Today, Dan and Jordan celebrate their 800th episode by discussing Alex's response to the news that Tucker Carlson got fired by Fox News. Alex weaves a few yarns about the situation, interviews a sex offender, and Dan and Jordan go over a rare "retraction" Alex made a while back.
I have not been able to turn away from it because in the past few years when he's only been the greatest baseball player that ever lived, it was great to watch.
It was always great.
And now it's slightly more great.
I know that's not a bright spot to a lot of people, but if you're the greatest and you get slightly more great, that's also great.
I talk to Tucker quite frequently, but two days ago my phone got wet and I hadn't backed it up and I haven't had time to go to the store, so I've been without the phone.
It's kind of been great in a way.
It's getting fixed right now.
I'm unable to talk to Tucker.
I've got his number but have not called him yet because I just learned this news about 25 minutes ago.
Now, I told you a couple weeks ago, we could be taking off here at any time.
The globalists are making their move.
You saw them take James O 'Keefe down.
Now, he's still fighting back.
But ladies and gentlemen, New World Order is making its moves right now.
And you need to not take this show for granted or take any of your freedoms for granted because the globalists are systematically cutting off the power, getting rid of the borders.
I just had a lengthy 45-minute discussion this morning with senior people in the federal government.
I'll leave it at that.
I mean, extremely senior.
And they have been trying to get the story out, obviously, on Fox.
And they have the documents of Biden releasing over 20,000 known pedophiles.
I mean hardcore child rapists.
I mean people that have been convicted of being school bus drivers for disabled children and raping eight of them, nine of them.
And I'm just sitting there for 45 minutes that I had to go in this meeting, hearing all this, the documents, and I'm sitting there talking to feds from different agencies.
All over the country, people are coming up to young 10, 11, 12-year-old girls in Walmart and Target parking lots, and a woman will walk over and go, hey, honey, but they're wearing a glove with fentanyl on them and putting it on their arm, and then the girl passes out.
I don't know what Alex's definition of, like, senior people in the federal government is, but I don't think that we have the same sense of what that is.
The abuse of children is a prop that's meant to give power to the larger problem, which is Biden, who's supposedly releasing all of these hardened sex criminals.
He's not really cared about the end result problem as much as he is using that.
So there is an actual single case that came out that Alex is talking about where a 15-year-old girl was lured away from a Dallas Mavericks game on April 8, 2022, and found being trafficked at a hotel in Oklahoma City 10 days later.
It's an unthinkable horror that girl went through, and the people responsible have been arrested and hopefully seized.
The full extent of...
the law's punishments.
Alex is taking her actual experience and exploiting it by generalizing it into a narrative that's happening on this giant scale at Mavericks games.
And, you know, he's ballooning it out from a single example, which is what he does.
That's really inappropriate.
And it illustrates pretty clearly his disrespect for the victims in crimes like this.
Trafficking is real, but Alex's approach to this does nothing to solve the problem.
It's only designed to blame his chosen target for the existence of the problem and to direct the audience's negative emotions onto that chosen target.
The fentanyl thing is something that's popped up on social media memes over the past year or so in different forms, but there's no evidence that that's happening.
In September of last year, there was a viral post about claims that people were handing out roses laced with fentanyl to try to incapacitate people to be trafficked.
Experts who have way done all this have said that this method of incapacitating someone would be very impractical.
The difference in dose between knocking your target out and killing them would be very small, so you would probably end up...
Most people just ignore his dumb publicity stunts and he's essentially a political non-variable.
However, the Project Veritas board didn't appreciate that he was spending ridiculous amounts of money on personal stuff like, quote, $14,000 on a charter flight to meet someone to fix his boat under the guise of meeting with a donor.
Or how he spent, quote, more than $150,000 on private cars in an 18-month span.
They directly called it misappropriation of their finances, and a lot of his stunts have the potential to leave Veritas open to legal exposure, as it did in 2022 when the organization was successfully sued for $120,000 for violating wiretapping laws in one of their stings.
