Today, Dan and Jordan discuss the beginning of Alex's trial in Connecticut, and what's going on in the Infowars studio while the case plays out. In this installment, Alex gets petty about his books sales, Tucker gets petty about Alex's book sales, and Alex covers Tucker getting petty about Alex's book sales. Citations Dreamy Creamy Fundraiser
I have, as you can see, there's like boxes of buttons, and I'm putting them in bags, and then just taking them out, taking the bags, putting them in the envelope.
I'm waiting for you to have to hire somebody whose eyes are sewn shut, who's lost feeling in their fingers in order to choose the correct buttons and put them in the right place.
But, hey, I think that when I look back on my life, a lot of times, there were times that I lost jobs and it felt like the worst thing in the fucking world, but it ended up being positive.
And the centerpiece is a relationship between her and Poison Ivy, which people have taken too creepy, but I would argue that it's actually been way more of just a positive representation kind of situation.
But before we get into anything, and even before we talk about the Wonks, I wanted to say, we don't usually talk about this sort of logistical stuff on air all that much, but today we were set to record at a certain point.
And I needed to push back half an hour.
And Jordan, you accommodate me when these things come up from time to time.
So, we're gonna start today by looking a bit at Norm's opening statement, and a couple of particularly shitty things that happened, and then we're gonna tune in to see what Alex was doing while this was happening.
It's always good whenever there is simultaneous, like, you can put up side-by-side broadcasts of a man being sued into oblivion and a man being like, we're winning our asses off.
You will learn that each of the parents and family members here transformed their grief and rage over the death of a loved one into a powerful and effective motive for causing gun violence and promoting school safety.
unidentified
And who would you want to know?
Who can blame them?
They're members of interest groups.
They hold vigils.
They testify before Congress and state lawmakers.
They've become partisans.
They've walked into a divisive debate about guns in the Second Amendment and the extent to which the state should be more aggressive in making a safer madman.
Do they overstate the harm that Alex caused them?
Because they want to silence him for political reasons?
Our contention, to be clear, is that the damage claims here are exaggerated because of the idiosyncratic motives of the plaintiffs, transforming their griefs into political weapons.
I mean, I disagree, just from what I've seen level, because at a certain point, you can only say one more time and you're done, Mr. Pattis, before I don't give a shit anymore how many times you say one more time.
Because we've gotten a one more time literally every day.
You know, I mean, words can never hurt you until you print them out in block letters out of titanium that weigh a thousand pounds and then drop them on your head.
I mean, again, we talked about it in the last trial, but, like, the default judgment is a default judgment because all of the arguments that they would have made in court are essentially inadmissible.
And they're still trying to make those arguments.
And you can't say, you guys don't get to say anything now because you lost.
You can't say that.
I mean, as you said, giving them a wide berth is a reasonable thing to do.
But yeah, listening to his opening argument, I was sitting there going, technically you can't say that.
He's also the guy who worries that the chemicals in our water might be turning frogs gay, that weather balloons are secret government weapons, that trails from Airplanes are seeded with toxins that are destroying and controlling us, that Hillary abuses children, that pedophiles run the government, and that people actually eat babies to remain forever young.
Which of these messages do we take serious enough to regard them as a threat we should shut off, and at what point do we regard them as the crank on the village green, the person we can walk away from if we choose to?
This is an interesting tack that Norm is trying here because he's essentially arguing that Alex is simultaneously really serious and important and on the right track, but he's also a raving madman who you should just ignore.
At first glance, this seems like a message that Alex shouldn't endorse, but if you think about it a little more, you can see how this is exactly the kind of ambiguity that Alex wants to cultivate about himself in official circles.
For his audience, he says...
Yes.
That isn't going to fly, so a different tactic needs to be employed.
And it's that sometimes he's serious and sometimes you should just write off what he's saying as crazy.
It's a perfect way to evade any responsibility for anything you say, but simultaneously allow yourself to feel like a big boy hero about things you want to be taken seriously for.
