
I'm not going to hang up my hat.
They're trying to make me stop because they know our credibility is exploding.
But just at an instinctive level, I just want to go get my family ready.
I enjoy talking to you every day.
I enjoy being here.
I love the crew.
And I can't give up.
I won't give up.
I pledge not to.
But the time's coming, folks, when we're going to all be off the air.
They're going to launch a cyber attack.
Say Russia did it.
There's probably going to be a nuclear war, okay?
So, I mean, I really believe that.
And I'm wrong sometimes.
I think in your gut, you know too, we are in trouble.
There's different types of bankruptcy, but the type of bankruptcy we're in is a reorganization to keep Infowars going.
And there is a plan and a very easy projection of being able to do that and not laying people off and not cutting back a bunch of stuff and staying on air and not letting the New York Times have what it wants with this headline.
Can Alex Jones be shut down by the Sandy Hook lawsuits?
And they say that's their goal, is to shut me down.
They're all there saying that.
And bankruptcy protection is there for companies that people are trying to destroy.
And that's what this is.
And they said that's what this is.
Is that what they're there for?
Well, I will assure these people that if you hadn't messed with me and all the other persecution of my other groups out there that's far worse than this, I was already planning six years ago to be phased out and off air by now, maybe doing a podcast and writing a book and making films.
I've been doing talk radio 28 years.
I enjoy it at certain levels, but it's time for a change.
Yeah, give it to one of my other newly founded companies that probably exist somewhere.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So I think another thing I'd like to highlight in that clip is if I were Alex and the circumstance that I'm in right now, I don't think that I would say if you hadn't messed with me,
I would have quit long ago in this hour of his show where he's Preoccupied with melding Scarlett and Neil with the Democrat conspiracy ambulance chaser nonsense that he's going off in.
Because I think it's pretty easy to hear that and say, Neil and Scarlett, if you hadn't messed with me, I would have quit long ago.
In a way that Alex maybe in the past was more able to steamroll media, I don't think, I didn't get the sense of much of that tolerance being there, and I think that's a positive thing.
Yeah, you know, I mean, to that point, to that point especially, like, when we were at the end of the trial today, I didn't have any problem rushing out of there.
Immediately after the judge did.
In fact, beyond how horrific a treatment it is of Neil and Scarlett, his behavior after the trial to me is less important than what the judge said right before the end of the day, which is that she basically agreed to Mark's instructions for the jury.
So tomorrow morning, the judge...
Without Alex on the stand, we'll say directly to the jury, Alex is guilty of this.
Because the judge isn't going to have it, you know?
But this is the moment in a movie trial where the judge...
Outside of like, ooh, this lawyer's a character and that lawyer's a character and these lawyers are representing people and the people have a vested interest in all this stuff.
When the judge says to the jury, this guy is fucking guilty and you have to know that.