Today, Dan and Jordan wrap up trial coverage by looking at how Alex responded to the news of his punitive damages judgment. Bad news: it's a lot of Bobby Barnes. Good news: the gents meet Willford Snibble-Snabble of the Gribble-Pibble.
And so I can say that my bright spot is that we just got done recording the majority report.
I guess it was live, so it wasn't recorded.
But yeah, I didn't get a chance to say some gushy things that I might have wanted to.
But that show was very...
Important, I think, early on during the show, a lot of people ask me, like, how do you stay sane listening to all this Alex?
And one of the things that was really critical for me was there is a groundedness to reality in a lot of the interviews that Sam and the co-hosts do with people surrounding, like, you know, some political things and policy issues.
And I found that to be very comforting in the same way that, like...
I don't know, my parents listening to and watching like the McNeil-Layer hour when I was a kid.
So, Jordan, like I said, we're going to get into this.
In part one of the series, which you put out earlier, we looked at Alex's testimony from the Sandy Hook trial and reviewed his response to the announcement of the compensatory damages, which ended up being a little over $4 million.
That took us to Thursday afternoon, and the next day the trial entered the punitive phase, which ended before we entered the weekend.
On this episode, we're going to pick up where we left off and tune into Alex's show the morning of that Friday, August 5th, and track the response as the reality of the punitive damages sets in, and he has to wrestle with a very large weight that he is now carrying, both in terms of financial consequences.
One of the things you've been talking about on your show is your allegation that government officials are aiding in pedophilia, child trafficking, and the grooming of children.
unidentified
What do you mean like what Jeffrey Epstein did with a close?
So, this clip that Alex is playing is cut to make it seem like Alex is dropping a truth bomb on the court, but if you listen to the larger clip, or really just Mark's response, it doesn't actually feel that way in reality.
It wasn't a mic drop moment, and honestly, it wasn't even meaningful in the context of the question.
Mark just says, yeah, sure.
That was a question about Alex making accusations about the judge in this case being involved in pedophilia and child trafficking, which is conveniently not included in the memes that Alex is playing because it wouldn't support the fun, truth-telling thing that they were hoping to convey with the memes.
In the real world, this question was part of a setup for a trap that Alex walked himself into, which helped impede Alex is a painfully unserious person and this should be a great example of that.
What he said isn't threatening to anyone.
It evoked more rolled eyes than anything else in the courtroom and it was part of a line of questioning that was pretty effective in demonstrating that Alex was not at all a good faith participant in the trial and that his testimony was not something the jury should be taking at face value.
But it has the appearance of being something that owns the libs or something.
So people made memes and Alex decides to start his show with it because that's great.
So this is just Alex playing fun games with headlines to create the perception that we're on the path to eating each other, which doesn't really make sense.
I thought Klaus Schwab wanted us to eat bugs, but now we're supposed to eat each other?
This is dumb.
In the past, we've discussed why cannibalism is inefficient as a diet in all but the most extreme circumstances.
The calories expended to kill a person and eat them would likely not be worth what you'd get from it, you know?
What's going on is that the show Yellow Jackets is really popular, and that's a show that involves a girls' soccer team who are on a plane that crashes into the wilderness in Canada.
They have to survive for a long time, and apparently cannibalism is involved in the pilot episode.
The crash in the show happens in 1996, and the show includes tracking the girls who survived in their current lives in 2021, and it's very heavily implied that their resorting to cannibalism wasn't entirely based on a need to eat human flesh to survive.
You've watched it, I'll admit that I haven't, but from the reviews and breakdowns I've read, it seems like it has a little bit of supernatural nonsense and the Lord of the Flies kind of vibe in it.
I would try to discuss the plot more, but that would involve spoilers, and honestly...
idea what's going on with that show and i bet you don't either it's kind of it's one of those shows where it's like what if we imply everything and then we'll get a second season and we'll we'll fuck it up then right now i think i think it seems like one of those shows that if i hadn't gone along for the entire ride of lost yeah and then also flash forward yeah many other shows maybe i would jump in totally but I'll wait.
Anyway, in the wake of that show's massive success, it was released on DVD in mid-July, so there's renewed conversation about it, including discussion of the coming second season and the cannibalism scene in the first episode that apparently wasn't even explained by the season finale.
People are talking about this show that they're enjoying, so the New York Times published an op-ed about a couple of pieces of cannibalism-related creative works that have come out recently, seemingly building on the premise that cannibalism is a hot topic in fiction these days.
Naturally, the right wing went batshit over this and created an entire news cycle based on the nonsense.
That you should eat people.
