Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 15, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:13:07

Alex Jones Trial Day 3 RECAP with Viva & Barnes!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	On what you call this political stunt with the asylum seekers.
	Let's specifically get into the locations.
	Martha's Vineyard, the Naval Observatory.
	Can you talk to the issue of, you said Boston.
	It's an island that they sent the asylum seekers to.
	An island that is known to be, in some instances, a democratic haven.
	Former presidents, former Democratic presidents, vacation there, homes there, etc.
	Could you speak to that as well as the Naval Observatory?
	What I could say, and I've been very clear, it is a political stunt.
	It's been very clear.
	That's what we're seeing from governors, Republican governors in particular.
	And it is a cruel, inhumane way of treating people who are fleeing communism.
	We're not just talking about people.
	We're talking about children.
	We're talking about families who were promised a home, promised a job, put on a bus, and driven to a place that they do not know.
	And it is a cool thing to do.
	I was on mute for some reason.
	Good evening, everyone.
	It's going to be an interesting stream tonight.
	We're going to update in the Alex Jones trial, but have to start with something.
	We've grown a ritual of starting with the video.
	A video.
	Any video.
	Tonight we're going to skip the...
	Get off my lap, you silly dog.
	A few words on this.
	I could not survive in politics because the game of politics unfortunately requires these types of political games to be played.
	We've got Jean-Pierre here referring to what some Republican governors are doing as a political stunt or political ploy, as using humans as political pawns, which I can concede they're doing to some extent.
	To another extent, Government uses all citizens as pawns, and government uses as political pawns, migrants, immigrants, however you want to refer to them, as pawns for political purposes, for political capital, and in this case, for political gain without any of the political and economic investment that is required to satisfy the policy that they're promoting.
	Open borders, walls are racist, etc., etc.
	Making it virtually impossible for states to govern their own borders.
	And so Republican politicians, Republican governors have played a bit of a game where they say, okay, good.
	Everyone wants open borders.
	We're going to...
	But 50 migrants to Martha's Vineyard, the island, the safe haven.
	It's not a democratic...
	It's not a...
	It's a Democrat, not a stronghold.
	It's a paradise.
	It's an island.
	For those who don't know, 73% homeownership and nearly half of them have no mortgages on their home.
	It's a paradise.
	It's not a border town.
	Like you heard the lady from D.C. saying, they've basically turned D.C. into a border town.
	We're not a border town.
	We're a kingdom.
	We don't have to deal with the troubles of the rabble.
	And so it is a political ploy, a political stunt.
	That if it's done nothing, by the way, and it's done something in that it has revealed what I'm calling the NIMBY hypocrisy.
	Not in my backyard hypocrisy.
	50 migrants brought to Martha's Vineyard.
	You have the locals saying, we can't even provide housing to the people who live here and work here.
	How are we supposed to deal with this?
	Oh, that's great.
	What do you think the border towns have to live with day in and day out?
	And it's not 50 as a political point.
	It's, I don't know, however many hundreds, thousands a day.
	But all of a sudden, all of a sudden, a political left, which has been using people as political bargaining chips, political tools, you know, litmus tests for politics, has been using people for their political ends.
	All of a sudden, someone actually has the audacity to flip the script on them.
	And then all of a sudden, they're against using people for political purposes.
	There was another...
	Phenomenally outrageous soundbite.
	I don't know who the person is and if she's a civilian, whatever, it'll live on Twitter.
	We don't have enough housing in Martha's Vineyard for the locals.
	We have a housing crisis here.
	Oh, we're not a border town.
	We don't want to see migrant detention facilities like you got AOC crying at at the border.
	We don't want to see that in Martha's Vineyard.
	It's an island.
	It's a Democrat island where Obama lives, where, you know, Democrat elite live.
	Not in my backyard.
	NIMBY hypocrisy.
	All right, Barnes has been sitting there very patiently.
	You know what?
	I'll bring Barnes.
	No, hold on.
	Come on.
	What are you doing?
	Here.
	Okay.
	The dog, the dog is trying to find a comfortable spot, and he's found it.
	He's chewing something up.
	It doesn't matter.
	Tonight, we're doing the recap of the Alex Jones Connecticut trial.
	And it's going to be phenomenal because we're going to start by summarizing.
	For those who may not know where we're at, how we got here, and what we think of the first three days of this trial.
	Robert, get ready.
	He's in.
	Sir, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	All right.
	So, by the way, are we simultaneously simulcasting on Infowars platform now?
	So they have the means to do so.
	So, yeah.
	So I don't know if they...
	Got it worked out or not, but they have the means to do so, so we may be.
	Okay.
	And not that it makes any difference.
	One should be watching here, and we're going to shut this one down.
	I don't know.
	We'll go 20 minutes on YouTube, shut it down, bring it over to Rumble.
	Okay, Robert, so there's a lot of people watching, and it's mind-blowing because we've been watching this trial, and I see a lot of comments that are asking questions that I took for granted that everybody knows.
	How did we get here?
	Is this a trial on the merits?
	People are referring to the...
	Plaintiff's attorney as a prosecutor.
	I mean, look, we're in the second trial by default after default verdict.
	Give, for those who are new who don't know, and no judgment to anybody out there, the 30,000-foot overview of how we ended up where we are right now with Alex Jones' trial and the status of the trial.
	So a group of plaintiffs brought suit in state court in Connecticut.
	This included people who had different relationships to the Sandy Hook shooting.
	Some were parents of children who were killed at the shooting.
	Some were siblings, children of parents and adults who were killed in the shooting.
	And some were just, as the lead witness was, a FBI lawyer who didn't have anyone die at the shooting.
	They're all suing.
	Alex Jones and Infowars.
	Now, the first thing was they sued in state court in Connecticut.
	So normally when you have a dispute between parties that live in different states, then the defendant has a right to bring that claim to federal court called removal jurisdiction.
	Alex Jones did that.
	The way the plaintiffs tried to circumvent that was they added another defendant that was a Connecticut defendant.
	And people try to do this now and then, but it's considered gaming the system, and generally federal courts don't allow you to do that.
	But the federal court didn't want anything to do with Sandy Hook.
	So the first peculiarity in this case was the federal court refused to accept removal jurisdiction and said, well, there's somebody here, and even if it kind of looks like they're gaming it, I'm not going to apply traditional federal law and have federal court preside over the case.
	Later on, that Connecticut defendant would be completely dismissed from the case, at which point, then it has to go to federal court.
	So Alex Jones took it to federal court, and again, the federal judge found an excuse to somehow not take jurisdiction when the law compelled that the court take jurisdiction.
	And I think, is the concept diversity jurisdiction, where if you have defendants from all over, then you go to federal court, and the way they brought it back to say, well, we have something that ties us to Connecticut.
	We've added a Connecticut defendant.
	Therefore, Connecticut is the proper jurisdiction, proper form.
	Correct.
	And then they dismiss that Connecticut defendant.
	So what's supposed to happen then is then it's definitely supposed to go to federal court.
	Federal court refused to take jurisdiction again.
	It was the beginning of the many extraordinary events that have taken place.
	So, you know, the case is about Alex Jones, but the bigger issues involved in the case are First Amendment freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
	How our judicial process, civil justice process works in America.
	As I've said from the beginning of this case, the justice system itself is on trial.
	Can it provide an impartial forum according to the rules, applied uniformly regardless of who the parties are, and any personal, partisan, or political prejudice the courts may have towards the parties?
	So they brought suit on some of the unprecedented grounds.
	Some of the grounds that they're suing on are things like consumer practices.
	There's no consumer transaction that they identify at all, nor have we heard any throughout the trial.
	On unfair trade practices, there's no trade practice alleged, nor has there been any trade practice involved in the case.
	So why were those issues not dealt with legally on the substance?
	Well, the way you do that is you can do it two ways.
	You can bring what's called an anti-slap suit.
	This is strategic litigation against public participation.
	And so the Connecticut has passed a law a few years ago that established, a few years before the suit was brought, that established that if a suit is about speech, then you as a defendant have the right to get an early evaluation of its legal merits rather than allow the suit to go forward because people were using lawsuits to suppress and censor speech.
	You can also bring what's called a motion to dismiss that just says even if everything they say is true, it doesn't constitute a legal claim.
	Like a lot of the people were, again, some people were bringing claims that had no connection to the case.
	People were bringing claims on First Amendment.
	They raised First Amendment defenses.
	And then there were these like trade practices and unfair practices and other claims that didn't make much sense.
	So Alex Jones brought that.
	And that led to the next procedural irregularity, an extraordinary event in the case.
	So normally on those cases, you simply address the case on the legal merits.
	You might, as a defendant, have a right to get into certain discovery that you believe would prove the case doesn't have legal merit under the anti-SLAPP law.
	Actually, just before you go there, what is the strength of Connecticut's anti-SLAPP legislation?
	Is it on par with New York or is it weaker, stronger?
	It's on par with New York.
	Pretty much identical.
	And so he brought that motion and the court refused to address the motion unless extraordinary invasive discovery was done against Alex Jones.
	So not the plaintiffs having to prove their case on their own discovery about what they did, but instead Alex Jones and Infowars had to produce on an extraordinarily compressed timetable in violation of the regular protocols in Connecticut.