There's an uncertainty about whether or not any particular thing Alex says should be taken seriously, and that works really well in this context.
Talking shit about social media being too powerful?
Take that deadly seriously and recognize that Alex was way ahead of the curve on that, and he was essentially a prophet.
Claiming that murdered children's family members are actors and the whole thing didn't really even happen?
Come on, he's crazy.
You can't take what he's saying seriously.
You can see how this game that Norm is playing works.
It's very transparent.
And I want to take this one step further.
I do think that the things that Norm is listing off as the crazy stuff Alex says that you should discount as the ravings of a madman are things that you should absolutely take seriously.
Alex isn't someone on a street corner, as Norm wants to imply, just talking to himself about outlandish theories.
Alex is a multi-millionaire businessman who's created a career out of disseminating these outlandish theories to masses of people.
He's not someone on a street corner, he's a demagogue with international reach.
And the ravings that are just supposed to be ignored?
Those aren't things that his audience are supposed to know that Alex's lawyer would describe that way in court.
These are very serious, very real, completely documented conspiracies that are aimed at killing you and your family.
This isn't up for debate on Alex's show, but mysteriously, when you're in a formal setting surrounded by people who aren't indoctrinated into the fold...
These are examples of things that Alex says that prove you shouldn't take what he says seriously.
The ludicrousness of the things Alex says is used as a defense against him taking responsibility for the real-world damage he causes, and I think that is something to take very seriously.
even beyond that the things norm is listing off are very fucked up conspiracy theories many of which have their roots and anti-semitic tropes from histories the the eating of children and drinking their blood is a holdover from the blood libel many of the conspiracies about poisoning the water in the air harken back to well poisoning accusations about jewish people intentionally spreading the bubonic plague leaving aside these big
roots of his talking points, there are just very serious dangers in the way that a non-insignificant number of people, and some elected officials, are using pedophilia accusations to rile up their followers into a state where they're causing real damage to people, primarily aimed at members of the LGBTQ community.
We need to take the impact that they have seriously, and the game Norm is playing here is an attempt to run cover for that.
And based on Norm's character, I'm pretty sure he knows what he's doing because he's a piece of shit.
And he should rise above that.
Sticks and stones, you know, break your bones and words don't hurt.
Everybody knows about the frog in the boiling pot of water analogy.
It's actually true.
The folks down in Louisiana and Mississippi like to eat their crawdads and their bullfrogs and the rest of it.
Well, sometimes they just throw the whole frog in the boiling pot, but they've learned that if you throw one into boiling water, he'll just jump right out.
But if you set him in a cool pot of water, and you just turn the heat up slow, he thinks it's a hot tub at first, and then passes out and dies a painless death.
And that's where America and the world is right now.
Frogs don't just sit in water as you turn up the heat.
People have conducted tests on this, and it's really consistent that if frogs have a way to get out of the water as it gets hotter, they do.
Also, they don't just magically jump out of boiling water.
Although there are less people conducting this test for obvious humane animal treatment reasons, biologists have discussed the prospect, and it's pretty clear that, you know, a frog being thrown into boiling water would just be burned immediately by the scalding water, and they'd try to escape but probably die.
This is a fun analogy for Alex to make because he comes from the school of anti-communism that views all social progress as the incremental change that is the metaphorical temperature of the water rising.
It's all kind of a fantasy, though, and the real metaphor is that the rise in temperature of this particular water is killing off Alex's ability to live in a society that caters solely to the needs of straight white Christian men.
Now, ironically, the phenomenon that's described by this boiling frog analogy actually kind of does apply to our collective response to climate change.
In that scenario, we're all frogs trapped in this pot, and Alex is a frog yelling at all of us that the water is not getting any hotter, and the globalists are just pushing that idea to get us to give up our food.