Alex is a shallow thinker and a shallower reader, so he's not read this op-ed, and I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't even read the full text or the breathlessly outraged response articles that were written about it.
But if he had read the original thing, he would have read this part towards the end.
Quote, According to Miss Summers, cannibalism is always symbolic.
For her novel's protagonist, eating human flesh can be seen as a way of holding onto a relationship that ended.
For Miss Summers herself, the plot of A Certain Hunger can't be uncoupled from, quote, my own personal experiences with disordered eating, with the tamping down of feminine appetites, the way the media chews up and spits out writers, Bougie consumption and bougie lady consumption, she said.
More generally, Miss Summers thinks that the recent spate of cannibalistic plots could be commentaries on capitalism.
Quote, Cannibalism is about consumption, and it's about burning up from the inside in order to exist.
Burnout is essentially over-consuming yourself, your own energies, your own will to survive, your sleep schedule, your eating schedule, your body.
The article is a thoughtful examination of some of the social commentaries that are possibly being made by themes of cannibalism that are being expressed in a very limited set of pieces of media, including a very popular recent series.
But of course, for people like Alex, it's secretly the Times telling everyone that eating people is trendy now.
We're going to hit the huge developments with DeSantis leading the charge, firing, and then having the police go to the offices of Soros operatives inside the government so they can't destroy any evidence of them criminally taking orders from the big guy.
So this is about DeSantis firing the Hillsborough state attorney, Andrew Warren, because he refused to prosecute cases regarding trans people and reproductive health care cases.
It has given them a taste of fascism, and based on Alex's current comments about an elected official absolutely wrecking any and all power structures, I think they want more fascism.
And it also distracts you from the nonsense that he was saying earlier in that clip where he's talking about the judge falsifying the record or whatever.
And so I was kind of interested to hear what that meant.
I was here yesterday running around the office trying to watch the verdict.
And she was killing the stream every five minutes or so because she said she would live stream it, but we kicked their butts so bad, even though we had our hands tied behind our backs, that she killed the stream during most of my testimony so that law and crime can only put out edited clips of me where I go, oh, that's a Perry Mason moment, except it's not.
The most generous explanation for this is that Alex is an idiot and doesn't understand that Law& Crimes YouTube channel posted the long-form videos of the trial and also published shorter snippets of particularly exciting moments like when his text messages were revealed.
Alex doesn't deserve a generous interpretation, and the reality here is that he's just lying to make his audience think that the judge in this case shut down the feed and only allowed these shorter clips to go out, which is nonsense.
It's likely too late for it to matter, but I have to assume that this could constitute some kind of contempt of court type thing.
Yeah, I mean, they still have to work out the exact sanctions for both Raynal and Alex.
Like, that is still in the air.
It's not like they wrote down a number and they handed it to Alex and they were like, okay, you can keep being a piece of shit, but you're also going to owe us this.
If the judge is going to let something be televised, televise it.
Real courts, if they do it, have a pool camera.
Or two cameras that aim at whoever's speaking and when the judge speaks.
Instead, there's just dozens of cameras, but they're all pet media, and they all are on the same script and all put the same clips out, basically.
And the judge sits there while she controls the YouTube stream, turning it on and turning it off and turning it on and turning it off.
She controls the stream.
She just kills the stream.
She's up there like a DJ running it.
So either you're going to show people the trial...
Or don't, but I think it's illegal to claim something's televised and then only let out certain parts of the trial, but when something you don't like happens, you kill the stream and then turn it back on to the other side speaking.
And then Bankston, their main lawyer, gets up, the plaintiff's lawyer, the ambulance chaser, and goes, listen, judge, I want you to not kill the stream during this part because I'm going to expose that law enforcement wants Jones' phone and he's going down and it's January 6th and all this stuff.
No, I think we talked, or I think I have notes about this later to bring up, but we were there in the courtroom, and the law and crime, their camera person was sitting next to us.
I promise you I'm going to get into world news for the rest of this broadcast.
We've got so many special guests in studio, but I've got to finish up because they just gave me transcripts and tweets of what's going on down at the kangaroo courthouse there where I'm being railroaded in the second phase of the damages.
Let's take a step back and try to forget that we're listening to a celebrity racist demagogue here and really listen to what they're saying.
If anyone you knew was talking like this about how everyone was out to get them, you'd rightly understand that they aren't well.
But for Alex, it's just kind of his shtick.
He sounds like someone raving about black helicopters because he's literally the same person who was raving about black helicopters 20 years ago.
He's delusional, and he's found enough people to enable and reinforce his delusions that he's been able to make it profitable and insulate himself from any consequences of his actions.
But this just sounds dumb.
