In Knowledge Fight #714, Alex Jones’ trial testimony reveals his evasive claims—like downplaying InfoWars’ 2012 size (10M+ emails vs. "small operation") and falsely dating its nightly news to 2015, not 2011—while dodging Sandy Hook responsibility by blaming the FBI or pharmaceuticals. Judge Guerra Gamble repeatedly sustains objections for unsupported statements, yet he persists, even denying incriminating texts (e.g., Watson’s COVID-Sandy Hook comparison) despite his lawyers’ accidental disclosure. His $4.2M compensatory damages "victory" framing ignores the $150M–$3B request and pivots to victimhood, exploiting families while urging supporters to fundraise via InfoWars Store. The episode underscores his pattern of deception, legal violations, and refusal to accept consequences. [Automatically generated summary]
I'm even going to go into Lucy Daughter of the Devil.
I'm going to be like, holy shit, do you remember when you played the vampire Vampire guy, and you were like, ah, I forget everything you know about vampire.
My bright spot is: I put it up, I finished it, I compiled all of the annoying tweets that I made, and I got rid of all the insults and all of the personal texts and all of the anything that isn't at the trial because I wanted to share a disorienting experience with people.
There's going to be way better books written about it that make more sense and that will be enjoyable to read, but you won't get the real experience of being there, which was disorienting and unenjoyable.
But today, what we're going to be doing is going over the testimony that Alex gave at the trial, which I didn't expect we were going to cover because I thought all that stuff was like, you can't make copies of this, but then it's on law and crime.
All right, Mr. Jones, come stand in front of me, please.
Raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm, under penalty of perjury, that the testimony you are about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I don't think you'll need to lean into the microphone.
I see that you have a document with you.
I don't know if you were here when I explained to a prior witness who brought documents with them that you can't look at any document for any reason while you're testifying until unless one of the lawyers or myself instructs you to do so.
So I'm going to ask you to actually just give it back to Mr. Raynal until he may think you need it, okay?
Yeah, because what we have not discussed is up till this point, you already had Owen Shroyer, you already had Daria, you already had Becca, you already had Will's Zip, yeah, yeah, yeah, Mr. Crouch.
And so you'd already had like a real contrast in the Infowars people and the witnesses that were being called by the plaintiffs in terms of their ability to answer basic questions.
I actually feel good because I get a chance to, for the first time, say what's really going on instead of the corporate media and high-powered law firms manipulating what I actually do.
At the end, Alex says that it's not fair that he doesn't get to talk, but she got to monologue.
This is in reference to Scarlett Lewis's testimony from just prior to him taking the stand, and there's a reason why she got to monologue, as Alex put it.
It's because Raynal knew damn well that he wasn't going to object and interrupt her.
For as much of a shithead as he seems to be, I don't think Raynal is so detached from his humanity as to deprive Miss Lewis of her chance to speak her peace to Alex after all this time and him dodging the moment of having to look her in the face and hear her words.
Truth be told, Lewis probably was a bit off-subject at a few points in her testimony.
And if Raynal had objected, there's a really good chance that the judge would have no choice but to refocus the question asked.
But he didn't do that.
And that's what Alex is mad about.
You're not mad that she got to monologue and you don't.
I never even said your name until this case came to court.
I didn't even really know who you were until a couple years ago when all this started up.
The internet had a lot of questions.
I had questions.
And over that six, seven-year period before I got sued, or six-year period, it's clear you can see the whole progression of us the few times we covered it trying to actually find out what happened.
And that's really been my big frustration is that people have said that I'm personally trying to hurt them or coming after them.
And I question every big event.
And a lot of times it turns out that we've not been told the truth.
And a perfect example is today where they play a 30 or a one-minute clip.
And I had just done that this morning.
And I knew that I said, I believe that Scarlett Lewis is real.
And she's a really nice person.
And she's really a sweet person.
And then I went through and talked about her ex-husband, too.
And then I said, I believe they're being fed and manipulated.
That is Alex attempting to defend himself by saying that he didn't mean to hurt anyone and he didn't actually even say things that would hurt them to begin with because, you know, people just take things he says out of context and attack him.
This is pathetic, but this is Alex's understanding of an apology.
It's not about recognizing and respecting the pain that other people experience due to your actions.
It's about pretending that you care they were hurt and that it was someone else's fault.
And so a part of this is walking through some of his earlier life.
And I didn't cut clips from all of it, but there's some stuff that just seemed like, wow, this doesn't match up at all the way that Alex usually talks.
Apparently, if you watch Alex's documentary, you know, it's one of the richest suburbs in the country, and everybody's rolling around in Rolls-Royces and doing poke-off sex workers on books.
Yeah, I think that he knew better than to do the, I grew up in a town where Satanists were trying to recruit me to worshiping the devil because they knew that through psychic powers the devil gave them, I would be important to God's mission in the future.