	A range of discovery that has never been compelled in the history of anti-slap cases.
	I challenge anyone to find it.
	Despite that, Jones would produce massive amounts of discovery.
	He would produce literally millions of pages and documents and items, including every possibly relevant email, every possibly relevant document, you name it.
	And now during this time frame, they used the existence of the suits to get social media in obvious collusion to suddenly and summarily deplatform Alex Jones.
	Within days of each other, based on allegations of the suit effectively and lobbying efforts by people in support of the suit, including lawyers connected to the suit, Twitter took him down.
	YouTube took them down.
	Facebook took them down.
	Later on, Instagram would take them down.
	So now the key here was the way InfoWars was operating.
	InfoWars is an internet media network rooted in a talk radio show.
	It's very common for those kind of media networks to not keep detailed, digitized records of a range of things.
	They're not a documentary film company.
	That's not what they do.
	And so a lot of their, during this whole time period of relevant to the allegations in the suit, their inventory was kept on YouTube.
	That's what they measured.
	They didn't have any separate measurement for anything.
	They just put stuff up on YouTube.
	That's where their archive was.
	Well, YouTube not only suddenly deleted their channel, but removed all their videos and wouldn't even give them their videos.
	That would then be used.
	By the plaintiff's lawyers in Connecticut to demand that Infowars produce the videos that YouTube had deleted, even though they knew YouTube had destroyed those exact videos, based on them arguing for that.
	It was the beginning of this narrative that they would pitch, which was that discovery is missing, and we'll get to what all that entailed.
	Yeah, and actually, before we get there, which states did the lawsuits follow in?
	I mean, there was Connecticut, there's Texas, where are the other...
	So there were two cases in Connecticut.
	There was one case in Connecticut with a bunch of plaintiffs, and then two cases in Texas.
	At one point, there were three, and then they got combined to two.
	So the Connecticut case was kind of the lead case.
	So the first anomaly is he's not allowed to go to federal court, to have a federal court oversee this, even though he's not a citizen or resident of Connecticut, and the dispute involves more than $75,000.
	Let me ask you this.
	What would the difference have been in federal court?
	I mean, he would have gotten the same treatment in federal court.
	Not likely.
	Because federal state courts are much more...
	Two things change.
	Your jury pool changes.
	So it's the district court's jury pool, not just the local county courthouse.
	Jury pool.
	That makes a difference.
	But the biggest difference is federal courts are much more, they're sophisticated at how they screw you over, but they are much less willing to be openly brazen at violating basic rules.
	And so that's where state courts have shown no such limitation over our legal history.
	And we'll get back to the last time anything like this happened.
	And we'll even look at the New York Times versus Sullivan case.
	What brought about that was state courts abusing their power, weaponizing state torts against disfavored dissidents, including civil rights supporters.
	So all of a sudden, he's under pressure to produce an extraordinary amount of discovery.
	They're asking him for things he doesn't have, so they demand that he produce them himself.
	To give an example, there's been talk in the trial about Google Analytics.
	Infowars didn't do Google Analytics.
	But they said, look, Google has information about your website and web material.
	We demand you go use your access to Google to get information you don't have.
	That legally is not the law.
	The law is you don't have to create discovery.
	The discovery is produce the information you have in your possession, not go create it for us.
	I say push back or just ask the obvious question.
	We've seen it in the trial, and we're going to get to it when we discuss day three after we summarize day one and two.
	They were clearly consulting Google Analytics 2012, 2013, 2014, up until 2019.
	Infowars wasn't.
	Infowars wasn't.
	They were ordered to go and get those records from that time frame.
	So in other words, they were required to go to Google and create records that they themselves didn't keep.
	And didn't make and didn't review.
	They never looked at Google Analytics.
	Because I was there during the part of this case being addressed.
	And I was like, this is absurd.
	It's absurd that there's being these discovery requests in the first place for a motion to dismiss.
	The scope of it is absurd.
	The time frame is absurd.
	And again, what is discovery?
	Discovery is for those folks that may not be familiar with all the aspects of the American legal system.
	You're only entitled to request information that is necessary to prove your case.
	This case is based on statements that Alex Jones made.
	They already, by definition, if you're suing...
	They already had them.
	By definition, you had to.
	You can't say, I suffered emotional distress because of a statement somebody made if you had never heard the actual statement.
	Now, by the way, that's happening here, as we've seen from the actual testimony.
	But the grounds to sue is...
	You made a statement.
	I heard the statement.
	I suffered distress because of it.
	We'll get into all the problems with how that's never been the established legal theory in America until this case.
	And they'll carve out exceptions for everybody else down the road.
	This will just be the Alex Jones exception to every rule of law that exists.
	So what do you need to prove that?
	All you need is the statements.
	That's it.
	So why do you need...
	What information, what was sent to their junk email box?
	Why do you need their Google Analytics?
	I'll tell you, I'm going to play a lot of devil's advocate tonight, only to push back because people will be thinking these questions.
	What they're going to say is, okay, I heard the allegedly defamatory statements, which I think most people will agree, probably definitively caused emotional distress in as much as they were heard, and in as much as anyone took the statement seriously.
	But they want to show...
	Additional statements that not only did he make those statements, but he made other statements to indicate that he knew those statements were false or unsubstantiated.
	So let's go to that aspect.
	So there, there's two different components.
	Now, for that aspect, they could just allege that during this preliminary stage.
	So in order to prove their case for any slap purposes, they just needed to prove the statements were made.
	They already had those statements, or they couldn't have brought the suit in the first place.
	And then it's just whatever their damages are.
	And then it's whether legally that constitutes a claim.
	The actual malice aspect is only relevant if they admit they're public figures.
	They denied that they were public figures.
	So then you just have a negligence standard.
	And then to some, you can say these statements were made.
	These statements were not true.
	Here were the independent objective.
	I mean, and people can look at this.
	Try to find anybody who's been required to go through discovery in the actual malice stage.
	That almost never happens.
	The media defendants never have to produce that.
	Ever.
	It's on the plaintiff's burden.
	Look at Adriana Jacobs right now suing Taylor Lorenz in the New York Times.
	Did Taylor Lorenz have to give one single piece of discovery?
	No, the judge parsed through all the statements and said these are substantially true, these are opinion, and there's one actionable claim.
	That's the legal analysis, right?
	I mean, that legal analysis doesn't bear, and not only that, he made an actual malice assessment, because the burden of alleging actual malice is on the plaintiffs.
	The defense can then present evidence to rebut it, but the point is that either you have independent evidence of that from the inception or you don't, you're not entitled to actually get discovery to support it, unless you're Alex Jones, the defense.
	I'm not sure about the procedural posture.
	How does junk email relate to this?
	How does Google Analytics relate to this?
	Because, by the way, actual malice is about whether you think the statement is true or not.
	This has come up repeatedly.
	Your motivation is irrelevant.
	Because people often try to say, well, they made these statements because they thought they would make money off them, they would make them prominent, etc.
	Not relevant.
	What's relevant is, did you think they were true or not?
	It doesn't matter what your motivation is.
	Find a case out there.
	People can look.
	Find a case, particularly the motion to dismiss stage, but at any stage where they were allowed to get into all the financial and data and consumer information about a media company based on a libel suit.
	You're not going to find it.
	They don't allow it.
	The New York Times isn't going to have to give over all of its intimate financial information to Project Veritas, and yet that's what was being compelled here.
	Because, well, for a range of reasons, but not reasons rooted in the law.
	So he's compelled to produce all this information and create information he doesn't have and has to go out and create at substantial expense.
	I mean, you're talking about everybody's looking at every possible place they could possibly have information.
	Again, it's a talk radio show program, so this is not organized in a regular manner.
	Most of the information is all stuff that's in the junk email.
	I'll give you an example.
	The court required Infowars to produce everything, every document and piece of information anywhere in its computer system at any level.
	In other words, a complete forensic search of a sort of, you know, like a cavity search that just had the word Sandy Hook in it.
	Do you know how many Sandy Hooks there are in America?
	There's a bunch.
	So that means everybody who ever communicated from Sandy Hook, everybody who ever had a consumer who was from Sandy Hook, you got tons of irrelevant records, but that's how detailed and deeply scrubbed it was.
	They produced all of this stuff, including stuff that was sent to their junk email that they had never looked at ever.
	And this is what the court was compelling.
	Find a case where the court compelled someone in a defamation case to produce their junk email that was never read.
	I mean, it has no bearing on anything.
	Well, I'll tell you this.
	I mean, I'm watching the trial, you know, livestream commentating as well.
	The one thing that I find not just surprising, the evidence that they do have that they're reducing now at the stage of damages because it's been a default verdict, they have Google Analytics up until today.
	They've got everything that they would ever need.
	As far as I can tell, maybe, hypothetically.
	He got more than has ever been required that anybody ever produce in a light case.
	My question is this.
	When did he get foreclosed from pleading?
	When was the default verdict in relation to the evidence that they have?
	All these records that were produced were produced all the way at the very beginning.
	He was not allowed to bring his motion to dismiss or any slap motion unless he produced all of this voluminous information right at the very inception of the case.
	He had to sit for depositions.
	Tons of other people had to sit for depositions.
	This too, people go out there and find it.