Alex is getting on his show to complain about how unfairly he's being treated, which is evidenced by a completely inaccurate description of how the live streams are broadcast.
Then, he's heard from other people that there's a conspiracy about silencing supportive YouTube comments, which is just pathetic.
Alex isn't even able to make this claim.
He has to say that other people have told him this is happening.
He has literally no idea if this is real at all, but it feeds into his victimhood status, so not only is it real, it's also probably way worse than it seems, and it's being directed by the judge in coordination with Soros.
On the live streams, commenting was disabled, for obvious reasons.
As far as the law and crime videos are concerned, you can go to those and still see a ton of pro-Alex comments, mostly in the live chat.
It's silly to think that YouTube comments mean anything.
A lot of them are bots, many of them are people just trolling, and there are plenty that just don't even make sense.
It's really sad to see a 48-year-old adult whining on his show about how he's heard that there aren't enough positive comments about him on some YouTube video, so it must be a censorship conspiracy issue.
And then the HBO camera, I think there were maybe two, were to get better shots for the documentary.
I don't know.
Anyway, I think Alex should have to face the judge and answer for this behavior on air.
Basically creating a large target on her by fabricating a conspiracy that the video in the courtroom was being manipulated, and this is just completely unacceptable behavior.
Yeah, if I was in the middle of being sued and about to get a huge judgment for defaming somebody, I would not, in the same time period, want to sick people on the judge of that case.
I mean, hell, their head lawyer gets up and says, now don't cut the feed for the next 10 minutes, okay?
And then he goes up and says, Jones perjured himself, you know, the Justice Department, everything else, we got his whole phone, which they don't, all this stuff.
And then it's like, okay, Your Honor, and she's like, cuts the feed.
They're trying to distract me from my work, but they're not going to distract me from my work.
And that's why I'm not down there at the second phase of the trial today.
It's because no matter what the globalists do, while I'm still breathing air, or while I'm not locked up in a prison, I am going to be fighting these people.
It's that simple.
But I can't stand the fight without you.
So they want me to talk about their attacks.
They want me to get diverted into defending myself.
But you understand, we're going to stay in the attack.
And we're not going to let them distract us.
So, what is it that they're trying to distract us from?
They're trying to distract us from knowing about what I'm about to cover.
And so...
I'll be back today in the fourth hour, and I'm going to co-host with Robert Barnes.
And then I'll be back today co-hosting some in the war room because I'm not going to let them silence us.
And tomorrow, I'm going to be here most of the day, even though my five-year-old daughter is begging me to take her fishing.
She has no future if I don't do this, so I'll be here.
And I'm not a martyr.
I'm not a victim.
I'm saying that I'm going to work harder because they're trying to silence us because I know it's our mission.
And when I get tired and think it must be somebody else's job to do this, when I see it bearing fruit of what we've done together, I realize I've got to fight now harder than I've ever had.
So I'll cover this more in the fourth hour today after Mike Adams takes over with some special guests and things he's got lined up that are huge.
People are really excited.
Let me just hit these headlines so you know what's coming up.
I hate that every time the globalists are really acting up and duty calls, The real thing that ends up happening is that Alex's daughter doesn't get to do something fun.
So this is a headline from 2019, which Alex doesn't know because his team just googled cannibalism and printed out everything they could find that seems like it could work.
Alex does no prep for this show, so he's cold reading headlines and just making up context for them, and in this case he's pretending that it's a current story.
This was about Magnus Söderland, who went on Swedish TV and was interviewed about some research he was doing into social taboos about food sources.
Basically, human meat was used as an extreme example of something that pretty much everyone considered past the line, but where exactly was the line?
He doesn't want people to eat people, and that wasn't something he was advocating at all.
Magnus very astutely deduced that his words had, quote, been hijacked by people who don't believe that global warming and other climate issues should be taken seriously, and one of those people was a writer for the Epoch Times who wrote a headline that Alex is now reading on air.
This is a bullshit story with no connection to reality that was published three years ago.
So this string of headlines is off to a very strong start.
I thought it was Obama who didn't want people to have air conditioner or a car, which isn't true to begin with, but it's something that Alex repeats a lot.
I'm starting to suspect that maybe Alex really is just cold reading headlines and hasn't seen any of these things at all, but he's just pretending they're connected because we have a three-year-old article about cannibalism, comments that Pete Buttigieg made about electric cars, and a picture of Trudeau not wearing a mask.
This can't be the super important work the globalists want to distract Alex from because this is ridiculous.
So during the trial, shouldn't there have been a nonstop barrage of, like, holy shit, you know, there's fires going up inside of your home right now, you know?