And I uncovered a drug ring within the Rockwall Police Department and they threatened to murder me if I didn't leave town.
I think that maybe he knew that the jury wouldn't take kindly to that.
Or maybe it would paint him in a bad light because it's clearly ridiculous.
Yeah, it would be a little bit like the jury's punitive damages at that point would have to come back with like, and he has to wear a straitjacket forever.
You know, like that, if you say that on the stand, punitive damages stop being money.
This is a strategic answer on Alex's part because he doesn't want to say to the jury that he was brought up listening to and admiring extreme far-right demagogues and Christian identity radio preachers.
He doesn't want to say to the jury that he was a devoted fan of the British Israelite preacher David J. Smith or how he was a regular listener to the Holocaust-denying preacher Texe Marrs, whose church Alex has said repeatedly that he attends.
He doesn't want to even tell the version of the story that he relayed in his documentary, Alex's War, because even that would sound bad to a jury.
Larry King and Howard Stern are largely mainstream touchstones, and they do the sort of shows that Alex wants the jury to think he does.
It's total bullshit, but it's also very clear why he's presenting his inspiration to get into media this way.
So the jury doesn't get an accurate sense of what his career has actually been about.
Also, kind of makes Alex Lee Moyer's editing choices look even more embarrassing.
The use of swelling music over Alex telling the tale of how he discovered people bringing the fight to the New World Order on public access and how that was the moment he realized he wanted to get into this field seems particularly dumb now.
Just imagine the same music that she played over Alex saying, I really like Larry King's radio show.
He wanted to host a chat program like his.
Not quite so, it doesn't have the same flair.
Maybe you got played or maybe you wanted to be played.
It is so very funny to me, the idea of having made a documentary and then only days later hear your subject almost completely disavow every single thing in that documentary under oath.
I'm also seeing, like, I don't know, I'm getting reset Wars vibes in terms of like, I think there was a lot of ramping up to it, and it seems like it's never done.
I feel almost like I'm dumb for doing as much work in advance because I kind of thought it would be a little bit more widely discussed and maybe viewed than it was.
There was some of that because there were some people doing those shows, and I already knew about that information.
But it was just all over the map.
It was just really calling shows and different topics, did variety shows, like Card Pumpkins on TV on Halloween, and, you know, have a guy come in with his pet monkey in it, you know, dances around.
I mean, really, I listen to Larry King a lot because my dad listened to him on the radio a lot when I was so from the time I was like six, seven, I would listen to Larry King.
And then I'd watch him a lot of nights at home and junior high in high school.
Like, this pretending that his first documentary was about the Great Reset, something that didn't become a hot topic in conspiracy circles until 2021.
Yeah.
Basically, like, this is so, this is what he's about.
He's about retconning.
He takes these things that he yelled about in the past and then applies modern labels and contexts to them in order to make it look like Alex Jones was always right.
Yeah, and it's just such bullshit.
Like, you weren't yelling about the Great Reset.
You were yelling about Agenda 21 and the road in Texas.
It was, it is like, we talked about it with Mark and Bill just a little bit, but it is like, you can't really have a jury of Alex's peers out of anybody that's that doesn't like who, how can you say, oh, you're you can't lie under oath to that?
Like, you and I both know that that's a complete lie, you know, but who's going to say it?
I think that this runs into the issue of the separate realities because, you know, there's a part of Alex that probably believes that I was talking about the reality.
The primary goal of Alex's answer here is to downplay his own relevance and the size of his operation in 2012.
He wants the jury to think that though he's a big, famous boy now, back then he was really just a mom and pop talk show.
Unfortunately, he's lying.
He didn't just have a webcam on a desk at that point.
He had two studios, each with multiple camera angles available at any point.
He also had more than just his show being broadcast daily, since the Infowars nightly news was in existence at that point.
The nightly news started in 2011 and it contained a bunch of content that's relevant to this very lawsuit, like instances of Rob Dew covering Sandy Hook.
Alex knows all this, but the goal is to create the perception that he really wasn't that big back then.
So it couldn't have been him that was so influential in getting the Sandy Hook conspiracies rolling and causing the harm that was done to Neil and Scarlett.
It's a fraud.
And one of the telltale signs is that pretending a show he produced all the way to 2017 doesn't exist.
And then the narcissism here is that he needs to not be very big because it's important for him to not have the grand title of the thing that is negative.
I mean, look, from the time that we've been doing this show and the predictions that we've seen from him, if anyone was doing this and talk show hosts were judged by this, he would be out of business.
And this is how Alex always kind of gets into your head.
It's like, that is so insane that you almost forget he said that free speech is really just a dude standing on a box in the corner in London screaming for 600 years.
Now, most of the time, though, I say, I want this person, I want that person, and I'm more in control of the guest that I have.
But in the past, we let more things driven by the internet and by 4chan and Han that in every case I've had problems has been a curse.
I'm not attacking everybody that's on there, but that's, I tell my producers, do not touch it when it's on there because it's just a kiss of death and it causes nothing but problems.