James O 'Keefe is a piece of shit, and his actions are a liability for the organization that he founded now that it's grown into something that involves more than publicity stunts to feed his ego.
No one's trying to ruin his life, he's just facing the piling up of consequences for shitty actions he's made, and he can't bear the prospect of admitting that, so it has to be someone else's fault.
Has to be the result of a giant global conspiracy out to get him, and people...
Maybe this would be a good time for him to sit back and consider how the people he claims have the same political beliefs as him seem to all be people who are operating their businesses in super scammy ways that are often illegal.
Maybe he doesn't actually have a political community as much as he has a collection of con men who are invested in protecting each other's scams because they're somewhat interdependent.
AOC didn't say the conservatives should not be allowed on TV.
She said that, quote, we have real issues with what's permissible on air, and we saw that with January 6th, and we saw that in the lead up to January 6th, and how we navigate questions, not just freedom of speech, but also accountability for incitement of violence.
That's the role we have to explore through law as well.
She went on to say, And when you look at what Tucker Carlson and some of these other folks on Fox do, it's very, very clearly incitement of violence.
Very clearly.
And that's the line that I think we have to be willing to contend with.
This was reported in right-wing media's AOC saying that they needed to make new laws and regulation to not let Tucker do the shit he does, but that's not accurate.
She was just saying those regulations already exist, and we just need to acknowledge reality for what it is and take this shit seriously, which of course would be a threat to most of them.
You say that if they brainwash one of his daughters to become a boy, and if two of his family members almost died from the shot, and you decide to go against the globalists.
Now, maybe he thinks he'll beat them.
He'll become not the king of Mars, but the king of Earth.
I don't know.
But I know when you see something at that level, they come after you because...
Saturday, I haven't had a phone, so I haven't been able to call Tucker.
Plus, I just learned this 30 minutes ago, but they're fixing my phone right now at the AT&T store, so as soon as I get it, I'm going to call Tucker.
And Rob Dew has his number to put a text into him about 20 minutes ago to call us, but I'm sure he's overwhelmed right now.
But Tucker got offered by the Republican Party to sell out, and he would have been president of the United States in 2024.
They're like, you got the deal, work with us, you'll be president.
And Tucker said, I'm not going to be in New York or D.C., and I'm going to be in Florida or Maine, and I am never going to be in the power structure, and I hate you, and I'll never serve you.
That he said, I'm going to put whatever the story was on air or fire me, and they said, you're fired.
Because I know the inside baseball and some previous things that went on, but I'm not going to talk about it until I talk to Tucker and see if it's okay with him.
We're talking a fraction of what they were offering to have freedom on a show.
And they've not been giving him that on places like having Alex Jones on.
Or going on Alex Jones' show.
And I encouraged him.
To just continue to do whatever good he could there.
But I think when it comes out, we're going to learn, unless he had to sign on disclosure, that he said, no, I'm going to do whatever the interview was he wanted to do.
I think it would be smart for him to make his own thing, but I think he could also go on Rogan or something like that and get a lot of mileage out of it.
I've made some phone calls, but now it's confirmed.
Because I've learned how the New World Order operates because I've been on the receiving end of their operations.
They're doing a purge at Fox, a purge at CNN, not a purge at MSNBC, of what they call extreme left and extreme right, to make us all a friendly, nice nation where you're not allowed to question election fraud, you're not allowed to question open borders, but you also can't be mean and say bad things about conservatives.
You see AOC saying we've got to lower the temperature and call for there not to be violence like Tucker Carlson's doing.
Yeah, and I gotta say, no endurance in impressions.
He was unable to keep that character constant.
I find that sad.
For someone who was in the running for world's greatest voiceover actor before Obama came along and ruined his career, I feel like he can't stay in character.
I guess AOC has magical powers, where her stray words in interviews become the policy of multi-million dollar corporations.
Seems like a waste to use that power this way, but here we are.