And they're now announcing in Spain and Germany they're going to control remotely, as we told you decades they would, with the smart meters, what temperature you can set your house to, no lower than 80. So this is just an op-ed on Zero Hedge that's completely meaningless as proof of anything and doesn't even include any bits about remotely controlling people's thermostats.
That's stuff that Alex is writing his own story about, but it's a very real issue surrounding energy rationing proposals in countries that could be more directly affected by Russia's ability to control the flow of oil and natural gas.
It's less a question of remotely controlling smart meter thermostats and more city councils being asked to do everything they can to conserve energy.
After this is a string of headlines about reducing car ownership, so I guess that a bunch of these headlines could be said to be connected, but I'm struggling to make the larger meaningful connection, and the cannibalism is just flashy and fun.
I think that I understand what Alex wants the connection to be, but it's pretty much just in his head.
He's basically laying out the climate change advocates.
It's an elaborate plot to destroy society through making people unable to have energy resources, which will make them unable to get any food, so I guess the media is trying to prepare people for the idea of eating other humans.
Mind you, this is entirely different than Alex's big rant about how he was willing to barbecue his neighbors to feed his children.
When Alex discusses cannibalism, that's actually genius, and he's making a larger point, whereas when people he doesn't like do it, it's proof of an insidious plan to depopulate the planet.
This list of headlines is legitimately depressing, and he does not need a lawsuit to distract him from doing his job.
He's doing fine on his own, and his job is completely meaningless.
So this is the headline that he's reading off Breitbart, but it's kind of a dishonest framing of the story.
While it is true that parts of the Great Barrier Reef are seeing considerable healing, that's not true of the reef as a whole.
The northern area of the reef saw gains in hard coral cover, but the southern section actually went down.
This is good news, but it's part of a larger picture.
One of the main concerns about the reef is hard coral cover, but another equally important aspect is bleaching.
Bleaching is the result of a temperature or weather anomaly that leads to the coral expelling the algae that give it its color, resulting in the coral becoming white.
It's not dead at that point, but it's at a significantly greater risk.
And importantly, reefs are complicated systems that are capable of healing, so if there is some bleaching, the coral can become home to algae again and come back to what you'd call a vibrant life.
The concern among scientists is that weather events that cause large-scale bleaching have been increasing in frequency.
There have been four mass bleaching events in the past seven years, and experts don't know how resilient the reefs are to...
heightening pressure.
It's an open question and it's frightening the implications.
Another aspect that is of concern is mentioned in a Reuters story about this.
Alex probably just saw a headline about research that was done at Rice University where they found that they could use dead spiders as a way of gripping things.
Essentially, it has to do with how spider legs bend and how all you really need to do to manipulate them is apply a hydraulic pressure inside the spider's abdomen.
The researchers used a needle to puff air into them and found that they were able to expand and retract.
Personally, I think this is a little fucked up, but I don't know how much of a high horse any of us has to be about like, oh, you gotta respect the sanctity of dead spiders.
If you watch the video with the researchers, too, one of the things they bring up that's like, ah, it's kind of tough to argue with, is that it is like...
As for the pig thing, Alex just skimmed a headline about this, but it's a little closer to reanimation.
It's just not that it's a pig getting reanimated.
It's a cellular thing.
This has some considerable philosophical implications and could stand to revolutionize processes used in organ donation, but it's not Frankenstein, or at least not yet.
I do find myself unnerved slightly by this portion of an NBC News article about this.
The pigs treated with organics startled researchers.
During experimentation, the dead pigs' heads and necks moved under their own power.
The animals remained under heavy anesthesia.
The researchers do view the neck jerk as an indication that muscle function was restored after death.
If you're someone who believes that all science fiction is secretly real, I can see how you might respond to this like Alex does.
It's silly, but I get it.
Yeah.
unidentified
Anyway, I'm still having trouble with the supposed connection of all these stories.
allegedly about reanimation aren't connected in any meaningful way.
At this point, I was so bored of this list of headlines and I was getting, it's getting really redundant so I decided it was time to move on from this fun run.
Yeah.
unidentified
But that story about the pigs That is something I wish someone who is like Alex, but not Alex, and maybe a little bit more in touch with reality, could have a take on, because I think it's a little bit, like, your reaction is, there is a place for that.
No, but what I'm thinking is if you're saying that reanimation is possible, then when I die, right, I'll die, my consciousness will end, and then suddenly I will theoretically awaken years later in the same or a different body.
All right, we ran some promos earlier, because for some reason Robert Barnes was here sitting around for like an hour waiting to go on air, and he didn't think he was supposed to be on air, so he left.
And one of them is Dick Cheney, the war criminal, the torture master, the architect of 9-11, the globalist criminal.