It's bullshit that Alex is saying there's a moratorium on this kind of sourcing, like from things on 4chan.
But if you want to take this seriously at all, then what Alex needs to do is take a real hard look in the mirror, take an inventory of the things that he said based on 4chan posts and retract all of it.
He needs to go back and look at the Soros Antifa contracts.
He needs to go back and find all of these things and really wrestle with, okay, if you now know this to be a completely unreliable source, you need to figure out what parts of your mythology, what parts of your worldview are solely informed by that and work to get those out.
Make sure that people don't still believe them because otherwise you're still using 4chan as a source, essentially.
Yeah, it's like he doesn't do that because those things that are based on 4chan nonsense are too important to him.
Yeah, no, if you find out a single cop used to be a drug dealer for 10 years, every single case that that cop worked on needs to be re-evaluated and thrown out or whatever.
No, because then you have to find another way to try and prove that Soros has Antifa contracts to burn down cities, which is a real big part of your whole bullshit opposition to the Black Lives Matter protest while you're pretending.
Well, at least one of the ways that you pretended it wasn't based on any flagrant racism.
Right.
But hey, don't go ahead and do that because it's too complicated.
And more and more, I don't really follow the news model of covering the news.
In the past, I did, but we still do it a lot.
But now I mainly just talk about philosophy and the big picture and then have some guests on.
Now, the show's gotten more Christian, you know, because I'm Christian, but as things progress while things are happening in the world, I'm moving more towards doing a self-help life experience type than the political show.
Like, I've been trying to segue out of this just because I think we have to change individuals.
Kind of like Scarlett was saying earlier, more than we're going to change the world.
We can't change ourselves than we're ever going to be able to change the world.
And I've made a lot of mistakes, and I've learned a lot in that process.
And I've also learned how the corporate media is able to completely manipulate a story once you're caught in it and then manipulate other people.
And if anything, I want to teach people about how that process worked because they say I'm the mastermind that figured out how to manipulate people, and I didn't have any understanding of it coming.
And now I've seen it from the inside, the way this stuff goes on.
And again, I think only getting the individual awake and aware and not under its control is the way to beat it.
And you can't just cover a bunch of news and give somebody to understand that.
I think what's interesting about that is that this is something that I noticed throughout Alex's testimony is that Alex was clearly the best coached because I really don't even know if Daria or Owen were given instructions on what questions Raynal was going to ask them.
Right, right.
But Raynal was clearly giving Alex prompts for these answers that they had talked about because they don't look as terrible as the real ones do, right?
So he gives his prepared remarks, and then you can see him kind of scramble and then start rambling off, and all of a sudden he's like, and so that's why the Democrats are in.
You're like, no, no, no, no, you are doing so good.
Alex knows damn well that the nightly news started in 2011, but that would make his operation look much more professional if he were to be aware of that.
So it's pretty important that it started well after the period of Sandy Hook.
Even worse is that Alex has completely forgotten about his original companion show, The Info Warrior, featuring Jason Burmes.
That show was on in like 2009, and really, Burmes did so much for InfoWars in those early days in that era.
This omission is insulting.
In fact, in court, I poked you and said, he forgot about Burmese.
Again, though, it's definitely not in Alex's best interest to present the image that he was producing other shows on InfoWars at this point in his career.
Like I said, this is a mom-and-pop propaganda outlet.
I guess Alex is just forgetting about his decades-long business relationship with Midas Resources and his couple of attempts to branch out into selling his audience to multi-level marketing scams.
Sure, these aren't respectable sponsors like a car company, but it's pretty important to pretend that Alex had no institutional support around the time of Sandy Hook.
I would imagine that Raynal believed that the setup of the question was to facilitate the exploring Alex's revenue sources in as much as he sells vitamins and people look down on him because of it, but they're actually good.
Oh, okay.
I bet that that is the thrust of the question in the attorney's mind.
Right.
Not that Alex is going to talk about getting PQQ from the Japanese.
See, this is where I feel like trying to apply the rules of normal logic to what's going on is because it's clear that Raynal thinks something is true and Alex thinks something is true.
And despite the fact that they're supposed to be on the same team, it is not the same thing.
I mean, I know when we look to comply with the discovery, which we complied with, it was over 10 million that they had a search that was still in the inbox unopened.
So it was 10 million unopened and a few hundred thousand opened.
And that's because Alex cannot say that he or his company are bankrupt in this part of the trial that they're in at this stage.
That's a claim that he could make in the portion about net worth, which is separated from the compensatory damages phase of the proceedings.
But it would also probably be inappropriate at that point since it's not true.
This is why Mark asked to make these motions.
Alex has now said that he's bankrupt and that he complied with discovery in front of the jury, which are both deeply inappropriate things for him to do.
it is it is satisfying to hear somebody have to be like listen objective reality is real i don't know how to like she's flabbergasted by the idea that that needs to be introduced into court i am I have to introduce to you bedrock concepts of object permanence.