And to give you an example of how we're winning the culture war, Tucker Carlson talked last night about the horrible next level of deception and censorship that is taking place at the master of lies, the New York Times.
How drunk was the guy you saw passed out in the men's room at a Packers game?
How angry is Hillary Clinton at her husband?
Well, the answer in all cases is very, extremely, so thoroughly and so totally that it's hard to put into words.
So instead of describing the dishonesty of the New York Times with conventional adjectives, we'll give you a specific example.
Because we think it tells you more.
So last week, the paper told us that the best-selling book in the United States was a title called I'm Glad My Mom Died by a child actress called Jeanette McCurdy.
But that was not true.
That book was not the best-selling book in America.
In fact...
The best-selling book in America last week was The Great Reset and the War for the Worlds, written by Alex Jones.
So one thing we should just get clear before I get into any of this is that for over a decade, and probably way longer than that, people have been a bit confused about how bestseller lists...
There isn't necessarily a precise science to it, and if you look at different publications, you'll see different listings because they use different metrics.
I went and I checked the New York Times list, and sure enough, I'm glad my mom died is number one.
But if there's some kind of a weird systemic bias on this list...
I don't know how Jared Kushner's book Breaking History is coming in at number three in its third week on the list.
Or what about number 13 on the list being the book Battle for the American Mind by Peter Gegseth and David Goodwin, which is described as, quote, the Fox and Friends weekend host makes his case for what he calls a classical Christian education.
Seems like the Times would just say no thank you to that if they're just manipulating their shit.
There's one factor that I think is working against Alex, and that is that a ton of his books are being purchased directly from his website at a giant markup.
These purchases through Infowars wouldn't be confirmed purchases the Times would factor into their rankings, partially because Infowars store doesn't report sales data to the Times.
This is a major part of how the Times makes their list.
from their website about the list methodology quote rankings reflect unit sales reported on a confidential basis by vendors offering a wide range of general interest titles published in the united states every week thousands of diverse selling locations report their actual sales on hundreds of thousands of individual titles the panel of reporting retailers is comprehensive and reflect sales in tens of thousands of stores of all sizes and demographic
So, you know, they have, like, some smaller operators.
Some smaller bookstores, some chains, some Amazon, of course.
And so they have these to get a sampling of where books are sold.
And I'm guessing that he took the number of McCurdy's books sold from Alex, too, because it's cited in a bunch of InfoWars articles about how the Times is shadow banning Alex.
But what's this?
Books don't only come in hardcover and nonfiction?
If Alex really wants to make sure that all is right in the universe and make sure that the book that sold the most copies is number one, then he should be yelling about how Hoover's 2016 young adult romance novel, It Ends With Us, should be at number one.
He's not doing that because he doesn't actually care about how the Times list is compiled.
This is just about him taking his own petty grievance and insecurity about feeling left out and pretending it actually reveals a political point.
He also very clearly sees the potential this has as a way to drive sales.
Oh, my God.
Oh, fuck me.
700 words long, and it includes six hyperlinks to the Amazon page to buy Alex's book.
Also, I should note that the book is 36% off its original price like a week into its release, which definitely doesn't scream, we've leased people on pre-orders and now we're trying to sell off the rest of these books at a cut rate so they don't fill up the warehouse.
Alex did well.
He cashed in a bit on a book, and he should be proud of himself for turning his incoherent ramblings into 30-something thousand books sold.
But this whole thing is a bit much, and it's really pathetic for Tucker to be jumping in and basically doing a segment based on an Infowars article about how the cool kids at the Times aren't letting Alex sit at the table.
I'm gonna cover all the massive news and more, but here is the big news.
Inflation's off the hook.
Business sales across the border down.
We're going into a depression.
With inflation.
That's stagflation.
We're all in deep trouble.
And I'm just asking listeners to understand the storm is here.
It's not coming.
And with all the things you do in life, supporting corporate brands, supporting football games, all this crap, please set aside some money to keep InfoWars on the air because we're in Chapter 5 bankruptcy.