The guy that sold America out for the Council on Foreign Relations and made jokes about it on national TV, how he was an enemy of America, has the nerve to get up and say people running against his daughter in her congressional race are the enemies, and that Trump is the enemy.
The plaintiff's lawyer was out there spinning to the media how there was going to be a $50 million, $100 million kind of judgment coming in punitive damages.
Completely got wrong.
The media was recycling this as if it was the truth about Texas law.
They also sponsor Dan Bongino and have sponsored Ben Shapiro and Rush Limbaugh and countless other right-wing shit-talkers who seem to include an insistence that you'll soon need emergency food because the government's going to go full dictatorship in their rhetoric, which is just a strange coincidence.
I mean, I have in the past gone and looked at various deals that were offered.
I don't think that's true.
What I think is going on, if Alex is describing anything that's real, it's that he has such a bad negotiating position that he gets a lower cut than Ben Shapiro or Glenn Beck does.
It's interesting to hear about the cap because the more I read about it, the less clear it becomes.
And from what Mark has told me is that part of the reason that this whole thing is going to get weird is that...
If they want to, there's something written within the caps of, like, if this is extraordinary bullshit beyond what anybody could reasonably expect, fuck the cap.
Let's go hard on this guy.
You know, like that kind of thing.
But that's going to lead to appeals and appeals and all that stuff.
So I'm not sure, but whatever anybody is reporting about the cap, it is up in the air still.
Again, I think it's criminal to have a judge say this is televised, and then she cuts the YouTube off when we speak, or lawyers speak she doesn't like, but only puts it on when they're having their people speak.
I mean, it was literally three movie cameras in there.
The only thing that went AWOL for them is they didn't get the ending that they wanted, and they didn't get the ending they wanted because even a liberal Democratic jury in Austin that was selected by these plaintiff's lawyers rejected the core aspects of their theory and thesis.
They got to see you live, and you were not the caricature that they tried to make you out to be.
And even though they played altered clips and altered edited videos, sometimes only five, seven seconds long, in fact, I think one was like two seconds long.
He was Alex's lawyer until shit got too hot and he quit or got fired, and now the Infor's corporate rep has testified under oath that they're exploring suing him for malpractice.
This is all just such horse shit.
Barnes is a weak loser, hiding on Alex's show, pretending to have an expert opinion, acting like the reality that he took an active part in this didn't happen.
How does he pretend to be a lawyer and then get on air and say that the case was scripted and the plaintiff's attorney selected the jury as if that wasn't a process that the defense was equally involved in?
So that's the sort of clip where you have to ask yourself if Alex even thinks his audience is conscious.
It's clear what Wes is saying in that clip, that Alex is trying to dodge responsibility for his actions by saying that other people said things too, and then he punctuated his claim by joking that he was surprised that Alex didn't yell lock her up.
Alex is pretending that this is somehow a statement of support for Hillary, or an admission that this case is only happening because of Hillary, but it's pretty tough to get there from what the actual clip that is played says.
And we now pivot into a dystopian Western world that values oppression, stopping the force of humanity, depopulation, Satanism, anti-life, anti-freedom, anti-truth.
The important turning point, the important page that we turn today is that now the American left, the liberal progressive Democrat left in America has now taken off the mask, they now know they're the bad guys, they have now accepted their role as the bad guys, and they are now embracing it wholly.
In all the course of human history, every good or bad decision that's ever been made that's had geopolitical consequences, many by left-leaning politicians, has all been nothing compared to the day that Alex Jones learns that he has to pay people for defaming them.
Was it the end of the free world when Fox settled their defamation suit with Seth Rich's parents or when CNN settled with Nicholas Sandman?
I feel like it wasn't, probably because Alex's narcissism is so strong and such an important part of what makes this show and everything on Infowars work for the audience that Owen has to tap into it in order to exist in that environment.
This is really pathetic to act this way, and I have zero respect for Owen or his proclamations of us announcing that we're the bad guy, but if he wants to act this way, I have just one thing to say.
On day one of the summit, Lindell is going to have a premiere screening of the film Selection Code, which goes into how the election was stolen.
It was funded by Lindell and largely is about Tina Peters, who you may remember as the election fraud conspiracist who was arrested for allegedly facilitating a security breach in May 2021.
She was a county clerk in Mesa, Arizona, and in her capacity there, she enabled data from the election to be leaked and ultimately published on a QAnon-Telegram.
channel.
unidentified
She recently lost an election she was in running for secretary of state.
He seems to have an endless supply of money to waste, but you gotta know that eventually it's gonna run out, and before your very eyes, your inheritance has turned into a two-day vanity livestream with a seven-hour fake courtroom scene where your dad pretends to indict a laptop.