What is, is this a desk?
Tell me what is and is not for you so we can continue.
And I think through watching them and engaging with the trial as it proceeded, I was not expecting the same things that a lot of people might have out of this trial.
Right.
And I feel for the judge for sure.
Having to preside over this is an impossible task.
And the notion that I think a lot of people are entering this with, or the perception, is that this trial doesn't exist in the context of the case that preceded it.
And, you know, I think in one interview that I did, I can't remember who it was with, but I made a point that, like, she looks like she's pissed off, but she's being so patient.
Reached out for comment, Steve, which is funny because in the first week of the trial, Steve Pieczenik was one of the names that Raynal brought up to Becca, being like, whenever he was on his array of, do you think this person's a racist?
Do you think this person's a racist?
Do you think this?
Stevie P's name came up as like a defendable name along with Stefan Molyneux.
And I think Alex should be hanging his hat far more on the fact that Paul Joseph Watson's interview with James Tracy, the initial one, was like a little bit adversarial.
Alex didn't argue with Steve, but it also wouldn't, it would be a mischaracterization to say that he gave Steve a full backing in his claims.
Alex was interested in the theories and was like, oh, we got a top expert saying it's fake.
But he didn't really commit to it in that interview.
And Steve was on for something else.
He was pretending to be Alex's on-the-scene reporter in the demilitarized zone because Alex was trying to drum up panic about how North Korea was going to start a nuclear war.
So in this course of questioning, I think that Alex, the goal that he had was to present this image that his life was really in trouble around the time that Sandy Hook happened.
Yeah, this whole section where he's his whole woe is me thing was, I mean, I know that they wanted it to come off as though he was like a person who was also suffering, but it really just came off more like, are you going to do this here?
So this is disturbing because there does seem to be a pattern of Alex discussing his drinking as it relates to his actions involving Sandy Hook.
We've seen it in an interview and now under oath.
And honestly, it's indicative of a very serious substance abuse problem.
Drunk or sober, Alex is an asshole and deserves the consequences of his actions.
But I want to draw sharp focus to the difference in how Alex talks about the issue depending on his surroundings.
Here in court, Alex is discussing his realization that Sandy Hook actually happened about sometime in 2015.
There's absolutely no prompt for him to bring up that he had stopped drinking for a while as an explanation for his supposed period of clarity, but he does, which leads me to believe that it means something to him.
I don't think that it's true, but I do believe that he probably was going through a lot and stopped drinking for a while around the end of 2015.
This is all being said in service of humanizing Alex and minimizing the things that he did.
He was going through a lot and was drinking a ton, but once he got sober, he realized that he was wrong and changed his behaviors.
Except in reality, he didn't.
He was still doing his show wasted years past this point, and he didn't change his behavior in any meaningful way.
He still just ran with bullshit stories from bullshit sources and defamed people regularly.
But he wants the perception to be that this was just a bad pocket in his life when all these negative influences led him to drink and his judgment was weakened.
He doesn't want the jury to know that he got right back to the heavy drinking and bullshitting with Steve Pieczenik basically the next week because that kind of cheapens whatever fake display of penitence he's trying to put on here.
But the other time Alex discussed his drinking in relation to Sandy Hook was a lot different.
In the Glenn Greenwald QA, Alex was joking about how he defamed grieving parents and caused immeasurable pain in their lives by saying that he didn't know what he was doing and drank a bottle of vodka that day.
It wasn't a person expressing this as a negative thing.
It was Alex trying to appear cool because he wanted to impress the cool kids like Greenwald, who can give him access to a new audience.
I find this dynamic deeply upsetting.
And the only conclusion I can come to is that Alex was drinking on air a lot during this stretch and that he probably has a way bigger problem than even I think and I have been chastised for begging people in his life to get him help a bunch in the past.
Anyway, a lot of this falls on deaf ears to me in a courtroom setting.
Like I would take him more seriously if he took the tone that he did in the QA while on the stand, but that's not going to happen because there's no cool kids to impress there.
But if he was on the stand and he's like, oh, I drank a bottle of vodka.
You know, like, I would be like, all right, this is interesting.
So the comedy that Dan Badandi was doing was things like going to that FOIA hearing with Wolfgang Halbig.
Hilarious.
Or like when he interrupted the Boston bombing, the press conference that the police were giving while the Zarnev brothers were still on the loose and unidentified.
And Alex saying that he didn't approve of this stuff.
Go back and listen to those Boston bombing episodes where he's over the moon and just celebrating Dan Badondi interrupting this press conference and yelling Infowars.com.
So this whole defense has largely circled around the idea that you have to watch the full clips.
So at this point, Raynal puts on a very long video of Alex's.
Now, the things that are a problem here, some of them we're going to get into, but also the video includes Alex repeating the claims that Wolfgang Halbig said.