And the next few months it'll be decided whether we continue on or this shuts down.
And we are barely profitable.
And we've got to be able to show we're profitable as this plan goes forward in just the next six weeks.
So now is the most critical time in InfoWars history to go to InfoWarsStore.com and get DietForce.
I like that he played the Tucker clip as a way to sell his book, but he sold his book as a way to sell something that has a higher profit margin by saying, don't buy my book.
So this is, as always, what they're talking about.
It's a pre-print article that's being reported on by a COVID denial propagandist, so this isn't even really getting my eyebrows raised.
It's getting to be a yawn kind of thing.
Alex absolutely did not read this study.
It's 50 pages long, and he doesn't even sound like he read the title of Jim Hoff's blog before cold reading it on air.
He's just making up what he thinks he's reading, too.
The study itself is a cost-benefit analysis of mandating booster shots for people under 40, particularly in the context of college students.
The argument is that these mandates may not avert that many hospitalizations, and I can see where that may make some sense.
I think that would be very reasonable.
never came into contact with each other.
But seeing as we all do intermingle and vaccines are a community level solution to a problem, not an individual level one, I have some issues with just the very idea of this.
That being said, Hoff's headline is bullshit.
The study didn't say that vaccines are 98 times worse than the virus, as Alex is repeating.
That number, 98, is used in the paper as the high-end estimate of the number of serious adverse events you might expect to see in a hypothetical college of 30,000 students who are all given the booster.
And I don't say it again with some arrogant pleasure.
I say it to recognize what you as listeners have backed and your commissioning of this operation.
This is the tip of the spear.
This is the platinum standard.
This is it right here.
And don't think I don't know that.
And don't think it isn't a giant weight on me.
So, if you can temporize and actually let it get into your mind and understand that obviously, of course, America is the main resistance, as bad as we are.
And of course, the main resistance in America is coming out of a place like Texas.
That's the way the world's been.
It's the way the world still is.
As Texas goes, America goes.
As America goes, so goes the world.
You know who said that?
Dwight D. Eisenhower, when he was first elected president in the 1950s.
So this is just a layperson, but that's the most important people that got hundreds of thousands of views on Instagram asking the question, and I love how they say, astrologists are saying the economy's going to implode.
Well, that's astrologists seeing the economy implode and saying, I'll make the prediction according to the stars this is going to happen.
Yeah, Alex has a lot of nerve talking down on astrologers when he gets his information from prophetic dreams he's had and visions brought on by chicken fried steak.
Eddie sent to Alex has to do with a bunch of musicians canceling tours and stuff, and it's because they know that something's going to happen, like a false flag terror event, a concert, or there's going to be another coronavirus lockdown or something.
So then, there's another band I've never heard of that canceled a tour, and then, quote, Foo Fighters cancel all tour dates after drummer Taylor Hawkins' death.
I think at 16 I might have done a musical or a play at my school and it freaked me out.
Anyway, honestly, this is some of the stupidest, most early 2000s conspiracy message board-ass shit, and it's no surprise that Alex said that Eddie Bravo tipped him off on this one.
When I say going back to the past is more interesting for me, there's more to do, a lot of it is because Alex is doing this Tucker segment, the COVID conspiracy of the day that's from some dumbass's substack, and then Eddie Bravo sent me a fucking Instagram video about some bullshit.
So I was curious about this bombshell report Alex is covering here, so I searched for the words he was saying, and imagine my surprise when I found that he's just reading the headline for the article on Infowars that includes the embedded video of the show that he's in the middle of doing.
This is just a headline Alex himself has written for this day's show.
And you can see the exact same wording reposted on tons of really shady-looking blogs, all of which are just reposting Alex's video, but weirdly, none of them have links to these documents in this Israeli study that is supposed to be the bombshell.
So I did a little digging around, and I found what Alex is covering, and it's just another post on Steve Kirsch's subset.