Grim stuff, man.
Anyway, this is quite a panel of guests Owen's fill-in has put together.
Like, you know, in the normal corrupt world we've lived in for a long time, you know, your big donor, all of a sudden, after you get elected, holy cow, you're ambassador to, like, Switzerland.
It's not meta for Alex to complain about his own perceived victimhood on his show.
It's just any other day on Infowars.
I understand Owen wanting to dress this up as something other than vanity, but that's all it is.
Also, I was poking...
Hang around on that Reawaken America tour website because I was really bored during this interview, and I found that on September 24th in Tulsa, Oklahoma, they're putting on a comedy show with Jim Brewer that promises to be, quote, like a non-communist version of Saturday Night Live.
So anyway, Owen pops in, and it's because there was an expectation that Alex is going to be on the war room to talk about the whole thing once the damages came down.
And unfortunately, Alex...
Will not be appearing on The War Room.
He had an appointment with three wise men, Johnny, Jack, and Jim.
Even the Soviets tried to make a show trial at least a good show.
This was a show trial that was so one-sided, so evidently partisan, so made for the movie scripts.
I was talking to Mark Robert the other day, and this is a Hollywood screenwriter, and even he was shocked to hear how it was basically designed.
The courtroom was designed like a set with three big movie cameras with the judge alternating what could be said and when it could be said and how it could be said and who could say it in such a way that had nothing to do with the rules of evidence, nothing to do with...
of law in Texas, nothing to do with constitutional liberties and protection, and everything to do with scripting a case so that it would have a particular outcome and, in particular, a future media narrative that could be spun, and ultimately, an actual future.
Anyway, I was in the courtroom for a lot more of the case than media star Bobby Barnes, and I can say very clearly and with no hesitation that the courtroom was not laid out like a movie set, and it wasn't following a script.
I get that that's a convenient narrative for him and Alex to push because they lost, and the fallout from this case is going to be spectacular, but this is a weak attempt at damage control or whatever they're doing.
For one thing, there were a few cameras in the courtroom, like I mentioned, but they weren't all the same people's cameras.
One was the court's Zoom camera, one was the law and crime feed, there were HBO cameras for the documentary, and on that note, there was a sign on the door to the courtroom that advised people that there was a crew from HBO filming, and if they didn't consent to be in the background of shots, they shouldn't come in.
Beyond that, there really wasn't much of an effect that the cameras had on the actual case.
Nope.
unidentified
The place where cameras were much more involved in making a scene relates to Alex's actions.
On the first Tuesday, the first day of the case proper, Alex held a mini press conference.
Yep.
After being scolded about how that wasn't appropriate, at lunch Alex tried to do it all again in front of the courthouse, but there was no one there to watch him have a tantrum.
Alex wanted a show trial vibe.
He wanted there to be tons of national media crews there covering the case, but he didn't get that.
I think it's instructive to understand that this complaint that there were all these cameras is actually expressing Alex and Barnes' disappointment that there weren't cameras there that they could exploit for their own purposes.
It's less about the cameras and more about how they weren't.
If you're a lawyer, right, shouldn't I be allowed to play that clip before we get into a law argument or something?
If I'm a lawyer and Barnes is across the hall from me and he's on the other desk, shouldn't I be allowed to play that clip and be like, Barnes is not taking law seriously, period.
Robert Barnes continuing with your observations, both watching the trial on TV, being down there, having live coverage of it, why you say it's the most insane show trial ever.
It is because, well first of all, there pretty much wasn't a right that the judge didn't violate.
First Amendment right of freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of the press.
What?
You brought all of those!
Sixth Amendment rights to both counsel and confrontation infringed by the attorney-client privilege being disclosed and the right to confront those making accusations against you.
Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury, and that means a right to trial by jury on all facts, not just the facts the judge decides can be tried.
And that all of those same analogous federal constitutional provisions have analogs in the state constitution of the state of Texas.
Weren't these dudes laughing about the case a couple hours ago, like fake laughing?
It's weird how this judgment changed their mood a little bit.
I would like to give a rebuttal to Barnes's claims.
On the First Amendment front, he gives no explanation for how the judge violated Alex's First Amendment rights.
He just asserts it as a fact, and I contest that.
Barnes could never make that case in court, because if he could, you kind of expect he would still be Alex's lawyer, considering that was a huge part of Barnes's argument back when he was Alex's lawyer.
On the Second Amendment side, is he saying that the judge didn't allow Alex to bring I'm unclear on this.
And I don't know if he'd have any place for them to sleep, considering all the space his ridiculous team of security probably took up.