So this is supposed to be his big apology.
And at the same time, he's like, why did the school have no traffic online?
There's a video of him drinking beer and complaining about all the intellectual dark web people who don't like him anymore because he got kicked off Twitter.
So Alex definitely wasn't the first to report on WMDs in Iraq and the questionable intelligence surrounding the story.
Even though he was correct to be skeptical of that story, his skepticism was childish and it was just a knee-jerk response.
It wasn't based on anything other than his own whim, so I guess he can brag that he got that one right, but he can't really take any credit for doing any work on the subject or even covering it competently.
As we've seen, his Iraq war coverage in 2003 is embarrassing stuff.
From the insistence that the Bath Party were being reinstalled to rule the country while debauchification was taking place, to his unsupported weeks-long assertion that Saddam's kids weren't killed and were in Belarus with their father.
They still are to his really shitty coverage of David Kelly's suicide.
The larger picture that you get from that time is of a person who's not really worth accepting as a source.
It's not worth it.
He wasn't the only person saying that WMD intelligence was sketchy, and the other people who were expressing that opinion didn't overwhelm that accurate opinion with an avalanche of embarrassing bullshit.
As for Epstein, I really want to challenge this because I don't believe this at all.
I've listened to Alex from a lot of periods of his career, and I've never heard him bring up Epstein except after larger media covered the story.
I don't believe at all that Alex was covering Epstein, let alone covering him by name 10 years before the mainstream.
I believe that Alex has convinced himself of his own bullshit, like we talked about earlier.
From as far back as I can find, Alex basically believes the satanic panic type stuff was real.
Things like the McMartin school case were actually real.
And he based a lot of that off that insane shit that Ted Gunderson apparently had told him.
I do accept that Alex has talked about his fantasies of satanic groups kidnapping and abusing children for a long time.
And I think what he's done is retroactively connect Epstein to that coverage so he can claim he was on the story all along, like how his first documentary was about the Great Reset.
I'm open to anyone providing me with evidence that Alex was talking about Epstein by name, about his island and the sex crimes 10 years before everyone else.
And if they do, I will re-evaluate my position.
But I've looked and I can find no evidence that this claim that Alex is making is true at all.
I've even looked through the Alex Jones predictions section on his website, where he posts all the videos of him ostensibly being right about all these things way back in the past.
I can't find any video of him being way ahead of the curve on Epstein.
And thus, this answer Alex is giving feels accurate.
He's asked to say what he's most proud of in his career, and what he comes up with is one story that half the country got right, and the other is something that is almost certainly not true.
There's nothing in his career to be proud of.
He's spouted meaningless bullshit for two decades, and I'll definitely applaud him for dragging it out that long.
But beyond that, his career has meant nothing but other people's pain and him profiting from it.
The truth is, you and your company want the world to believe that this judge is reading this court proceeding to make sure that a script, a literal script, is being followed.
You and your company want the world to believe that this judge is rigging this court proceeding so that a script, and I mean a literal script, is being followed.
One of the things you've been talking about a lot recently on your show, even within the past couple months, is your allegation that government officials are aiding in pedophilia, child trafficking, and the grooming of children.
In fact, Mr. Jones, you're telling the world not to believe what happens in this courtroom because the judge worked with Child Protective Services, who you say is involved with pedophilia and child trafficking, correct?
I'm asking you, you're telling the world not to believe what's happened in this trial because this judge is involved with CPS who is working with child traffickers and pedophilia, correct?
But you're telling the world that someone inside Travis County government rigged the jury summons and picked these jurors specifically who don't know what planet they are on.
So Mark tries to bring up the video that Raynal played and the whole thing about how, hey, you just repeated all the claims about the school not being real.
Yeah, and I think this is a two minutes, and it is a really good encapsulation of why it is useless to try to get Alex to recognize points that he doesn't want to recognize.
I'm asking you if when we broke from your break, when your attorney put up the video, that he really wanted this jury to see how fair you were being about Sandy Hook, you said no paramedics entered the building.
Because they had to keep him out of the building because otherwise you'd have to pay off all the MTs because they'd get in the building and they'd see there's no bodies.
There's always going to be an excuse for why there isn't complete information in front of you that is exculpatory in some way for Alex, and it's bullshit.
And through the case and understanding a little bit more about what was going on and all that, like my perspective has changed in terms of like, oh, yeah, you said it was a false flag immediately, basically.
And had different incarnations of what his theories were and stuff.
But I, when I was approaching it with like the most generous possible approach and reading of things, I might have heard him say something like, why didn't the paramedics arrive or whatever, and not be like, okay, this is him denying Sandy Hook.
And I think that probably when looking at the clip, there was like, he didn't say actors anymore.
All of what he has to say is denying that Sandy Hook didn't happen in a sense like, okay, so he's saying I 100% believe it's real, but I question the official narrative.
That is just part of the amorphous blob of denying Sandy Hook.