	Find the media defendant who had to have sit for dozens and dozens and dozens of hours of depositions at the motion to dismiss stage.
	He does for this lying judge in Connecticut.
	Who's saying, all right, there's been this complete cavalier disregard.
	The judge has shown cavalier disregard for the respective rule and the rule of law in America.
	This judge, Barbara Nellis, is a disgrace to the rule of law, a disgrace to the judiciary, a disgrace to the justice system by the statement she's made because she's lying and she has done so repeatedly in this case.
	And people like Megyn Kelly and others should be ashamed for embracing and supporting this sham of a legal proceeding.
	That's just how the case began.
	It was every rule thrown out, another rule thrown out, another rule thrown out.
	Now we get to why in Connecticut, he never even got to, after he did all this discovery, did all these depositions, he still wasn't allowed to bring in any slap motion or motion to dismiss.
	Because that was the next First Amendment violation in the case.
	Forget the anti-slap motion.
	He wasn't allowed to defend on the merits.
	That's the most egregious thing.
	That comes next.
	I'll push back.
	I'll ask the question that someone out there is thinking, Robert.
	It's not media.
	He's not media.
	He's worse than the National Enquirer.
	The clips that they're playing, he's talking about actors.
	He's callously theorizing.
	At the expense of grieving parents, it's not media.
	What's the word I'm looking for?
	That's not glamour.
	They'll say, it's not media, so he doesn't deserve the protection of the media.
	I know what my response is.
	Sure.
	The rights of freedom of the press.
	Well, some of the rules I'm talking about apply to every defendant.
	It doesn't matter whether you're media or not.
	The anti-slap rules don't apply just to media.
	They apply to anybody.
	So they apply to speech.
	That's their protection.
	So there's no limitation or restriction on journalism, part one.
	Part two, as this issue was addressed in Texas, where there's a separate issue about journalistic privilege, it was acknowledged that, in fact, InfoWars and Alex Jones is press.
	Because press is anybody that's out there that's in the court of public opinion doing any kind of work like this.
	It doesn't require a permission slip from the New York Times to be called the press.
	And so the but that really was sort of insignificant in this case, because the anti slap rules apply Hey, brother.
	Tabloid was...
	And I'm not saying...
	That's the argument.
	They're going to say Jones...
	Oh, sure.
	And that argument was made in Texas and it failed.
	But it doesn't apply to the anti-slap anyway.
	And all these other rules, the rules of due process, rules of discovery, rules of privacy, they're for everybody.
	You don't have to be pressed for any of these things.
	And so how is it that Alex Jones never got a chance after he went through all this invasive discovery?
	To have his anti-slap motion heard.
	To have his motion to dismiss heard.
	Given that, there were real big glaring legal deficiencies in this case.
	Which is, under United States Supreme Court law, there's two requirements.
	One is, there's no such thing as a wrong idea.
	This was decided in two separate cases.
	One was the Hustler case.
	Falwell versus Hustler and Larry Flynn.
	And the second was a Westboro Baptist case.
	Westboro Baptist were some folks who went to people's funerals because they believed certain behavior was wrong and did things that most people find deeply offensive at those funerals.
	They were sued.
	A crazy verdict was issued.
	And that case also went up to the Supreme Court.
	In both of those cases, I mean, to be honest with you, what they did to Falwell, Hustler, suggested that he had had incest with his mother.
	Now, their argument was this was parody, this was satire, and this was an idea.
	In both cases, the U.S. Supreme Court said there's no such thing as a wrong idea in America.
	The state courts cannot weaponize their legal power, their power of the judiciary, to punish speech, period.
	And it can't reach ideas, period.
	And so it has to be limited.
	And that takes us back to the last time we've seen A wave of weaponizing legal processes in America to suppress dissident speech, and that was during the civil rights era.
	So state courts in the South figured out a way they could shut up people they didn't like preaching civil rights was to use defamation law and libel law to do it.
	And what happened in New York Times versus Sullivan is, by the way, the civil rights organization involved in the New York Times.
	Did completely lie about the police department in Birmingham.
	They made a whole bunch of statements that were, in fact, completely false.
	But they got a crazy verdict because of what the real political nature of the case was.
	The U.S. Supreme Court took that case up.
	And there were two parts to that case.
	The part that a lot of people talk about is the actual malice standard.
	And so they said, look, if somebody is a public figure, we want to protect robust free speech in America about public figures.
	So you can't bring a negligence claim against someone based if they're a public figure.
	They have to know what they're saying is false or be with reckless disregard for the truth.
	But that wasn't the only part.
	A key part to the Sullivan case, because they had evidence, actually, of reckless disregard for the truth that both the New York Times and the Civil Rights Organization had actually shown.
	Their motivations were good, but their facts were mistaken in that case on the behalf of the Civil Rights Organization that paid for an ad in the New York Times.
	So why did Sullivan not get a chance to get that huge verdict he got enforced?
	Because the U.S. Supreme Court said there's a second requirement.
	And this was, again, to make sure that ideas are not illegal, theories are not illegal, opinions are not illegal.
	They said that not only does it have to be a specific factual statement made, not an idea, not a theory, and the rest, and if it's a public figure, it has to be done knowing it's false, but you have to make a specific factual claim about a specifically identified individual.
	And in the case of Sullivan, it was clear they were talking about him loosely, but there were too many members of the Birmingham police leadership for it to, they never used his name.
	Number one, never talked about them by name.
	And number two, there were too many other people involved.
	And in this case, that too many was just a few dozen, by the way.
	So it wasn't like a hundred or a thousand or anything else.
	But they said, the statement has to be clearly made about you.
	It's called colloquium.
	The constitutional requirement of colloquium.
	And what is this about?
	We want to protect robust speech.
	We want to protect all ideas.
	There's no such thing, as the Supreme Court said in Westboro Baptist, as an illegal idea.
	It doesn't exist under American constitutional law.
	So the big problem they had in the Connecticut case, well, one problem was they're trying to take theories that have never applied to statements before in history.
	Treat them as consumer transactions.
	Call it unfair trade.
	I mean, all these loony provisions that call it a consumer transaction.
	None of this made any sense at all.
	And the court knew it.
	The court knew there was no legal grounds for those claims.
	But the court didn't want to admit that and have to dismiss them.
	But the other problem was all the other claims.
	Intentional infliction of emotional distress, tort of outrage, defamation, libel.
	They had a big problem.
	Alex Jones had never talked about these people by name ever.
	Had never identified them by name ever.
	And as to Connecticut, to my knowledge, I don't think anybody even was identified by image.
	Some of the people they're talking about are cases in Texas, not the cases in Connecticut.
	And at least as the FBI agent admitted on the stand, he had never heard Alex Jones talk about him, identify him, point him out in any way, shape, or form.
	And again, that's the plaintiff's chosen lead witness.
	Alex Jones didn't choose them.
	They chose to say, here's what our case is about.
	Take a look at this.
	And I encourage everybody to go to our breakdown covering it live in live time of that witness.
	And you can see what this case is really about.
	And then I'm not making this up.
	He admitted this on the stand.
	Well, he admitted a number of things on the stand, one of which was that the theories that they are attributing to statements of Alex Jones were born out of day one, born out of other people.
	The argument is there that Jones amplified these ideas, but the flip side argument is that those ideas were already popular, which is why they even got to Jones in the first place.
	Well, the problem with Connecticut, for the Connecticut court and the Connecticut plaintiffs, was that they didn't have these consumer and other claims.
	They had no legal basis for it whatsoever.
	It's never been done in American history.
	Second, that they had a constitutional problem, that they were trying to extend and expand libel law in direct violation of U.S. Supreme Court authority.
	So how are they going to dodge this?
	First, they used the process to invade his privacy, disclose as much information about him as he can, etc.
	In that process, Alex Jones was so forthcoming with Discovery that he produced every single junk email that had ever been sent.
	This was email he had never opened.
	No one at Infowars had ever opened.
	Well, it turned out people that are hostile to Alex Jones and Infowars had planted child pornography on some of those emails.
	Infowars had no idea that that was the case.
	So they say here, because this is what's demanded of them.
	We want everything that's on your computer.
	Okay, here.
	Here's everything that's on the computer.
	And so that nobody could say that this information wasn't fully and completely produced and there wasn't full transparency.
	So when they review it, they discover that people had been sending child pornography to Infowars trying to trap them in the spam and the junk email that had never...
	I've actually been read her open.
	The plaintiff's lawyers immediately then mislead the country and let the media run with a big lie.
	And the big lie is Alex Jones sends child pornography to Sandy Hook parents.
	Completely false.
	Utterly false.
	Totally false.
	And a bunch of people repeated libels.
	I was involved at that time getting people to print corrections.
	And in response to that...
	Jones is enraged at this allegation, and while he's on the air, has doubts about whether the plaintiff's lawyer was complicit in all of this, and is very critical of the, and uses some hot rhetoric about the plaintiff's lawyer.
	Now, that is an out-of-court statement made all the way down in Texas to his own audience.
	Nothing about it was libelous.
	Nothing about it was illegal.
	What happens?