Judge Gamble didn't rule on whether or not Mark could turn over Alex's phone data.
She specifically said she wasn't going to get in the middle of that.
Either way, it's not an invasion of his privacy because it was accidentally disclosed by Alex's lawyer and Mark followed the proper channels before bringing it up.
If Mark had gotten the text through clandestine means, then that would be a different story, but this was Raynall fucking up.
Also, nothing about Discovery, which Alex didn't even cooperate with, violated Alex's Fourth Amendment rights.
This is stupid.
Alex's Fifth Amendment rights are fully intact.
He was not compelled to testify against himself and he had all the due process an asshole can get.
He had every opportunity to participate in the case but chose not to.
Civil and criminal courts cannot operate if people can just decide that they've made up in their mind that they've been jammed up so they don't have to participate in the case.
And any attempt to make them participate is actually the state railroading them.
Sometimes it does happen that innocent parties get caught up in protracted processes defending themselves, and that sucks.
But that's also why there are mechanisms in place to compensate people who have to go through that, and why you can countersue if you need to.
The Sixth Amendment doesn't apply since it's about criminal cases, and the Seventh Amendment only requires jury trials for civil cases in federal courts.
And this is in the state court, and Barnes is saying that there are analogs in state court, then why are you talking about the Constitution, dum-dum?
He's someone who knows law stuff and is happy to use that law stuff to justify right-wing idiots on shows like this and his own podcast with Viva Frye.
Small point.
The guy who tried to storm that Ohio FBI office allegedly posted this on Truth Social.
Quote, I'm having trouble getting information, but Viva Fry said Patriots are heading to Palm Beach, where Mar-a-Lago is.
I recommend going and being Florida.
I think the feds won't break it up.
If they do, kill them.
If I were Barnes, and I really wanted to evoke an amendment for Alex, I would go with the 18th.
Now, sure, that was repealed by the 21st Amendment, but if there was ever a right Alex could use right about now, it's the prohibition of alcohol.
If the same standard was applied to Axios that was applied to you, they could be sued into bankruptcy tomorrow by running a headline that says the mayor of Uvalde questions whether or not there's a school shooting cover-up.
Because to be clear, they didn't limit this case to just one or two specific statements.
They said any statement questioning anything concerning the Sandy Hook official narrative warranted a death penalty.
They gave you a death penalty sanctioned in the default judgment stage, then you're Barnes is a total shithead and a liar but he doesn't actually believe what he's saying.
He's also not so dumb as to be unaware that what he's saying is a lie.
Obviously.
This case absolutely did not include any supposition that questioning aspects of public events constituted defamation.
The reason that it might appear that way if you're not paying attention is because the plaintiff's attorneys brought up a ton of instances of Alex repeating and defending talking points that he had used to argue that the shooting never happened long after he claims he stopped arguing that it didn't happen.
In fact, Alex was repeating those claims in the middle of his supposed apology video.
Imagine this scenario, using one of Alex's bullshit claims from the Sandy Hook Times, which he got from Halbick and Fetzer, and continued to repeat long after supposedly realizing the shooting happened.
Imagine you see online that people are claiming that the school wasn't even open and there was no internet traffic to the school's website in the year before the shooting.
You would be totally free to discuss this claim that people were making online, and hopefully you would have the decency to take like five minutes to look into it and see that it's bullshit before going on air and mindlessly repeating the claim.
But even so, if you repeat it as a question that folks have, you aren't committing defamation.
This isn't what Alex did.
He used these alleged anomalies as a pile of evidence that he would drop on the audience to support his claim that the shooting didn't happen.
When the plaintiff's attorneys would demonstrate that he was still making these claims in the fairly recent past, what they're doing is illustrating that he's still making the same arguments.
To deconstruct this a little bit, Alex was making the argument, if the school's website got no traffic, then the school wasn't open.
If the school wasn't open, the shooting could not have happened.
Therefore, the shooting didn't happen.
It's essentially a setup of if A then B, if B then C, A therefore C. It's a perfectly fine construction for an argument, and it's called a hypothetical syllogism.
And assuming all your premises are correct, it follows that your conclusion will be as well.
When Alex has made the argument repeatedly on this show, the audience understands that A is proof of C, whether or not they understand this logic path.
So when Alex is claiming he believes the shooting happened, but then still insisting that premise A is correct, what he's doing is still affirming the conclusion while pretending that he's not.
This is one of the ways that Alex has his cake and eats it too, or as Mark said it in the trial, he wants it always.
If you pay attention to his show, you'll see a bit of this behavior, and in the case of Sandy Hook, you can plug in a bunch of different narratives in that place for premise A, and it works the same.