So when he says that, what he's really doing is signaling that he's still denying Sandy Hook on whatever level he can cling to.
So there will not be a resolution where he says it's 100% real if he also says, but I don't question the, or but I question the official story.
And if you, if you're even saying that there are things to question, then you're saying that you were right to question them and you are saying that there are questions, which there weren't about Sandy Hook.
You hear we have this, how can we not say it, tranche of text messages, and your mind immediately goes to like, oh, what could be?
Yeah.
And you can't not think to yourself, it is entirely possible, because we live in the weird world we live in, that Alex, Roger, Trump, and Mike Pompeo might have had a group text where they're like, let's overthrow the country on the sixth.
Like, you can't not think in your brain like that kind of ridiculous thing is possible.
And I think that if we've learned anything in the past couple of attempts at impeachment, we maybe should be a little careful about setting expectations in a reasonable place.
But the reason that I, where I started with this, I think that the media is absolutely missing the concrete reality of the text messages' use in this case.
So that's a sad response because Alex has already said that this is his phone and these are texts between him and Paul.
Yep.
And so the notion here is the setup of the question is you learn from Sandy Hook.
You agree with that.
That's what Owen said.
Yes.
Here is a text during COVID that Paul was telling you this is Sandy Hook all over again with you doing this bullshit about fake patients in hospitals to pretend that there's COVID patients in the hospitals.
And you said, I get it.
I understand that this is Sandy Hook all over again.
And the article is still live today as we are in this courtroom.
This is a damning picture that is basically, no, you have not learned from Sandy Hook.
Not only have you not learned from it, when reminded this is Sandy Hook all over again, when you're in the middle of a lawsuit about this sort of behavior as it relates to Sandy Hook, you say, I understand, I get it, and I don't care.
If we were in a movie that's different from the one that this trial turned into, which was astonishing, but Paul would be the guy who gets roped back in for one last job.
But in this movie, Paul's like, no, this is a terrible one last job.
And then you have this text from fairly recently of if you just, you should have listened to him and you should not have had this text exchange because it illustrates how little you give a shit.
Mr. Jones, did you know that 12 days ago, 12 days ago, your attorneys messed up and sent me an entire digital copy of your entire cell phone with every text message you've sent for the past two years.
And when informed, did not take any steps to identify it as privileged or protected in any way.
And as of two days ago, it fell free and clear into my possession.
And that is how I know you lied to me when you said you didn't have text messages about Sandy Hogan.
Do you know what the craziest thing, the craziest moment?
Because whenever I went back through all of the stuff that I have written, there were so many moments that I really, that you do just lose because it's absolute non-stop insanity.
But the craziest one was on Tuesday, day two, or day one of the trial proper, you know, the day after jury selection.
In other words, if somebody was to tell me, oh, I have emails from Mr. Jones that he wrote about this case in the past couple of years, that person would be lying.
No, Mr. Jones, I'm saying in deposition, under oath, sworn to God, you said you don't have any emails for Sandy Hook because you don't use email, right?
Earlier in the trial, Raynal had been talking to Daria as the corporate representative that he objected to and then talked to her as the corporate representative.
He had said, like, Alex doesn't have an email address, right?
And she was like, oh, when he did, he'd get 100 million thousand emails a day.
So he got rid of it as though that would be later the excuse for when now happens.
Well, I do think it's important that, since we're discussing all of this, that the jury understands discovery is a process that occurs and concludes well before trial.
What the lawyers say is of evidence, so we don't know whether it was on accident or on purpose.
We don't have evidence about that.
But what we do know is that it wasn't properly turned over when it should have been.
It does appear that I do think there's an argument to be made that you can say that he didn't mean to do it because Raynal did email back like, please disregard.
So one of the things that's critical about the revelation of these texts is that they illustrate financial information that was demanded and ordered from Alex that was not turned over.
All right, so Mr. Fruget, you would agree with me that pretty much every day he sends you an update on how much the store has sold, and sometimes he lets you know how much profit you made, right?
Are you aware that your attorney has argued that this is what you should pay for the damages that your company admits under oath through your corporate representative at cost?
And now they got a $4 million verdict, which is, I mean, they were shooting for $150 million, you know, because they got to line their pockets, I guess.
Whoever's getting that money, I don't know where that money goes.
The Democratic Party, the entire corporate media, lined up against Infowars and the American people's free speech.
The judge, more than 20 times in the last week and a half in Austin, Texas, told the jury while I was there in the courtroom, and it was on national TV, that Alex Jones is guilty.
The lawyers for the plaintiffs asked for between $150 million and $3 billion.
I was trying to figure out where that came from, and I think it's the sales figures that Mark showed from the text messages that Fruget was sending over.
Yeah, but it kept going back to like, oh, they want money.
Oh, they want money.
Or it was about how huge the sum was.
If they had really just like, listen, the Sandy Hook families believe that because of Alex, Alex owes them $1 per person that believes that they're a liar.