	The Connecticut judge holds a sua sponte hearing without allowing any evidence to be developed, any subpoenas to be developed, any evidence to be presented, any cross-examination to occur, and summarily does the first version of contempt, but avoids all of the rules and circumvents all the rules governing contempt, and declares he has no rights to bring any motions to dismiss, no rights to bring any anti-slap motions.
	This is the court attempting to use its power, and here was the ruling the court made, that once you are sued, you lose your free speech about the case.
	That has never been the law.
	The Supreme Court has said exactly the opposite in the Harry Bridges case.
	When Harry Bridges, a federal judge, said he was going to enjoin, the famous labor leader, said he was going to enjoin a strike, and the labor leader used some choice words to say what he felt about the judge's order.
	That judge tried to hold him in contempt, and that was actually related to a court order, unlike this case.
	And the U.S. Supreme Court said, no, a judge cannot use their power to punish out-of-court speech just because somebody has been sued.
	But that's exactly what happened to Alex Jones.
	Now, hold on.
	We're going to move over to Rumble, but before we go, I want to read, Rubia is in the house.
	Rubia, I believe, is a Texas attorney who says, Rubia, everyone should also be navigating their way over to the Rumbles.
	Link is back in the chat.
	My two cents of day three.
	Plaintiff counsel boring as freak.
	Inappropriately attacking corporate representative and desensitizing the jury because overplaying.
	Rubia, my thoughts exactly.
	It almost looked like the plaintiff's attorney was being more callous with the invoking of the victims than Jones.
	Jones, attorney, very strong.
	Exact opposite from Texas.
	Not taking sides.
	Just analyzing Rubia.
	I tend to agree.
	Everybody now, make your way over to Rumble.
	The judge messed up by letting it be live-streamed.
	Hey, sunlight is the greatest disinfectant.
	Leave it to the aggregate knowledge of the internet.
	I think the biggest problem of this being live-streamed, people are seeing the evidence that the plaintiffs have that they're adjuicing at the stage of post-default verdict.
	And I'm looking at this like, what did they not have to make their claim?
	My only question, Robert, when did they get this evidence to be continued?
	Yeah, and one little bit, it's probably not a coincidence that the first Texas trial, he happened to be on vacation, but they wouldn't necessarily know that.
	The first Texas trial, the most prominent live streamer of live trials on social media, suddenly had his channel suspended for seven days.
	Now, on the eve of this trial, he had his YouTube channel suspended again.
	And everybody else in law, too, for the most part, there's been a few exceptions here or there, but has been too scared to cover this case with a skeptical eye to what's going on.
	And the media, Elizabeth Williamson at the New York Times, a total hack, people like that, who are in the pocket of the plaintiff's lawyers, pretty much, were able to monopolize the media narrative about this case so that most people don't know what's really happening.
	And that the, but for the live streaming and but for our coverage, they would be completely in the dark at how shocking this trial is at its violation of court rights.
	It's shocking.
	And for anybody who doesn't know, Robert was not talking about me.
	He was talking about Nick Ricada, Ricada Law.
	Now, hold on.
	Removing YouTube.
	See you all on Rumble.
	Three, two, one, remove now.
	Now we're live only on Rumble.
	And on Infowars.
	So that's two big places to go watch this.
	Robert, so this is what I find shocking.
	People are watching this, and based on what they're seeing, and some of them lack all of the context you just gave, they're like, what the hell is going on here?
	They have all this evidence, but they're not talking about proving the case.
	They're going for damages.
	And people cannot, I don't know, understand the fact that there was a default verdict on the basis of noncompliance with discovery.
	Which, from what I understand, referred to two big themes.
	One was not producing a list of some videos on Sandy Hook.
	The other might have been some correspondence related to Sandy Hook.
	And the big one was Google Analytics so that they could evidence what money Jones allegedly made off the coverage.
	And this is what all the discovery was always about.
	So Jones produced all that discovery at the very beginning.
	He produced more discovery than any media defendant has ever done at the very inception of the case.
	Discovery that, in my view, was invasive, violated privacy rules, was in excess of what could be reasonably compelled at that stage or any stage.
	But they had everything.
	They had all communications, etc.
	And they had all videos.
	I mean, again, the idea that they were claiming, we want the videos we haven't seen.
	If you didn't see them, you don't have a legal claim for them.
	That's problem number one.
	Number two, it's their conduct that led to YouTube deplatforming him and YouTube denying him all of that evidence.
	Third, both media matters for the liberal organization and YouTube had all of this information.
	They could have independently produced it.
	They didn't want it.
	So why was this their big...
	It was a scam from the get-go.
	And it was clear to me it was going to be this way.
	Because if you look at the core theory that the media narrative of the fake aspect of this case was, this case about fake news is actually a fake case.
	And here's how and here's why.
	The core of the theory was that Alex Jones was the originator, the instigator, and basically sole source of people who doubted whether Sandy Hook occurred.
	Number one.
	Number two.
	That Alex Jones had sent people to harass people's families' homes.
	Number three, that he became famous and made all of his money solely based on Sandy Hook.
	The problem is they knew, the plaintiff's lawyers knew, that was a lie.
	Number one, anybody who followed this at the time, or who investigated, and I did a deep dive, knows that the response, as soon as Sandy Hook got political, there's two factors that were in play.
	One was psychological, one was political.
	The psychological was these are very little kids who died at a public school.
	Parents in America leave their kids off at a public school every single day.
	Somebody knows somebody by some means of family relationships or friends who does this every day.
	The idea that they could put them in imminent harm's way is so shocking that you have one of the first responses to trauma.
	That always occur.
	And it was going to happen at a unique scale here because of how young these kids were, which was denial.
	So you had people even before it got politicized saying it didn't happen.
	And this blew up on Facebook.
	And then this is also during the sort of open wild west days of social media.
	So Facebook, YouTube, there were videos going viral, getting millions and millions of views.
	There were people who were making the crisis actor allegation within a day or two.
	There were people who put together the wrong set of facts and came to those conclusions.
	So that was already there in the denial community and was going to be there no matter what because of how horrifying this event was.
	The other was Obama administration chose to politically weaponize this right away.
	I think it was Piers Morgan who said he was happy to stand on the graves of those dead kids for gun control in America.
	That they were going to strip away Second Amendment rights.
	That they thought they had a great political narrative to force through radical gun control across the country.
	That led to skepticism.
	Because in the history of the world, governments have frequently been complicit.
	And staging events or falsely blaming the wrong people for those events in order to get more control over their citizenry, such as the Reichstag fire that's come up in the trial.
	For those that don't know, what happened is the Reichstag fire really happened, so why do people call it a false flag?
	A false flag comes from the old pirates.
	The pirates, when they were sneaking up on somebody, didn't want them to think that they were pirates.
	So they would put up the flag of whatever ship it is of the same country whose ship they were approaching.
	And then when they got close, they took it down and put up the old Jolly Roger.
	And Blackbeard's there with his little firecrackers off his beard and all that crazy stuff going on, right?
	So to intimidate people.
	But that's why it's a false flag.
	The pirates are actually attacking.
	It's not saying the event didn't occur.
	It's saying the wrong culprit is being blamed.
	There's some ulterior agenda in place.
	And the Reichstag fire actually happened.
	There was a fire at the Reichstag during the era when the Nazis were rising to power in Germany.
	But they put the blame on communists and used it as a pretext to strip everybody of their rights and liberties and seize complete power in Germany.
	And so that's sort of the context for this.
	Once it got politicized by the Obama administration, the media was shoving it down everybody's throat that only the gun was to blame here.
	That led to skepticism of people saying, I wonder if something else happened here.
	It's not the whole truth because they want to steal my rights away.
	That amplified the denial movement.
	I just want to bring it up because I googled it while you were talking.
	This is Piers Morgan's tweet from January 15, 2013, and this occurred in November 2012.
	I'm being accused of, quote, standing on the graves of dead Sandy Hook children, end quote.
	If that's what it takes to get action, so be it.
	This is Piers Morgan in the wake of...
	And he was at CNN, I believe, at the time.
	So, I mean, that gives you an idea.
	I mean, this is how overtly politically partisan and brazen it was.
	And so people became skeptical and that amplified it.
	Now, during this time frame, Alex Jones consistently said Sandy Hook happened.
	Everything at Infowars said Sandy Hook happened during the first months after the incident.
	What he said is the culprit.
	It's not going to be the gun, but they're going to blame the gun.
	They're going to come for your Second Amendment rights.
	They're coming, they're coming, they're coming.
	That's the video they put.
	They're going to use this.
	They're coming, they're coming, they're coming.
	That was one of the four statements they're playing over and over again.
	He was absolutely right.
	I mean, because he said it before Obama politicized it, but that's exactly what they did.
	They did use it as an excuse for gun control.
	In fact, every school shooting that has occurred, they have used to argue for gun control.
	And it has led people to be concerned that they don't have an incentive to stop school shootings when they think they can politically profit from those school shootings occurring.
	He was absolutely prescient about this.
	But it was not anything about Sandy Hook being a hoax, Sandy Hook's not happening, anybody being a crisis act, none of that during that time frame and during that stage.
	But around him, this huge movement of denialism just goes radioactive through the social media and the internet.
	Tens of millions of views.
	People are bombarding InfoWars, accusing Alex Jones of hiding it.