Paramedics weren't allowed in the building, kids walked around in circles, FBI crime stats say no murders happened in Newtown that year.
All of these things are the first premises for that hypothetical syllogism structure.
Barnes understands this, and on some level Alex does too, but even leaving that aside, Alex's actions as it relates to Sandy Hook are so much worse than just making claims publicly.
His promotion of Wolfgang Halbig after the point where he could be reasonably expected to know that Wolfgang was harassing victims' family members, including Scarlett Lewis, is something that you might notice Barnes doesn't even touch.
The defense of Alex is grandstanding, and that grandstanding only works if you have a strawman version of the accusation that you need to defend yourself against.
I'm quite frankly surprised, because listeners are so used to us being steadfast, so used to us being resilient, that they're like, okay, well, Jones has said he's close to oblivion quite a bit.
We're getting a little extra support, but not what we should.
And I think if it becomes evident where we actually do start shutting down, we'll have a lot of support, and then we'll try to reorganize and do something.
I don't understand why he's still doing commercials while they're planning to sue him, allegedly.
I kind of do understand.
It's all nonsense, for sure.
Anyway, the conversation of Alex's phone comes up, and there's a little bit of defense being played here about the idea that there are intimate photos.
Nobody who has access to that phone that I'm aware of would ever release naked pictures, even if it's like a dick pic of Alex's that could hypotheticalize.
No, I mean, it's wrong.
Just not say anything, and this would never be an issue.
I mean, what's extraordinary is they got to see a microscopic, up-close view of Infowars and Alex Jones, and they couldn't produce any incriminatory information.
The first is that that text from Paul illustrates That Alex has awareness that the story that he was doing about COVID was bullshit, and it was Sandy Hook all over again, and Alex admitted, I get it.
I understand that this is what we're doing, and I don't care.
We're doing this.
The second thing is that the existence of this text is full evidence that Alex did commit perjury when he said that he had looked through his phone and turned over everything that had the word Sandy Hook in them.
Because this existed and was not turned over.
That is a problem.
They're just completely missing the point and saying, oh, it didn't even involve Sandy Hook.
That is correct.
But those words were there, and because of that...
And that's also going to have to take into account what the Lafferty claims are valued at, and the Posner claims are valued at, and the Fontaine claims are valued at.
unidentified
And that is why I've been saying that what this is heading towards.
Is there is going to be a large set of plaintiffs who are going to be dividing up the corpse of Infowars in the bankruptcy estate.
And over the course of that process, that could get very, very dangerous for Mr. Jones.
Because there is going to be a new level of financial scrutiny.
And if, you know, some lawyer like me can basically find out that he's hiding the keys to the candy store, pull it out in front of him on the stand, I can only imagine what federal receivers are going to do.
unidentified
So yeah, it's going to get interesting from here on out.
What Alex is saying here can be translated as, don't these people understand how much I'm going to be able to fundraise off a quote like that?
Alex's business model operates off fear, and he's able to monetize his ability to capture the audience in a state of fear.
When there's a statement like Mark's, which can be translated as a direct attack on Alex, Alex can repackage that as an attack on the audience, which will allow him to more easily fleece some of them into continuing to throw money into the pit that is Infowars.
Alex is laughing because he feels that Mark has made his job of raising money easier, but there's a larger reality that Alex is trying to distract away from.
Which is that no matter what he does, there's a sort of Damocles hanging over his head.
All the posturing and fundraising isn't really going to matter much to a bankruptcy audit.
And when you step into that arena, it's not a civil matter if you try to play games.
You could end up going to jail for the sort of crimes you end up pulling there.
And you have to consider what could come with the very clear cases of perjury that Alex was caught committing in the course of the trial.
I don't know any of the specifics, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was something that could lead to huge fines or possibly even be referred for prosecution.
Alex can do this song and dance with Barnes all they want, and it's fun for him to pretend that he's won this trial, but in order to do that, he has to pretend a whole tranche of other problems don't exist and aren't nipping at his heels.
So Barnes believes this is gonna go to the Texas Supreme Court, maybe the U.S. Supreme Court, and he has some really fun ways of expressing how close they are to winning cases like that.
Only one justice short of them taking it and throwing this out from the very beginning because the very nature of the suit violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Always has.
Also violates Texas law on the definition of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
They'll get that justice short of half because they're not remembering that they're still, despite them being conservatives, the Texas Supreme Court or whatever, despite their strong conservative leanings, etc.
These people are still lawyers and judges and shit, you know?
Also, after that whole pageant that Alex did about really respecting Neil and Scarlett and meeting them and wanting to support them and all this, it's great that he would want to drag this out even further and inconvenience them.