There's a video on Rumble that purports to be from the Israeli health ministry having a meeting where they discuss findings that there are some longer-term side effects of the Pfizer vaccine that hadn't been known previously, findings which are being said to have been covered up by Pfizer and the Israeli government.
I can't find coverage of this on any outlet that I find even halfway respectable, and I don't speak Hebrew, so I don't know what's being said in this video.
The context in the original narrative framework for this story traces back to a post on Twitter by a woman named Yafa Shiraz, who's credited generally as a health and risk communications researcher and a health journalist.
This translates to her running a website called Real Time News, which is kind of...
It comes off as an Israeli version of a lot of the dicey sources that I run into on this show.
Things like WorldNetDaily, Gateway Pundit, or Steve Kirsch's Substack.
I don't know too much about Shiraz, but it's worth noting that she was a major source of the fraudulent narrative that tons of soccer players were dropping dead because of vaccine side effects.
She fudged data and miscalculated shocking numbers on that front.
Which then became big talking points in the anti-vax world that we cover.
For this reason, and because there's absolutely zero reputable coverage of this video, I'm skeptical of the way it's being discussed.
These particular information sources haven't earned the benefit of the doubt, so I got nowhere to go on this thing.
I can cover it as it's being told by these people, and the ways that Alex's coverage of it doesn't even match the version of it that exists.
That is like a group of researchers that were commissioned by the health ministry to look at side effects, and they apparently found some longer-term side effects and some side effects that hadn't been seen in the signals that Pfizer had taken note of.
And then, apparently after this, the health ministry put out a report.
Or maybe even in conjunction with Pfizer that covered up these side effects that they found.
CDC admits it falsely claimed it was monitoring vaccine safety, but still won't release the full data, but now we're admitting that it's killing people.
There desperately needs to be some prison time.
CDC director admits agency gave false information on COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring because they didn't do it because they'd done secret tests at the CDC, knew it was killing the rat.
The Epoch Times was running some stories about the CDC's monitoring of VAERS data, and they were contending that the CDC was not analyzing the data at all.
The CDC had made some comments that they had used a data analysis method called proportional reporting ratio, or PRR.
But, in fact, they had only used that method between March 25, 2002 and July 31, 2022.
As is clarified in a letter from the CDC director to Senator Ron Johnson, who is questioning her about this, quote, CDC and FDA chose to rely on empirical Bayesian data mining, a more robust technique used to analyze disproportionate reporting rather than PRR calculations to mitigate potential false signals.
CDC performed PRR analysis between March 25th and July 31st, 2022 to corroborate the results of the EB data mining.
Notably, results from PRR analysis were generally consistent with EB data mining, revealing no additional unexpected safety signals.
This isn't a story about the CDC not monitoring data.
It's just about them using a different methodology that they felt was more useful and possibly someone misspeaking at some point in the past.
It's so funny, and so just the world of humanity, that the idea of somebody going out of their way to double-check if something's right is the source of a conspiracy for people.
He can't make his point by discussing reality, so he just...
Incidentally, the CBN story includes this that Alex never talks about, doesn't mention this at all.
Quote, The disorder can be acquired or congenital.
Right, right, right.
on the story and no one mentions whether or not he was vaccinated.
I did find a lot of angry blogs saying that the fact that stories don't say whether he was vaccinated is proof that he is and they're covering it up.
I think that's dumb.
Also, in July 2021, Ohio, where this high school is located, passed a law prohibiting mandates for public schools, so there's literally no reason to just automatically assume that he was vaccinated.
Alex doesn't care about the reality of this situation.
To him, this story is useful if the kid was vaccinated so he can make it look like this is a consequence of vaccination, so he doesn't need any proof to justify reporting that he was.
That's how simple his brain is, and how little he cares about what he tells his audience.