	It got so deep, many of the people that were part of this denial movement believed that Alex Jones had been kidnapped or killed and he'd been replaced by Bo Bridges.
	I mean, it was that level.
	He had people harassing at his location, saying that he was in on it, that he was covering it up, that he was participating in it.
	So that's the pressure he's feeling from one side.
	The other big change is how this denial really happened.
	And this is a story they couldn't allow to be told to the jury.
	Because they need Alex Jones blamed.
	To tell the truth shows that Alex Jones isn't the person that should be blamed.
	And I'll get into the big thing that everybody in Connecticut was covering up, but we'll get to that in a bit.
	So it explains why, right?
	If you had confidence in your case, and your case is a good case on the merits, you want...
	I think my Covington case, I don't want a default judgment in the Covington kids case.
	I want a trial by jury and everything fully exposed and get full vindication on the public record.
	You only want this method of adjudication when you don't have a case, when your case is weak, when if the truth comes out, it guts what you're trying to do and achieve.
	So what's happening during this time frame is three major high-profile professional people step forward and support the denial movement.
	And that's what took it to a different level, especially if you're someone like Jones, actually four, ultimately.
	And you're like, okay, hold on.
	We have a philosophy professor, a media professor, a school safety expert, and someone he had trusted who had been a former CIA guy for many years.
	All of them are saying, along with this bombardment of criticism he's getting from people, saying he's covering it up, saying, no, the denial people are right.
	So, and now my theory about this is that it's the psychological need for denial.
	If you look at a lot of the experts, not all of them, but a lot of the high-ranking, high-professional, credentialed kind of people who supported at some level the denial movement, you'll often find they were either responsible for childhood safety or they had young children themselves in public schools.
	By the way, this is true of Alex Jones during his time frame.
	It's much easier.
	For you to deal with the risk that this poses to your own kid by denying it ever occurred, then acknowledge that you may not be able to control the safety of your own child.
	Let me ask you two questions.
	First of all, everyone out there should appreciate, and I get it to a much lesser degree, but if you don't cover a subject, people start saying you're controlled opposition, you're Mossad, you're whatever.
	If you don't touch it, just because you're not interested in it.
	I can also tell you that Just by virtue...
	I do the legal analysis, you know, breakdowns of the trial, of the deposition.
	I don't...
	I get faulted for not even entertaining.
	I get emails about people trying to convince me about Sandy Hook.
	I don't respond to them.
	The denial movement is still there.
	Still strong.
	People can have their thoughts.
	I don't entertain it because I know what I believe and I'm not entertaining these ideas.
	But you still get the flack.
	But Robert, what of the idea that of these prominent individuals who...
	They were not, I don't want to use demeaning rhetoric, they were not out there people to begin with.
	That's very important.
	In other words, these are people that didn't have a legacy or record or history of saying outrageous things or being quote-unquote conspiracy theorists.
	People like, they've talked about Wolfgang Halbig.
	What they don't want to talk about is before all of this, Halbig would be on regular local news and respected with an institutional opinion.
	So you have the media people saying it's fake.
	You have a school safety expert saying it's fake.
	You have philosophy professors at respected universities saying it's fake.
	You got XIA people saying it's fake.
	And the theories are picking up traction for whatever it's worth on social media above and below.
	Because of the need for denial, my theory, because of the need for denial for people's personal sense of safety and just, hey, this didn't happen.
	Okay, now my kid is safe or my niece is safe or whoever you know in that situation.
	And because it's being so politically weaponized, so aggressively by the press, so aggressively by the Obama administration, led to deep skepticism that maybe something's up here.
	And if you were someone who was within that community in general...
	You had seen that the tendency to not want to believe the skeptical, cynical version of what's taking place often worked to your disadvantage more so than accepting it or embracing it or entertaining it.
	Just look at what we went through over the last two years has been massive proof of that.
	Robert, if I may entertain a one theory that I had never thought of until watching the trial, seeing some of the emails talking about how the people promoting the hoax theory and the meaningful hoaxes and it never happened, crisis actors, didn't like Alex Jones to begin with.
	Is there a running theory that this might have been sabotage of Jones from the get go?
	So.
	I don't think so from that sense, because I get where some people come with that, and there might have been aspects of that.
	But if you've interacted, I mean, we've interacted with him.
	I mean, some of the denial people, they're lawyers.
	They're doctors.
	They're professors.
	This is what throws someone like Jones, it would throw him off.
	It's like, hold on, okay, maybe there is something here, and I'm just ignoring it because it just seems too crazy to me to be true, that it's a hoax or a fake or anything else.
	But here was the next thing, and this is what really, in my view, pushed people like Wolfgang Hallbeck over the edge and gave a lot of ammunition to the denial movement, was the politicians in Connecticut went to great lengths to cover everything up.
	Now, anytime there's government people covering things up, it's going to trigger conspiracy theories and skepticism, and justifiably so, because usually there's something they're covering up.
	Now, I think it was in the interest of some of those people that the denial movement take over skepticism, right?
	Because as long as it's people saying things that don't have a good evidentiary foundation and are just crazy in many cases, in my view, then it's going to discredit.
	The skepticism that's actually well warranted and legitimate.
	And the real story of Sandy Hook was that ever since Columbine, my nephew, other people have been involved in school safety mechanisms, construction mechanisms since Columbine.
	And one of the basic protocols you're supposed to have is the means to be able to lock the inside of the door for teachers and to have an escape route plan.
	And astoundingly, In Sandy Hook.
	And they kept this hidden all for years.
	So Wolfgang Halbig is making FOIA requests and other requests, Open Records Act requests, Sunshine Law requests, and he's getting stonewalled.
	And so someone like him, it sends him down the path.
	Oh, I must be onto it.
	I must have proven it.
	I must be right.
	What, in fact, they were covering up was how the kids were found.
	I mean, stacked up in bathrooms, things like this.
	Made it clear that the big safety problem that was at the school, they did not put any means of locking the doors.
	So the teachers couldn't lock any door.
	There was no escape route at all available.
	And there was no means to even lock the doors, not lock the bathroom doors, not lock the school door, nothing.
	Aside from issues of not having adequate security personnel and a whole bunch of other things, that was just an egregious violation of basic school safety.
	And one of the Sandy Hook parents that's now suing Alex Jones actually tried to bring that suit when he found out about it years later.
	But the media gave no coverage to it.
	I doubt Elizabeth Williamson, that hack at the New York Times, has talked about it at all.
	And the reason is because what would have happened?
	Two things would have happened had that become knowledge right away.
	One is every school system in America would have had safety systems put in the next day.
	Because they don't realize this is a problem.
	We're not going to have Sandy Hook happen here.
	We can help prevent it from happening here at some scale just by having better safety mechanisms, one of which is as simple and as easy as a lock on the door.
	Number two, it would have completely gutted the gun control movement.
	That's why the media wasn't going to talk about it.
	That's why Obama wasn't going to talk about it.
	Last but not least on this list, of course, were the Connecticut politicians responsible for pocketing that cash for their favorite pet project rather than doing something as simple as putting locks on school kids' doors.
	Robert, this is my question, and I haven't even put it into the Google search engine.
	And in as much as you know, if you know, because they raised the school, raised as in destroyed, leveled it so nobody can know this anymore.
	When the theory is that the doors didn't have any locking mechanism from the inside, we're not talking about a deadbolt into the ground.
	Are we talking just no push button to lock a door?
	Yeah, correct.
	And this is why, like, it gave an idea of it.
	One of the things they were hiding were the police reports.
	And what they found in the police reports, this is why it's so shocking and horrifying to people who had to go in there, they found kids, like, stacked up inside the bathroom in one case.
	Right.
	I mean, so what that meant was the teacher knew it was coming and there just was no means to even lock the bathroom door or that door.
	And there was reason to believe he would have just moved on and many of these kids would be alive today.
	So you could imagine, I mean, the politicians in Connecticut would have been, you know, at least their political careers would have been hanging from the next tree.
	I mean, it would have been, I mean, you can imagine the rage that would have been unleashed on them.
	Obama would have lost his big gun control message and so would the media.
	And then this critical school safety mechanism doesn't go into place.
	And every time there's a school shooting now, the politicians profit from it.
	I mean, if you're a gun control politician, what incentive do you have for school safety?
	You don't right now.
	Your incentive is to keep letting them happen again and again and again and again.
	And I don't go down these paths.
	I just, you know, Uvalde, for example, and you hear that the commanding officer tells people to stand down for 74 minutes while this goes on.
	And you can't blame people for saying, my goodness, it's like the worse it is, the stronger the claim for Second Amendment restrictions.
	But Robert, the question I had.
	That's the reality of it.
	We have to address it as we see it.
	If a different foreign government does it, we would be skeptical for a range of reasons.
	We should not be any less skeptical of our own government, given what we witnessed.
	I mean, at some point, this continued unwillingness to have an adequate, effective school safety.
	For example, kids used to take guns to school all the time.
	And you know what?
	Back then, where were all the school shootings then?
	It's because if you're a school shooter, you're one of these nuts.
	You want fame.
	You need the media to be complicit in promoting you.
	So every time the media promotes you, it encourages the next one.
	If the media wouldn't promote you, it discourages the next one.
	And number two, you always tend to go to gun-free zones.