Also fun for Alex to accidentally admit that Tucker is an extreme right-wing figure.
Disney...
This need for everything to be connected is a very interesting dynamic, because if you really pay attention, it's a selective game.
For example, James Gordon's show went away on Monday, too, so is Alex going to feel the need to connect that to his larger conspiracy narrative that he's constructing?
Probably not, because it's inconvenient, and it's too hard to make that fit and make sense.
That's just a random thing that happened, but Don Lemon's termination, that's related.
For what it's worth, there's been speculation that Lemon's termination has to do with some sexist comments and behavior, including recently saying on air that Nikki Haley was, quote, not in her prime.
Variety covered what appears to be a bit of a pattern behind the scenes in an article they published on April 5th, which could go a long way toward explaining what feels kind of like an abrupt termination, but maybe isn't.
Like, I mean, if you were going to put a conspiracy together, you would start with BuzzFeed News going completely away, followed by, okay, so now we've got an entire publication going down.
All of a sudden, now we're getting...
Famous anchors going down.
All of a sudden, what's going to happen next?
They're coming for all news for saying something or other.
Because, you see, When you watch Disney and Anheuser-Busch and Nike commit financial suicide by promoting pedophilia and mutilation of children, you say, why are they doing that?
Because these are just weapons systems owned by the big banks.
You know, it's one of those things that he talks about.
He throws out there all the time, you know?
But it is like, they don't want you to have a nice house with a nice pool and all that stuff.
And it's like...
I mean, honestly, I kind of don't.
You're wasting a lot of water.
What you're talking about with psychotics going and attacking you, you have to realize by consuming so fucking much you are passively doing to any number of people.
I tried to start a political party based entirely around the idea of covering the Earth's surface with shipping containers and all of us living in an underground, you know, thing.
And so all the middle class and all the nouveau riche and all the wealthy people that aren't globalists don't get organized and don't dedicate their time and energy to fighting tyranny, or they try to hide and keep themselves safe, and that's why you're going to lose everything.
Keeping safe with a criminal takeover ensures you get destroyed.
Yeah, maybe you get eaten a little bit later.
Where are your instincts?
But it is the common people that are the ones that donate and give and care and spread the word.
But it's all the folks that live in the country clubs that think they're safe and that think that they're isolated from everything else who are going to wish to your dying minute you'd have done more when you had a damn chance.
Get me the Alexander Schultz and Eatsen quote printed for the next hour of, oh, how we burned in the camps.
Like a world where there's this real idiot who lies all the time and is a complete dramatic embarrassment on the air and it hurts people constantly and doesn't give a fuck about it.
And how we burned in the camps later thinking, what would things have been like?
If every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and have to say goodbye to his family, or if during periods of mass arrest, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, pawing with terror at every bang on the downstairs door, at every step on the staircase, but had understood.
They had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, and whatever else they had in hand because they didn't have guns.
The organs would have very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers in transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, The cursed machine would have ground to a halt if, if we didn't love freedom enough, and even more, we had no awareness of the real situation.
We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.
They're going to murder you and your family.
They're going to rip your children's teeth out while they rape them with pliers right in front of you.
I mean, that's what they do.
I mean, this is it.
This is the end of America.
This is the takeover.
This is the New World Order.
It's already lawless.
It's already gone to hell.
This is the takeover.
And you can sit there and play games all day long.
Stalin just wanted totally obedient slaves for his industrial revolution for global domination.
He was willing to kill 40 million people to do it.
Yeah, you know, it is a little bit on the ironic side to say, oh, they're coming to kill you and enslave you, and that's why I want you to work for free.
Please go get this report about the UN legalizing pedophilia or trying to and Washington State saying they're going to take children from parents and forcibly sterilize them.
Going along with this is a frickin' nihilistic death wish.
This is survival you're seeing.
This is resistance you're seeing.
This is not some heroic exercise.