I only remember a couple of those French players, and then the U.S. World Cup team from when I was a kid, because they tried really hard to make Alexi Lalas a really cool grunge-type figure, because he had the red hair and the beard.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, constitutional lawyer, historian, good friend of mine, criminal lawyer as well, Robert Barnes joins us into the next hour.
And no, he's not here right now to talk about the show trial in Connecticut.
Alex had to save himself because he had just spent a while talking about how cool Aaron Rodgers was because he was on Bill Maher's shit and he was doing some anti-vax nonsense.
Every major news channel demonizing us, lying about us, and never explaining that you don't find somebody guilty by a judge and then have a show trial about how guilty are they.
Tying the hands of lawyers in Texas, tying the hands in Connecticut.
But the difference is...
In Texas, the judge would turn the internet feed off, and the cameras would all immediately turn it off, and she would spend hours lecturing my lawyer that he couldn't speak.
People said, his lawyer's an idiot.
Why is he defending?
Because it's a damages hearing where they're having their own trial, but then we can't defend because we're, quote, guilty, the judges say.
So this isn't accurate at all, but what can you really expect?
Norm's strategy, as far as we've seen up to this point, is to insist that the plaintiffs are political operatives who've transmuted their grief about a tragedy into activism against the Second Amendment, and they're exaggerating their trauma in order to use money and the legal system as weapons against Alex because he's the only true supporter of the Second Amendment or something.
As a consequence of their default sanctions, Alex's side isn't permitted to make certain claims, which they could have contested and raised in an actual trial if they hadn't engaged in a very clear pattern of malicious non-participation with the discovery process.
As the third day of the trial really seemed to make clear, there are many things that were intentionally withheld from discovery, particularly Google Analytics data.
I can't confirm whether or not Infowars has ever used Google Analytics, Dan.
She is the corporate representative and a lot of Thursday, day three, had to do with the question of Google Analytics because they were supposed to turn over these Google Analytics data.
So here's what you're going to say when we turn this data over to you.
Because we had a huge spike in traffic, and we knew about that by checking Google Analytics, we used that to decide what our coverage about Sandy Hook going forward would be, and we saw that the right way to do it was to lie about it.
So this is just the latest example of things that they clearly didn't turn over that were responsive to discovery demands.
The texts that Mark produced in the Austin case that included the word Sandy Hook clearly demonstrate either an active decision to not turn them over, or that Infowars didn't even look for the stuff that they were required to look for, which is still...
This song and dance got old long ago, but we're in another trial, so we're going to hear this quite a bit.
The ultimate irony is that Barnes was Alex's lawyer during a lot of the beginning of the discovery abuse, so he might not be Alex's lawyer now, but he's in essence the architect of getting Alex into the situation he's in now.
Seems like the perfect person to interview about how you're being wronged by the courts.
The judge in Texas didn't turn off the internet feeds and lecture Alex's lawyer for hours.
That's just completely made up and actually might be defamatory.
Chris Meddy, the plaintiff's lawyer here in Connecticut, did say that a fitting punishment for Alex is to get him off air to make it so he can't profit off hurting people in the future.
argued to be a little bit out there in terms of an opening, but I think it's fine.
It's a damages hearing, and the lawyer is saying that fitting damages would be to impose whatever punishment makes Alex unable Yeah.
with Norm's questioning of the FBI agent, who was the first witness called by the plaintiffs.
That had to do with Norm asking inappropriate questions about whether or not he was one of the people in Connecticut who had petitioned NBC to not air the Megyn Kelly interview.
It wasn't trying to take Alex off air, per se.
And Alex himself filmed a bunch of videos where he was trying to get that interview pulled, so I don't even know what the point is here.
Also, Norm had no reason to believe that the guy was involved in that, and his conduct was way out of line.
It was part of a chain of things he got reprimanded for, where he was trying to present to the jury that Alex was only getting sued because of Hillary Clinton putting a target on him.
Basically the premise of that cool documentary, Alex's War.