	You don't want to go to someplace where somebody could shoot you as soon as you walk in the door with a gun.
	So they go to places of unprotected, vulnerable people, and we've known this, and yet school systems continue to fail to protect kids.
	So they had to suppress that truth, and by doing so, they diverted attention to the denial movement.
	And by the way, during this whole time frame, Infowars, the editor-in-chief of Infowars, because the company is also being sued, Paul Joseph Watson, was one of the harshest critics.
	Of the denial movement.
	Would critique them and attack them when he was on the air.
	Would critique them and attack them when he wrote articles.
	That's why I did a review.
	About 99% of everything ever printed, published, or broadcast by Infowars during this time frame, from 2012 to 2018, said Sandy Hook happened.
	So they couldn't allow that to be presented to the jury either.
	So the first big myth was that Infowars propagated this.
	They weren't even the principal propagator of anything.
	They were actually on the opposite side for almost everything they said.
	The second thing, it had a totally different set of roots and origins that they couldn't deal with because it would gut their theory and thesis.
	They couldn't deal with the fact that the real reason for the crime could be as horrible as it was, was because politicians pocketed cash rather than spend it on kids' school safety.
	So stop right there.
	That was my main question.
	After Columbine, do I presume that there were budgets to schools say, fix this, add this, make these changes, use the budget?
	It became standard practice.
	It became standard all the way through.
	So at the risk of getting in trouble with Connecticut lawmakers, the theory is that they had budgets to do this.
	They didn't do it.
	There was no safety mechanism in place at this particular school.
	And so instead of having that be the object of scrutiny and the questions being asked, where did the funds go that were intended to provide this, raise the school and divert attention, which then fuels more spurious conspiracy.
	Theorizing as to how this happened.
	And then you have no trial because he's dead.
	And then what they do with that evidence also triggers suspicion and pushes people into the denial movement because they destroy evidence.
	I think his house was destroyed.
	I think his diary gets destroyed.
	A bunch of stuff.
	Because this would go to other issues that Alex Jones raised on the very night that Sandy Hook happened.
	Which he says, here's what we should be looking at.
	We should be looking at whether big pharma is adequately treating people for mental health, particularly young men in America.
	We should be looking at whether mental health itself, our mental health treatment of young men, is adequate in America.
	We should be looking at whether our culture in Hollywood and gaming and elsewhere is actually undermining the mental state and well-being of our young men in America.
	Because that's where our focus should be, not blame the gun.
	And that's also places that people could have gone.
	What is causing someone to get this crazy?
	Why do they target the schools?
	But all of these things would implicate either the public health arena, big pharma, or big media.
	And none of them wanted any talk or any discussion about them.
	Their complicity in promoting and propagating this for ratings, knowing it will encourage and incentivize the next one to do it.
	They don't want to be examined.
	They don't want to be assessed.
	They don't want to be judged.
	Big Pharma and the fact that their SSR, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor drugs, have a long established history of problematic behavior, of problematic consequences and side effects, including driving some people actually more mad, more crazy, causing them to do things they would not otherwise do.
	And the fact that we were...
	Sticking these through the school system, sticking some of these drugs into kids at the age of five and six and seven, with Adderall that was disproportionately targeted and things like Ritalin, targeting five and six-year-old boys especially as a control mechanism, and the others, and the politicians, of course, who are complicit in a wide range of bad acts.
	So they had to make sure none of that happened, and that kept pushing everybody into the denial side.
	And so it had to be just the gun.
	And then next, it had to be just Alex Jones.
	And for that, they had to suppress the existence.
	The fact that Jones never sent anybody to stalk anybody.
	Jones never gave out anybody's personal residential address.
	Jones never called or contacted anybody.
	Jones never talked about them by name ever.
	The only thing, the only criticism is, about two years after Sandy Hook, at sporadic times, and answering calls of people calling in.
	He made statements about supporting the broader theory or idea of denialism.
	And they've taken that and they're saying that's their sole ground for it.
	The problem is that's not a constitutional claim.
	The other problem is he is not the source of these people's difficulty or the denial movement.
	In fact, for a long time, he was one of the main pushers back against.
	The denial movement.
	And it drove the denial movement nuts that you had Alex Jones, one of the biggest critics of the government and media and conspiracies in America, saying denialism is wrong.
	His editor-in-chief, Paul Joseph Watson, mocking and critiquing him on the pages of InfoWars on a daily basis.
	They couldn't allow that story to be told because it guts their whole story.
	Not only that, Alex Jones' Sandy Hook was a tiny, tiny drop in the bucket of all the news that Alex Jones ever covered.
	The Alex Jones took off in terms of public attention because our world kept getting crazier and our media kept getting more corrupt.
	That's the short answer.
	How did Jones take off?
	Jones has been a distinct, independent, as Norm Pattis well articulated in the opening statement, he's an old-school American populist.
	Some people see him as crazy.
	Others see him as the canary in the coal mine.
	And what has Alex Jones been over the last five years but the canary in the coal mine?
	He has been ahead of the curve at being critical and skeptical.
	And this was a credit to Norm Pattis in the trial.
	Because the other thing they don't want to talk about is the context of this.
	Because how and why could Alex Jones believe at any point in time any theory in support of the denialism?
	Putting everything else aside.
	It's because, as he explained, he said, you know, I got to the point in my life.
	Where almost everything I thought couldn't be true turned out to be true when it involved the powerful and the privileged.
	And that story, that Alex Jones story, is the one the judge is saying he better not be talking about anything I don't approve of him to talk about.
	No Hillary Clinton.
	No Hillary Clinton, Robert.
	The words Hillary Clinton cannot be mentioned in this trial.
	And I'll get to why they're actually particularly relevant that Hillary Clinton be mentioned in this trial.
	But, I mean, what does that tell you about it?
	Why are we even having a trial when he's not allowed to defend himself in the merits?
	What is the trial about?
	It's supposed to be about damages.
	Have we heard much evidence about damages?
	No.
	Just like Texas.
	It's a show trial.
	This is a Soviet Stassi-style show trial.
	You are witnessing the worst show trial in American.
	Legal, modern history in live time.
	And the lawyers are quiet about it.
	The media is complicit in it.
	The politicians are hiding under their little bushes and their little desks rather than discuss it and confront it like many Southern politicians did in the 1950s and 1960s when civil rights was at the door.
	And all of them will have the same shame put upon them that was put upon those folks back then.
	Well, there's only two things.
	From what I've seen, I think they acknowledge that Jones did mention Robbie Parker by name.
	There's that element so that no one accuses me of not bringing up that fact that seems to be admitted.
	And Robert, the statement that Alex Jones made in 2016, so we're three plus years out of the incident, where he says, if any children died, my sympathy to their parents.
	But I watched soap operas.
	I know acting.
	I mean, he said that three plus years out.
	That's the statement they're replaying over and over again.
	Whether or not, I mean, my view watching that, it's quite clearly a statement of opinion.
	And you'll take it with the grain of salt to discredit how you might view Alex Jones at large.
	But that's the evidence out there.
	It's basically, I added it up, it's about seven minutes of words out of about seven million words that he published or broadcast during that time frame.
	So they're claiming that the one in a million words are grounds for him to be bankrupt.
	And those one in a million words are not specifically factually false statements about a specifically identified individual.
	So, of almost everyone who's suing, and to my knowledge, everybody, but at least almost everyone.
	So, in that, and there may be names or people that have got identified at different points, but I didn't see a nexus to a specifically factually false statement about that person.
	And there was weird things that happened in the case that furthered the denial belief system.
	And there were newspapers that would print the wrong photo, print a photo of someone who died at Sandy Hook and say they died somewhere else.
	There were statements the FBI made in response to FOIA requests that were, if not deliberately, would definitely have the effect of being confusing and misleading, things of that nature.
	But basically, they have to strip Jones of all of his context.
	They can't present the context of what really happened at Sandy Hook.
	They can't present the context of the denial movement, and they can't present the context of who Alex Jones is, because to do so damns their case.
	And that's why they were always, I knew from the very beginning, I told people what they're going to do is they're going to have to default him.
	And the reason they're going to have to default him is because if the evidence comes to light, they lose.
	And they know it.
	And this transitions into how the default occurred.
	If you dig into the default...
	He's produced all this information.
	He ends up sitting for hundreds of hours of depositions between him and other people at Infowars.
	I think it's like five or six or eight or whatever it was in Connecticut, more in Texas.
	They're sharing the deposition, so it's just another one, another one, another one, another one, another one, another one.
	He's deposing family members, deposing anybody that has any connection to the business at all.
	He has to get corporate representatives to get depositions, and that corporate representative who testified was really...
	Probably not the best person to be that representative, but he doesn't operate in that way.
	But he does all that.
	Produces, as you've seen at the trial, goes and gets the Google Analytics.
	In other words, goes to Google and gets Google's records about his stuff and produces discovery that he's not supposed to be obligated to under the rules and even produces that.
	Produces all the emails in the text, as we know about from the text that got produced as well in Texas that were shared in Connecticut because they've been referencing him in the trial.
	We know they get all the financial information.
	Go find a libel defamation case where the New York Times had disclosed all of its financial information.
	Find the Washington Post, NBC, CBS, ABC.
	Find any of them that have disclosed one even little bit of financial information.