You know, that makes sense to me.
And it also makes it feel like the judgment isn't that high.
Because if you had said that they owe $10 per person, I wouldn't think that that's a huge judgment.
Raynal gave a defense in the punitive phase of the trial, just as Wes did for the plaintiffs.
The defense wasn't able to call any witnesses because the purpose of that phase of the trial was to determine net worth of both Alex and free speech systems.
And after repeatedly failing to provide ordered documents and repeatedly sending in incompetent corporate representatives, the judge sanctioned Alex's defense by disallowing him from being able to participate in the net worth discussion at this point.
Essentially, this is not a silencing or an instance of Alex being jammed up.
It's just another case of him not doing the bare minimum he was required to do in the discovery phase of the case.
And now it's too late for him to pretend he wants to be involved.
Plus, Alex violated the rules on multiple occasions the prior day, including lying to the jury by saying he was bankrupt.
So on that count alone, he should not be able to be a witness in this part of the case.
Nothing that he said can really be accepted as credible.
So his evidentiary value is zero unless he were to have produced the documents backing up what he says.
Which brings us to the next problem.
One of the primary things that was brought up as it relates to his text being disclosed was the messages from Tim Fruget, which discussed detailed breakdowns of sales numbers.
These numbers did not match the revenue numbers that Alex has claimed.
And even more importantly, the existence of these texts, which were not turned over in Discovery, reveal an attempt to hide information relevant to the determination of net worth and the company's value.
There are three major reasons that Alex is not being allowed to be a part of this phase of the trial, and it has nothing to do with the Democratic Party or conspiracy against him.
It's the simple consequences of his stupid actions.
You can probably get the basic tone of this announcement already.
It's Alex taking this $4 million judgment quite in stride because it's much lower than he was probably fearing.
His tone is essentially no different than when he's gotten other bad news in the past where he's using it as an opportunity to fundraise off of it, more or less trying to get the audience to flip the bill for him so he can remain insulated from the consequences of his actions.
It's pathetic, but it's what you'd expect because he's always been able to do this before.
Whether it's his dad paying for the medical bills that kid he almost killed or his dad buying advertising on his show so a radio station would air him early on or the audience donating to his suspiciously timed money bombs or this suspiciously timed $8 million Bitcoin donation.
Alex has always had people to bail him out of the trouble of his stupid actions.
And he probably thinks based on this $4 million figure, there's just going to be another in that series.
At the end of the day, I don't have all these millions of dollars they claim I have, so I'm at peace.
But this is still a major victory for truth.
And the plaintiff's lawyers got upset in the courtroom, and according to multiple witnesses, were screaming and yelling at my lawyers, Joe and Andino, when they were in the hall.
They thought they would get hundreds of millions of dollars we don't have.
They thought they would shut us down.
But that jury understood the truth and resisted the propaganda.
And it's also incredibly difficult because, you know, when you have something like this happens, it's just an opportunity for Alex to trick his audience into being like a bad person.
Get them all at InfowarStore.com and keep us on the air.
That is so critical because they use these families as pawns.
The families come over and shook my hand and hugged me and really woke up to the fact that they'd been manipulated and their own lawyers went like they were dogs.
Get over here and stop talking to him on video.
I was wrong.
Sandy Cook happened.
I admit it happened.
I'm proud to admit it happened because when I'm wrong, I admit it.
I don't make mistakes on purpose.
We're tomorrow's news day.
We're 95% accurate.
But these people tried to misrepresent what I said to these families.
Yeah, I realized that my comments about the previous clips had come too soon, and I would like to reiterate them about that clip, but like twice as much.
I told, and my lawyer told that jury, I said, listen, we want to pay for their psychological stuff.
We want to take care of problems.
We didn't cause all of it, but we want to step up and prove that and do that.
And Scarlett Lewis has a beautiful organization called Choose Love that isn't about gun control, isn't about liberal conservative.
It's about teaching children love and compassion so they're not hateful, so they're not satanic, so they don't kill people.
And I have invited Scarlett Lewis on my show.
We're going to email the organization.
If I see her tomorrow, during the punitive face, I'm going to shake her hand and give her my number.
And I am going to gladly have her on my show next week, and I'm going to raise money for her organization on top of the big judgment because she's a real lady.
She lost her child, and I'm not going to let these people misrepresent what I said and did anymore and claim that I'm the Sandy Hook man.
This is a beautiful time.
It's a great time.
And the trial lawyers, the ambulance chasers lost, America and the First Amendment won.
And the poor parents that went through so much, Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, they have won as well.
So this is a big victory, an answer to prayer.
Thank you so much to viewers and listeners.
We're going to continue on as long as you support us.
We were so close to being shut down.
So please support us so we can have Scarlett Lewis and Neil Heslin on.
So it's strange to hear Alex say that he and his lawyers said they wanted to pay Neil and Scarlett's medical expenses and such because I was in the courtroom during Raynal's opening statement where he asked the jury to return a judgment of $1 in damages.