If you want to see what good defense advocacy looks like against a rogue judge in a hostile setting, there is no better example than Norm Pattis' representations yesterday.
And I recommended watching that video in this part of the trial to people all across the country, even if they're not interested in this case particularly.
On the third day, Norm fell asleep for a short stretch and then quote tweeted a post from Mike Cernovich who was trying to be edgy about bussing immigrants to Martha's Vineyard.
Because it was the setup for a Three Stooges bit where it was like the judge saying to the lawyers and the jury like, hey, you know, it happens sometimes where the jury has to get up and go out and get up and go out and I'm going to try not to make you do that.
So we're just going to talk to the lawyers here and she's telling Norm, don't do what you're doing.
You can't do that.
I'll have to send the jury out of the room.
And he's like, no, listen, you're right.
You're right.
I won't do that.
And then five seconds later, he does it, and she just screamed, get over here!
That was the moment where it was like, you've got to be kidding me.
And what's the one name that is all about what led to this case that this judge says can't be mentioned, can't be asked about, can't be talked about, can't discuss it in opening statement, can't discuss it in direct examination, can't discuss it in cross-examination?
In fact, as Norm Patterson explained, this whole case came about because of Hillary Clinton.
And yet Hillary Clinton is the one name that can't be talked about, can't ask questions about her, can't mention her opening statement, can't reference her to the jury.
Yeah, it was like when he was talking about, he was trying to get Brittany to admit that she's lying, and he kept saying the word lie, and Norm objected, like, you can't say lie?
That makes it, and the judge has to be, like, overruled.
And the whole thing with Hillary, that's a really interesting thing you could have done in court if you had not gotten yourself defaulted by a clear pattern of abuse of the discovery process.
I mean, it would have failed as a defense.
It would have been ridiculous.
But it would have been appropriate in that other setting.
Well, I will say that Alex does again say that people he knows and his lawyers don't know who Adam Lanza is, which again is shockingly poor preparation on their part, if that's true, which it's not.
Bill Aldenberg was likely their first witness because he has a very powerful story about being one of the people who responded to the school, who had to see the horrors of what had happened firsthand, and then was subjected to a campaign of harassment and attacks because of information put out by Wolfgang Halbig and endorsed by Alex.
This has to do with the accusation that he was an actor and accusations that he and one of the parents were the same person, so it is all connected to the exact same stuff that is relevant to everybody.
Also, weird that Barnes doesn't bring up that the second witness was Carly Soto, who was a relative of Victoria Soto, the teacher at the school who died.
Another thing to keep in mind is that what has been covered does have a lot to do with damages in that aspect of this case.
It's just that acknowledging that is really dangerous for Alex and Barnes.
First of all, the anguish that these people have experienced is incredibly relevant.
Secondly, the details about Alex's business operation and how things work internally demonstrate the extent to which they were aware of the profitability of acting in ways that caused that anguish.
It's all super relevant, and if Barnes really wanted a chance to deal with his stupid arguments in court, he had his shot.
I guess he could probably bring some of this stuff up to defend himself when Alex sues him for malpractice, if that ends up happening.
I mean, it is true that NPR sells memberships and you get gifts with the memberships that would cost less if you just bought them at a store like a mug or something.
There's a slight difference, though, and I don't think I would be super into paying that much for a mug if Kai Rizdahl was desperately yelling at me to buy the mug so we can pay his legal expenses to fight a lawsuit that he's already lost about how he defends.
Family members of murdered children.
Then I don't think I would get into the pledge drive.
He's just like, hey, Marketplace is a show that I do.
All of the conservative institutional press, anybody that's involved on the legal side should be embarrassed and humiliated that they're defending this case.
I dare any of them to watch yesterday's proceeding and call that a fair trial, to call that the beacon of American civil justice.
America's justice system is supposed to be the beacon of justice to the world.
And right now it looks like a dystopian nightmare.