	I challenge anybody that thinks I'm wrong, go do it.
	Prove me wrong.
	Good luck with that.
	So the nature of it is he does all of this, and yet they defaulted him anyway.
	Why?
	Because they had to have a default in order to have a show trial.
	If they allowed the evidence to be presented, just like they couldn't allow him to make his First Amendment arguments about how these claims don't conform to the First Amendment, because these are just opinions and ideas that are not supposed to be the grounds for any lawsuit ever.
	And these other legal theories have no merit whatsoever, and he should have been in federal court anyway in Connecticut due to the...
	They had to give him default because if he presents the whole story to the jury, the jury doesn't condemn him.
	The jury realizes the core of the plaintiff's lawyer's case is a fake case.
	And what I mean by fake case is that they're claiming Alex Jones is the originator and instigator of a theory he did not originate and instigate.
	They're claiming he did things that in fact he never did.
	And they're claiming he made a bunch of money off it when they know that's not true.
	One part you can know it's not true is just how tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of Sandy Hook coverage there was.
	And when you know that almost all of that coverage said Sandy Hook happened, when 99% of InfoWars coverage says Sandy Hook happened, that's something Megyn Kelly's not going to talk about.
	A lot of folks in the media are not talking about that aspect.
	They're not being honest about that.
	I get a lot of people in the conservative, legal, political world are unwilling...
	To give Alex Jones fair treatment.
	Alan Dershowitz.
	Read a brief, Alan.
	If you're going to make strong statements about a case, at least research a little bit of it.
	At least watch a little bit of the trial.
	These people have it.
	They're talking out of school, praising a case that they should be ashamed that they're praising.
	These people were the kind of people in the Southern political establishment that were praising New York Times versus Sullivan.
	And quite frankly, Sullivan had a much stronger case than is present here.
	Under unconstitutional principles.
	But that's why they're always going to gut him.
	So how did they do it?
	They kept saying, Alex Jones, give us the proof of your guilt.
	Give us the secret business plan that shows how you planned on making all this money from Sandy Hook.
	Give us the business financial proof that you actually made all this money from Sandy Hook.
	Give us all the other...
	There must be thousands more Sandy Hook videos out there.
	Even though, again, Media Matters has been...
	They were able to pull every single statement he'd ever made about Sandy Hook and publish it.
	So the liberal organizations knew what the real story was.
	They could search YouTube themselves.
	They had all of that.
	They had all the videos produced.
	In fact, videos that weren't even relevant, frankly.
	But he was overproducing, so it was full transparency.
	So they knew none of that was true.
	But they had to pretend it was true to have a case.
	And then they said, basically it was, give us the proof of your guilt.
	And every time he said, I don't have proof of my guilt because I'm not guilty.
	Ah!
	The false judgment.
	Sanctions.
	How dare you not produce the proof of your guilt?
	You must confess.
	And if you don't confess, your refusal to confess is proof that you're guilty.
	That is what happened in the discovery in the Alex Jones case.
	The financial stuff.
	I mean, it seems that what they got them on was the Google Analytics financial data.
	But they had, am I wrong, Robert?
	They had corporate financial records, correct?
	Well...
	The thing with Google Analytics is he went and produced it.
	But see, their theory was he must have always been doing this, right?
	But they knew that wasn't true.
	If you know of a talk radio host, and this is based on the Homeland series, I think it's season six, where they created an Alex Jones caricature.
	And this Alex Jones caricature is that none of these people really believe what they say, that everybody in InfoWars is fake, that they are putting out fake narratives.
	And monitoring it for monetary purposes.
	If Alex Jones was driven by money, he never would have challenged 9-11.
	He was peaking and peaking and peaking in popularity and fame across the country at the time 9-11 occurred.
	All he had to do, there were tons of people around him that said, stay on pace, you're going to replace out Rush Limbaugh ultimately.
	Because he's just a natural when it comes to being an entertaining guy, of communicating with a unique perspective, of being well-informed.
	He's just pure natural skill.
	And everybody told him, just shut your mouth about, when he started talking about criticizing 9-11, they said, if you just shut your mouth about 9-11, you're going to have your own Fox show down the road.
	But if you keep going down this path, you're not even going to have your talk radio show.
	Well, what does Alex Jones do?
	He doubles down on 9-11.
	So the idea that this guy's motivated by money is belied by his entire history.
	And his audience knows this about him.
	They know he has made repeated...
	I'll give a practical example.
	During the lockdown stuff.
	So, you know, there's a lot of people that were selling storable food.
	And if Alex Jones was interested in a monetary perspective, he would have said the virus was extremely dangerous.
	You should be terrified.
	You should be horrified.
	Stay at home.
	Only get storable food.
	He told me he would get storable food because he saw the lockdown coming.
	But what does he do?
	He realizes he's going to be forfeiting a bunch of advertising revenue by saying, you know what, this virus is being greatly exaggerated.
	In fact, they're trying to use this as a control mechanism.
	But what does he do?
	He's the number one person doing that.
	He's the leader doing it.
	So the idea that money motivates them, they also knew, again, the people have been obsessed with Alex Jones within the political establishment for quite a while now because he's the most successful populist voice in American history in a century.
	Arguably, he's up there with Thomas Paine at his degree of influence.
	And you don't have to take my word for it.
	You can go to the media, corporate media's own polling.
	YouGov polled Alex Jones.
	What did they find?
	They found two things.
	One, over 30 million Americans have a very favorable view of Alex Jones.
	And those 30 million Americans will tune in to Alex Jones at some point during a year.
	Millions tune in on a daily basis.
	He had more popularity than Joe Rogan, more popularity than Rush Limbaugh in the intensity of his support, more popularity than almost anybody out there.
	There's a reason why Donald Trump went on Alex Jones early on in his primary campaign, because Trump recognized that fact in reality.
	And so while all the other Republican politicians are worried about what the Wall Street Journal is going to say, they should be worried about what Alex Jones is going to say.
	But Alex Jones was apolitical until Obama.
	So Alex Jones, he was one of the harshest Bush critics anywhere.
	They loved him in Austin during the early 2000s because he would just go after the Bushes on a regular basis.
	He'd been doing it since the 90s.
	He criticized George Bush right at a press conference before the cops grabbed him and threw him out.
	He helped build a memorial to Waco.
	This is the context that drove the plaintiff's lawyer nuts that Norm Pattis just presented a bit of peace of.
	He's like, let's remember who Alex Jones is at 17 years old.
	Alex Jones is getting to go ham radio and public access TV, and he comes to the conclusion that the incubator baby story is crazy.
	It's false.
	It's fake.
	He's a 17-year-old kid, right?
	He's going to challenge the United States government and say the United States government is lying to you to get into war.
	Well, within a few years, he turned out to be true.
	Then we go through Waco.
	Then we go through Ruby Ridge, Randy Weaver.
	Then we go through Oklahoma City.
	And towards the end of the 1990s...
	He had been saying for a while, because he had family and other people that had been in special forces and things of that nature, that the government had actually orchestrated staged false flag events in the early 1960s and that Kennedy had shut it down.
	Well, what gets publicly disclosed in FOIA in 1998-1999?
	Operation Northwoods.
	What is Operation Northwoods?
	The highest ranking military officials in America had a plan to stage false flag events, including fake hijackings, fake terrorism events, and other events in order to go to war with Cuba.
	And the only man who stopped it, it wasn't the general chiefs.
	It wasn't anybody within the military hierarchy.
	It wasn't anybody within the political hierarchy.
	It was President John Kennedy.
	And by the way, a year or so later, he'd be killed and assassinated.
	And then 9-11 happens.
	And all the unusual things around 9-11.
	And so he sees event after event after event.
	And then remember, we get weapons of mass destruction just three years later.
	So if you're a Gen Xer, like Alex Jones, and you've grown up on these stories, and you've seen every theory of yours confirmed, you're going to be hyper-skeptical of how the system works.
	But during that time period, he's apolitical.
	He's not Republican.
	He's not Democrat.
	He thinks the political process is a bunch of crap.
	You can watch a movie of Scanner Darkly that has Alex Jones going around on his car with a megaphone blasting the system and how both parties are frauds.
	He was a huge Bush critic.
	Then Obama comes along and he doesn't trust Obama.
	And he becomes more politically active against the Democratic Party as an institution party because of the direction he sees it taking, a statist direction.
	He also becomes a fan of Trump.
	He was initially skeptical but got along with Trump, talked to Trump.
	He realized Trump seems sincere in his view at populist viewpoint, really trying to challenge deep state corruption.
	That's when Alex Jones got on a different radar.
	So you had certain people that always didn't like him because he was pointing out scandals before those scandals would become public knowledge and pointing out a template of power.
	The core of Alex Jones is simple.
	The people who seek power and successfully get it are people you should not trust.
	You should instinctively distrust until proven otherwise.
	And that's a good, I think it's a good mantra for all of politics and governance in my experience and power in general.
	But when he got political, Democrats became fearful and angry towards him.
	And they started seeing more overlap between Jones' audience and political activism and working class conversion rates within the Republican Party.
	Many of these people are independents.
	And this is why the one name they don't want to allow come out at this trial, the whole beginning of the political lawfare against Alex Jones, starts with a speech by one Hillary Rodham Clinton.