It's confirmed in the last two years in the Texas sector alone they've given hundreds of thousands of children over to sex traffickers and traffickers and they've let loose at least 20,000 hardcore convicted pedophiles.
So all of you that work for the system that don't stand up against this, and a lot of the systems standing up, just remember, you're just as guilty as the criminals.
So that's all.
I need your support.
You need my support.
We're in this together.
And I'd like to see an indicator of your support.
Support us at InfoWarsTour.com.
But regardless, share the articles, share the videos.
Owen Schroer took a well-deserved week off, and he was back today.
And here's what was going on behind the scenes.
I have so much business stuff to take care of to keep this show on air.
I'm not complaining.
It's just I came to the producers about 45 minutes prior to time, and I said, call Owen and tell him, come host the show today, because I've literally got to go around and deal with stuff running this place, or we won't be here.
Then I called Owen 20 minutes before, and he goes, hey, I'm actually here.
So we walked over and talked to each other.
He said, yeah, I just learned about it.
I said, well, why don't you co-host with me in the second hour and the third hour today?
unidentified
And so he is here with us now to give his insight, something, whatever.
Well, that's why it's so important for people to understand how radical and dangerous the American left has become, because they're the ones that control this entire court system now, and they know it.
Let's say you take LeBron James, and you sit him down next to some high school freshman benchwarmer.
And that benchwarmer says, I'm better.
I'm going to beat LeBron James.
Well, yeah, he could say, well, okay, I'll go play you.
But if he knows every bucket he makes is worth negative two points and every bucket the other guy makes is worth 100 points, well, that's a rigged game.
You're not going to win that game.
So you could say, well, yeah, I'm going to go to court and I'm going to take my chances and I'm going to get discovery and I'm going to argue my cases.
Doesn't matter.
It's a rigged case.
You cannot win it.
And so that's what I think people are starting to learn here.
But if Alex and Owen exist in this circumstance and they're completely innocent, they could play good defense during their trial and end up coming out with a not billion dollar loss.
So, Fox didn't have a default judgment or anything like that.
Text messages were found in Discovery that very clearly indicated that the people who were making fraudulent claims about Dominion knew that what they were reporting on was false when they reported it, which means that the case for actual malice would be very simple for Dominion to make.
Fox hadn't lost the case at that point officially, but everyone, including Fox, knew that if it went to trial, they had no chance, which is why they settled.
Alex had every opportunity to engage with Discovery in his own case, and he chose not to, because he also knew that he would lose if the case went to trial.
He tried to lowball the Sandy Hook families with settlement offers, which they declined, so he was not given the offer amp that Fox was able to take.
Instead, he was forced to drag his heels and try every trick he could to come up with to stall the proceedings and hope to force the families to settle.
They did not, and ultimately Alex's shitty behavior earned him a lot of fines in the form of sanctions, and ultimately when other attempts to get him to participate failed, he was defaulted.
He did it all to himself.
He has no one else to blame.
And interestingly...
During the damages hearing, Alex went on air and made claims about the plaintiffs and the case.
When the Texas case was ongoing, Alex talked quite a bit about Scarlett Lewis and Neil Hesslin, which was really, really disrespectful.
One of the claims he made about Ms. Lewis was that she realized that Alex was actually right and that her attorneys had lied to her about him, which we can hear in this clip here.
And I got on the stand and I said, Scarlett, go to the fourth segment.
Go to 33 after in my show today.
On stand.
I said, watch it.
I said, you're real.
I said, your son's real.
Whoever gave that to you is a liar.
She got up and left, came back an hour later crying and was like, oh.
And she said, well, you're right.
He told that story repeatedly.
Because they use these families as pawns.
The families come over and shook my hand and hugged me and Really woke up 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.
You may notice in this version of the story, she came up to him crying the next day, whereas the previous telling of it was an hour later after she'd gone and watched Alex's show to find the alleged truth.
Yeah, there's a discrepancy here because Alex is just making this story up.
One possible reason is because without some kind of face-saving story like this, Alex seems like the piece of shit that he actually is in the case of the trial.