Right, but associating this right-wing billionaire guy with funding Trump is not something that is generally unacceptable, but Roger's bringing it out.
And he stepped forward essentially to underwrite at tens of millions of dollars the endorsements of J.D. Vance for the U.S. Senate in Ohio and Blake Masters in Arizona.
I might add that I very strongly support, both of them America first candidates.
But having financed their nominations.
Mr. Thiel is now declining to finance their general election efforts, and both of them are behind their opponents slightly and behind their opponents in fundraising.
Mr. Thiel comes forward and says, well, the Republican Party has not defined enough of a positive image, a positive program for this election.
Alex, all elections are about the incumbent party, about the job that is being done.
By congressional Democrats in combination with the Biden White House.
And now they are unpopular and not raising money, and Peter Thiel isn't continuing to give them millions of dollars to prop up their general campaigns.
And then secondarily, you have Kevin McCarthy, who kind of following in the footsteps of Newt Gingrich, has put forward a proposal that is kind of reminiscent of the contract for America.
The problem with this is, In order to have a policy statement broad enough for every Republican to support, all one needs to do is to look at the flip side of the Biden administration.
In other words, I disagree with putting forward pale pastels.
We need to have a bold policy, but it's easily defined as being the direct opposite of that which the Democrats are for.
But, I mean, all this is basically Roger, his entire take on the midterms in this interview is just classic Roger.
Attack.
Don't defend ever.
Attack.
If this midterm is going to be about us being worried about your trial, about the Sandy Hook stuff, about Bannon getting arrested, about Mike Lindell's phone being taken away, Trump being in trouble, the Mar-a-Lago raid, if we're going to play those games at all, we're fucked.
I mean, it would be better if he was like, it reminds me of whenever I was an intern for Nixon's campaign, and he was like, should we just say whites only?
Alex, the only thing that's predictable about Donald J. Trump is that he's entirely unpredictable.
In a certain sense, the assault on his home in Mar-a-Lago has galvanized his support so that I don't think an immediate announcement of candidacy is either in the offing.
I mean, I am now enlisting the Mad Hatter to run for president because if the only thing that you guys need is that it's unpredictable, dude, I've got news for you.
You know, as I have said here on the show and in other places, I still yet fear some other kind of manufactured health crisis, some kind of additional pandemic.
If Alex has this conception that these super powerful evil people can just launch pandemics whenever they want and all this, why didn't it work, according to Alex?
That goes through all the effort of launching a bioweapon, and then they're sitting in their bunker, their underground base, and they're like, fuck, it didn't work.
The strategy in the last fake trial, where I'm already found guilty a month ago in this new one, where the judge is promising to hold me in contempt before I even get there next week, is that I have hundreds of millions of dollars.
On my children, I don't have a million and a half dollars in the bank.
And as big an operation as this is, that's like on E. And I don't want to get into all this, but...
Just a week ago, we were like, hey, we're doing well in the Chapter 5 bankruptcy.
All we got to do is prove we're profitable.
And then whatever judgments they have can't shut us down.
Just whatever profit there is in the future, these jerks get.
But who cares?
We're on air.
We don't care about money.
And they're openly saying, get rid of the bankruptcy, just shut him down to the bankruptcy judge.
The judge is like, whoa, that's not what you're supposed to do.
So if you understand what he's saying, basically what he's trying to do in bankruptcy court is artificially inflate the amount of money that's coming into the business to make it appear that he's profitable and solvent by just doing these things like...
You know, the release of the book and the 1776 coin.
So we have one last clip here, and this just really captures the vibe towards the end of the show.
It's a bummer.
unidentified
We were just...
Lord, I cannot change!
You say that you want to go to the land that's far away.
How are we supposed to get there with the way that we're living today?
You talk lots about God.
Freedom comes from the car But that's not what This is not what I want at all I want to be I want you to be The crimes of the vaccine poison will bring to the New World Order or will bring us down.