Also, this is Alex's attempt to portray himself as the good guy, which is all based in bullshit.
Further, he's putting Neil and Scarlett into a trap where he's casting them as characters in his personal image rehabilitation.
As far as the audience is concerned, they either get to play along and act how Alex is setting them up to, which they aren't going to do, or they'll be seen suspiciously by the audience all over again.
Why aren't they speaking out in support of Alex after they realize that they were being used by the lawyers to attack the First Amendment?
Maybe the evil lawyers won't let them.
Or maybe they just said that to Alex to pacify him during the trial, and they actually are in league with the deep state Democrat lawyers after all.
Come to think of it, that would mean that they would have to put on a pretty good performance to trick Alex of all people.
What if these people are actors after all?
Maybe that's not the direction it would necessarily go, but Alex is forcing Neil and Scarlett to exist in terms of his bullshit show into the future because creating these fictitious pictures of them is helpful in terms of making Alex feel better about himself.
What he really should be doing is leaving them the fuck alone, which they've wanted all along.
But Alex is kind of like a child who's broken something and then is trying to clean it up, but he doesn't know how to clean, so in the process he ends up breaking more stuff.
You just want them to stop trying to help because they're not helping and they're just making things worse, but they're a dumb kid and they don't get that.
He's kind of like that kid, except he broke that original thing on purpose.
He claims that he didn't, and then he's breaking other stuff to distract from the mess he initially made.
It's like a sociopathic version of that kid who broke something.
Yeah, Alex can't be like, listen, the law firm that there specifically went through, the lead plaintiff's attorney said that he only eats what he kills.
The good news is it's a very low verdict for what they're asking for.
The bad news is we don't have the money to pay for it.
We can get a bond and appeal it.
We're going to move forward.
That's why I explained to listeners: if you want to see the war room, or you want to see Alex Schones, or you want to see Harrison Smith, or you want to see just everybody.
Everybody else, if you want to see what we're doing here, we need your support at InfowarStore.com.
And I was going to testify tomorrow, which under Texas law, impunitive damages, you're supposed to have the person under attack testify.
The judge ruled after the ruling today when they got that low ruling.
Sounds like a lot for the average person.
It is a lot.
But for what they were asking for, it's small.
That I cannot speak to Mara and my lawyer cannot put on evidence because we're defaulted.
So she gets more and more desperate as she rigged this whole thing.
We barely covered Sandy Hook less than one-tenth of 1% more time.
But when Hillary ran against Trump, she dredged up things they could question, and there was some anomalies, but it turned out it probably, I mean, I believe it did happen.
Yeah, I mean, that's a moment where you either got to go, I'm going to be 100% complicit in this, Averbron, or you have to go, I might be shitty at my job.
I am very thankful to God, very thankful to listeners, and I want to invite Scarlett Lewis, who doesn't have a gun control group.
She has a group about children learning love and empathy and helping children that are beat up and helping people that are being bullied so they don't become this.
I totally support her group.
She was love.
She came over, shook my hand, gave me a hug repeatedly, and I told her, regardless of this ruling, I want her on air.
So tomorrow I'm barred from speaking at the trial.
But I'm going to go with a letter that I'm going to write tonight.
And I'm going to hand it to her and to Neil Heslin, who are very sweet people.
I didn't question them on purpose.
I didn't try to hurt them.
Once I met them, I saw, God, these are totally real people.
I'm going to go to their house when their lawyers aren't there and I'm going to slide this letter underneath their doorstep, you know, like a sane person who's not harassing people would do.
I think that one of the central things about what makes this so, like, the experience so painful is that you're being, like, as the parents of this child who was killed, you're being deprived of your ability to experience your life on your own terms.
Someone else is creating a caricature of you, and it's deeply painful.
I think that saying we won't be kept from these families is something that is so wrong.
There is obviously the way he's trying to portray it is like me and the families are on the same side and these evil lawyers are trying to keep us apart because of the power that we could have together in this unity and love and all this, which is nonsense.
The real world, the place where the real world intersects with this bullshit is exactly the same kind of harassing behaviors, encouraging those from the audience.
Because, you know, let's say that Scarlett or Neil or some of these other families don't behave in the way that you would expect based on Alex's rhetoric.
Well, you should go talk to them.
Why aren't they?
And if you're not allowed to, well, these lawyers are keeping them from you.
You got to.
No, it lends itself towards encouraging harassment.
And I, you know, beyond anything that, you know, we talk about in terms of the lawsuit, this response is, I mean, I agree with you as someone who has no legal background at all.
I think this should be a cause for another action.
I think this should be cause for God creating a mountain so big he couldn't move it, writing leave them the fuck alone on it and then dropping it on Alex's head.
I don't know what kind of bullshit game he's doing to try and save face or create the enemy as these lawyers and not the families, and now I'm best friends with them.