He traumatized these grieving parents and then continued to do so while the trial was happening because it was profitable for him.
Sincerely, another possibility is that Alex really is just that delusional?
Reality may not be a fixed construct for him, and events exist merely to satisfy story beats that he needs to exist to be there so he can tell his heroic narrative.
I don't think that's the case, but it's a possibility.
Whatever the case, after Alex was on Pierce's show, Scarlett sent him a warning letter saying that he needed to retract and correct this clear lie about her.
You may notice that this never happened on his show, and we haven't heard about it.
And that's because it's buried in a video he put out on band...
And almost nobody has seen.
But since I was curious, and because I'll take any excuse not to listen to Owen co-hosting, I decided now might be a good time for us to listen to that retraction video as a distraction.
I actually found this because I was going through, Alex made all these ridiculous claims about how many views his videos get, and so I was going through trying to find the last time he had anything that was over a million views, and I don't think I could find anything.
The following is a clarification correction issued by myself, Alex Jones, here on InfoWars.
As many know, I was sued by Miss Scarlett Lewis concerning certain remarks I had made about the shooting and death of her son at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
In early August of 2022, We were in trial in Austin, Texas on Ms. Lewis' claims of defamation she filed against me.
During that trial, Ms. Lewis and her ex-husband approached me to talk, which we did, and after a brief conversation, we shook hands.
Later, I appeared on Piers Morgan's television show talking about the trial and recounted the brief conversation I had with Ms. Lewis.
Recently, I received a letter from Mark Bankston, one of the lawyers for Ms. Scarlett Lewis, in the Texas Sandy Hook trial, in which Ms. Lewis' lawyer demanded from me a correction, clarification, or retraction of those few statements I had made.
In January of 2023 on the Piers Morgan Show about the courtroom conversation with Miss Lewis, and I'm happy to oblige.
First, I want the viewing audience to understand what I said and what Mr. Bankson has demanded of me so that my remarks today will clarify my retraction I'm going to make.
It's important to keep in mind that during the trial, I continued to produce my live talk radio show.
On the morning of August 2nd, 2022, I made certain comments about the tragic nature of the Sandy Hook shooting, where I confirmed that Miss Lewis was real, and the shooting was real, and the death of her son was real.
Ms. Lewis, however, was incorrectly told that I had attacked her as an actor in my broadcast and she so testified, not having actually heard my on-air statements from that morning's broadcast.
I was called to testify immediately after Ms. Lewis, and I immediately corrected her misperception.
Later that afternoon, at a break, Ms. Lewis and her ex-husband walked over to me in the courtroom.
Ms. Lewis handed me a bottle of water and, as I recall, a cough drop.
We shook hands and we exchanged cordial words Attorney Mark Bankston now wants me to retract what I remembered she said to me in that exchange Kind of her, considering Alex had a fake torn larynx.
And then the other thing, too, is I guess up to this point, he has also mischaracterized a number of things in terms of the course of events.
But, you know, I think at this four-minute point, you can get away with just being like, I retract, and then it's as good as you're going to get with Alex.
That I retract my statement he quotes regarding Ms. Lewis' response to me on August 2nd.
I have gone back and reviewed the video available of that day's event, and I want to show five relevant clips from these videos.
These clips come from August 2nd, 2022.
Number one shows Ms. Lewis' trial testimony.
The second video, my response in trial testimony.
Third video, my actual morning on-air statements.
Four, the end-of-day brief courtroom conversation.
And finally, number five, my August 3rd the following morning, my court testimony about Miss Lewis shaking my hand and how much I appreciated that handshake.
The first is that Alex absolutely did not care if what he was saying hurt Scarlett Lewis or Neil Heslin.
His primary operating principle is to use people like them as a means to an end, not an end in and of themselves.
There was a video of him shaking their hands, so he knew he could make up a story about that interaction that would be believable enough to his audience based on the fact that the video exists.
That's all he cared about, and if he never got a demand for a retraction that his lawyers insisted he take seriously, Alex would never have even considered how much his words could affect Ms. Lewis.
They don't exist as actual people with actual feelings to Alex unless he needs to act like they do in order to avoid the consequences of his actions.
The second major problem is that he seems to be trying to mount a defense for his claims rather than retract or clarify them.
By playing a series of clips, Alex seems to be suggesting that Maybe Scarlet is the one lying about their exchange, which really seems like the last thing he should be doing in a retraction.
I've got family members that are really smart in a lot of ways, but they're just real kind of quiet and have this way about them, and they move at a different pace.
Like, they're fast in some ways and slow in others, and he's...
I mean, I think Hesselman acts like somebody on the spectrum, and it makes me feel like an even bigger jerk.
But when I saw him, I'm like, there's something about this guy.
This doesn't look...
And now that I've been around him for over a week, I'm like, okay, now I know.
Folks, I don't have some calculated point, just to bring that up here.
It's just that I'm around these people, and I'm looking at it, and I'm watching what's being said and what's going on, and it really then makes it clear what happened.
Reading the obvious subtext, you might come to the conclusion that she's in on it.
Also, not for nothing, Alex wasn't around these people for very long.
He barely showed up to the court, and most of the time that he was around, he was yelling out in front of the courthouse trying to get media attention.
Alex played that clip in his retraction video and cut out the part that was actually offensive to Hesslin and Lewis because he doesn't want his audience to have that context in case they stumble onto this retraction video.
He's trying to provide a retraction video that he thinks is just barely a retraction, just enough to make it work, while simultaneously it's supposed to serve Yeah,
The only way that this really, I guess, gets any better is having a situation where there isn't a community of enablers that support Alex in some way.
Because he is just malicious and will never stop doing the things that he wants to do that are profitable or that satisfy some kind of an emotional need that he has until there's no one left to play along.
And if anything, unless done carefully, unless some of these things are done fairly carefully, you run the risk of creating circumstances that Alex can exploit to reinforce his martyr status with his audience.
These clips show that after my testimony that day in the courtroom, I had a conversation that was initiated by Miss Lewis that ended with Miss Lewis and me shaking hands and her ex-husband and I shaking hands.
Unfortunately.
The audio I have of the exchange is poor, and you cannot hear much of what we're saying.
But it seems clear that while we were shaking hands, we were talking.
And while they are not all recorded as the one I just showed, I had several courthouse conversations with Ms. Lewis, and all of them were polite and civil.
And what I said on Pierce Morgan was a composite of those discussions.
It is the precise words that Miss Lewis and I exchanged before and after our handshake that Attorney Bankston now objects to and wants me to retract, which I am glad to do.
I do not wish to harm or damage Miss Lewis in any way.
And if she does not agree with my recollection of her response to me, I will defer to Ms. Lewis' recollection of her statements and withdraw and disclaim my recollections of what she said in our conversation.
While I am sure of what I told Ms. Lewis, I defer entirely to her recollection of what she said in response, and if she disagrees, then I will withdraw and retract my recollection of her comments.
In conclusion, I want to emphasize...
That I have no ill will, ill feelings, or any malice towards Miss Lewis or her ex-husband.
I know and understand they have suffered a tragedy with the murder of their son, and I do not wish to cause them any further grief, harm, or embarrassment.
I once again would like to invite them to come on my show.
So this isn't a matter of just misremembering something.
This is a case of fabricating a claim about someone for a specific reason.
Alex didn't just get a little thing she said wrong.
He repeatedly said on air that she'd seen his full video, she realized that he was right and that her lawyers had been lying to her.
Clearly against her will, Alex was turning Scarlet into a character in his fantasy world, specifically a character that acts in ways that are directly against the wishes of Scarlet, the real person.
This is a malicious act on Alex's part, and he knows it.
But his lawyers have scripted up this way for him to claim that it was just a matter of misremembering something that was said, and he thinks this is good enough.
But the problem with Alex and the problem with cult leaders in general whenever you have them read a lawyer statement is that everybody in the cult is like, oh, the lawyer made you read that statement.
It's the same way that so many of Alex's audience members are like, I know you're talking about the Jews, but you just aren't saying it because you can't.
So there's been incredible dirty tricks, incredible disinfo, incredible lies against anybody.
Trump's not perfect, but he was against World War III.
They got him.
Now they're going after Tucker.
They must have gone after me.
Scott Ritter, famous case, all sorts of made-up attacks and lies.
None of it was true.
This is what happens when intelligence agencies come after you.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control agreements on the staff of General Norman Svorskov during the Gulf War, where he played a critical role in the hunt for Iraq's Scud missiles.
From 1991 to 1998, Mr. Ritter served as Chief Inspector of the United Nations in Iraq, leading the search for Iraq's prescribed weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Ritter was a vocal critic.
The American decision to go to war in Iraq was totally vindicated.
Millions of dead Iraqis.
His new book, Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika, Arms Control and the End of the Soviet Union, is his ninth.
Oh man, I wonder what kind of dirty tricks were pulled against Scott Ritter.
Maybe I should just Google this real fast.
Clickety, clickety, clickety, clickety.
Scott Ritter was arrested in 2009 after he was caught in a child sexual predator sting operation.
He solicited nude videos from a person online that he thought was 15 years old.
At trial, prosecutors claimed that this was the third time that Ritter had been caught in an underage online sex solicitation sting, which is not surprising.
Ritter had sent graphic video to this person that he believed was 15, including him naked and masturbating.
In April 2001, Ritter was caught in a sting where he thought he was talking to a minor online who he made plans to meet at a McDonald's.
He arrived at the McDonald's where the police were waiting, but he didn't end up getting any jail time for that or anything.
I believe the charges were dropped.
Former UN weapons inspectors get a warning on these kinds of things, I guess.
Then, in June 2001, a couple months later, he got caught again.
This time trying to meet up with a minor at a Burger King.
Again, the police were there, and again, he didn't get in any serious trouble.
Ritter was convicted in the 2009 case and sentenced to five and a half years in prison.
He was paroled early and has been out of jail since 2014, but he is very clearly a habitual predator who has a history of seeking out minors online for sexual exploitation.
I mentioned Ritter in one of our 2004 episodes, in the context that he'd been a figure saying that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and I failed to bring up this aspect of his character.
It slipped my mind to get into because I wasn't talking about Ritter specifically at the time, it was in the context of narratives about David Kelly, and Ritter was a tertiary figure, and I apologize that I didn't bring that up when his name came up.
Now that we have him here on Alex's show, all of this is very relevant, and this is what Alex is trying to present, our dirty tricks.
These weren't dirty tricks.
They are multiple instances of Ritter attempting to abuse children.
Alex pretends that he's a champion crusader to protect the children, but here he has a convicted sex offender on his show and all he can do is whitewash his past and his crimes.
And why?
Because Ritter is a staunch opponent of Ukraine in the context of the war against Russia.
That's his value to Alex, and he's an anti-Ukraine voice with a resume including a UN weapons inspector.
Anytime you hear Alex scream about how all his enemies are pedophiles and how he wants to ban trans people from any public existence in order to save the children, he's happy to pal around with and defend any child abuser who agrees with him because he's not sincere about this issue.
In the recent past, Ritter has been welcomed a little bit into communities that like to brand themselves as isolationist, but are really kind of about something else.
I think that it would have been entirely possible for Alex to just have Scott Ritter on and not say that there were a bunch of dirty tricks played against him.
I mean, you go back in the history in the 2004 stuff and you see so many of these other, like, these people who are, whether it's a, you know, a child abuser, a murderer, somebody who's deputized themselves to harass immigrants, Nazis, be they celebrities' fathers or not.
You have all these people that Alex is carrying water for and covering for.