	Who focuses on Jones and is telling and weaponizing and baiting her audience and the powerful people within her coterie to go after Alex Jones, saying, here is the problem, here is the guy, here is the source.
	From that moment, all of a sudden, a lot of these plaintiffs who had, many of them, had never voiced, to my knowledge, none of the Connecticut plaintiffs.
	And this is the stunning thing about this case.
	None of the Connecticut plaintiffs, to my knowledge, ever voiced a single word of criticism ever to Alex Jones until right on the eve of the suit.
	If someone was lying about me, I'm going to send them a letter and a fax at least, a little email, give them a little call.
	If they were harassing me, I'd be on top of that.
	Yet, they never did.
	In fact, the only person they've talked about is someone who's not a plaintiff in this case, and they've misrepresented what he experienced.
	Well, you know, I got questions about who are not plaintiffs in this case, but one thing that was interesting that came out of the first witness, Bill William, what's his last name?
	I forget.
	The FBI lawyer.
	Is that despite all the harassment that purportedly, and I don't deny, I have no reason to deny that it happened, except during the trial.
	You know, they talk about years of harassment of family and people, and yet no criminal complaints, no arrests, no charges, which is interesting.
	That was very good by Norm Pattis to bring that out.
	It's like, if all of this happened, how did the FBI never arrest anybody?
	How did nobody else arrest anybody?
	What that suggests is that while someone may feel it was harassment, that an independent evidentiary review...
	Didn't show any criminal activity actually taking place.
	Maybe it's just because the FBI was careless, reckless.
	The local state authorities were careless and reckless.
	I can tell you as a general rule, somebody's threatening an FBI agent, you get hammered.
	So that's where Pattis was very effective at pointing that out.
	And he did it subtly, but important significantly.
	But so basically, that whole story of context of Jones, of why he's the canary in the coal mine, as is some of the facts that Pattis was getting in front of the jury, they also couldn't afford that to be out there.
	They couldn't have the context of Sandy Hook exposed.
	They couldn't have the context of the denial movement exposed.
	And they couldn't have the context of who Alex Jones is exposed, because then it damns their case.
	Their case goes away.
	Their case dies.
	The big lie gets untold and gets unmasked, even amongst...
	Remember, these are liberal Democratic jury pools in both Austin and here in Connecticut.
	Many of them deeply sensitive to the Sandy Hook plight.
	And yet, this plaintiff's law firm is one of the biggest, most successful plaintiff's law firms.
	Tons of money.
	Tons of money.
	Brought in $73 million from the gun manufacturers in this case.
	Same law firm.
	Same group of people.
	Politically connected.
	To U.S. senators, congressmen, U.S. attorneys, they got all kinds of allies and connections through that law firm.
	They are the political powerhouse in Connecticut.
	They were terrified of a jury trial on the merits.
	And that tells you all you really need to know.
	Once you know that, you know that no self-respecting lawyer wants to win by default judgment when they got a case like this.
	They want this case publicly displayed, publicly discussed, and the rest.
	But they couldn't have that.
	They needed a show trial instead because the facts prove their theory about Sandy Hook, their theory about the denier movement, their theory about Alex Jones was all wrong.
	Sandy Hook barely even budged.
	And if you asked Alex Jones, he'd be happy to tell you he hated even ever discussing it at a certain point.
	And it cost money.
	It never made money.
	And so they kept saying, give us the proof that you made money off Sandy Hook.
	And he's like, I didn't.
	Well, give us your business plan.
	If you know Alex Jones...
	Business plan?
	He has no business plan.
	God bless the man.
	He is an old-school talk radio guy who sits down, talks, tells you what he thinks.
	Now, he's unusually well-educated, unusually well-informed for a talk radio host.
	He can talk about an extraordinary number of topics from a wide range because he's unusually well-read.
	Old school.
	And he used to read the white papers that government foundations and think tanks and other organizations were doing.
	That's how he was able to predict a lot of this stuff.
	And he has a method of approach.
	His methodological approach, distrust people in power, assume they're up to something bad.
	You can often figure that out if you look at where their publications, their foundations, their think tanks, and history.
	But he's not a business plan guy.
	God bless his soul.
	Like the big deal is about emails.
	I've never known Alex Jones to send an email ever, ever.
	Ever.
	That's just not his thing.
	He'll text a little bit.
	That's about it.
	That's not his thing.
	Now, he's written a book, Great Reset, that is extremely popular right now.
	Steve Bannon called it one of the best books out there.
	So he can write very well.
	It's just not...
	Email's not his thing.
	It never was.
	And in the same sense, business plans?
	No.
	That's not who the man is.
	It's not rocket science.
	The plaintiff's lawyer set out how you run an online business.
	You generate traffic.
	You generate leads to the product.
	The dog's making noise.
	Let me just read a few super chat.
	A rumble rants, Robert.
	Hydro PX says, freedom of speech for all, and I mean all.
	These are on Rumble.
	Rob A says, please hit the plus rumble button to like this video.
	White guy says, people only say you're Mossad because of the secret Jewish conspiracy you both are obviously a part of with a smiley face because it's a joke.
	And then we got Pokey Wizard says, so are you saying you will not read the official Sandy Hook report in response to one of my comments earlier?
	I've read all of it.
	I've read all of it.
	The denialists were always wrong.
	And they were suckered into going that way, so the truth about Sandy Hook school safety would not be exposed.
	That's my view.
	And I understand, and that's why it was always a trap, to go down that path.
	And Jones mostly resisted it over the time frame.
	In other words, basically, he entertained it three different times, seven minutes out of seven million minutes, and for that they're supposed to bankrupt him and crucify him.
	And that's why they can't let the jury know the context.
	That's why, like, you're seeing things...
	It was extraordinary.
	That first witness gets up there, and he does not identify him ever hearing Alex Jones make a specific statement that upset him.
	The lead witness!
	More important than that, so the lead witness, they start off with the FBI agent, who's a personal plaintiff to the lawsuit.
	He specifies, I'm there in my personal capacity.
	He says, I never really heard Alex Jones directly.
	I just noticed that my picture was on the front pages.
	I wasn't wearing my FBI badge.
	Not the front pages of InfoWars.
	He admitted he'd never seen his photo ever put up at InfoWars, his name ever identified, him ever talked about.
	He's talking about newspapers that were around the country because he was one of the people that responded to it.
	And everyone should bear in mind, this is evidence after the default verdict.
	Guilty.
	Guilty on intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	I guess on the other economic charges of the suit.
	But this FBI agent is presenting evidence to the effect that he didn't hear any statements for a long time and that the very theories that they're suggesting Jones initiated, although I think they're going to transfer or move the goalposts to Amplified, the hoax, the crisis actors, it being a total fake.
	You're just going to try to confuse the jury.
	And this is why it had to be by default with a show trial.
	Because what we should be seeing is a trial about what damages people suffered.
	So people should be getting up and testifying and saying, I heard this on this day from Alex Jones.
	This is how it impacted me.
	This is how it damaged me.
	That's what we should see.
	That's what a damages trial is.
	Instead, 90% of the evidence has nothing to do with damages.
	That's because this is about a show trial.
	But it had to be a one-sided show trial.
	Because to introduce the context would cause problems.
	So they want the jury to believe.
	That's why he used the word they a lot, you notice.
	It was a tricky little deceptive representation throughout.
	The plaintiff's lawyer throughout was always saying, well, they were doing this.
	They were doing this.
	What the jury doesn't know is they isn't Alex Jones.
	In fact, the they doing this was while Alex Jones and Infowars was critical of the they and critical of the them.
	They can't allow the jury.
	And they're only allowed to get away with it because the judge is allowing this kind of lie to be told to the jury because the judge has a personal bias and prejudice against Alex Jones that has been present throughout the whole case, has routinely misused and abused her judicial power to try to intimidate and coerce Jones and intimidate his counsel.
	And for people that are beyond...
	That those concerned with the substance of Alex Jones, or whether they're concerned with, maybe they're not concerned about the First Amendment, they're not concerned about due process of law.
	To give people an idea, default judgment in America is called the death penalty sanction.
	It is supposed to never be given.
	It is supposed to be quickly withdrawn outside of extreme...
	Those are complete non-compliance, complete refusal to participate.
	So even if you refuse to turn over documents or destroy documents, you still can't do a default judgment on that.
	What you're allowed is an evidentiary inference that if that evidence had been discovered, it would be adverse to the party on that particular issue.
	That would be the only remedy, even if you believed any discovery issues occurred.
	The court couldn't do that because it didn't serve their purposes of a show trial.
	I was wondering, why are we having a damages trial?
	Often a damages prove-up hearing doesn't even necessarily require a jury trial.
	You've said he can't defend himself.
	He's defaulted.
	He can't say he's innocent.
	It's because we're seeing a show trial, just like Texas, where we're seeing almost all the evidence presented has nothing to do with damages.
	It's to get the jury to blame and hate Alex Jones so they'll write as big a check as possible for people who, quite frankly, were not, by the evidence I've seen, directly harmed by Alex Jones.
	I mean, that's the reason.
	They dealt with a bunch of deniers, but those deniers existed long before Alex Jones said anything and have nothing to do with Alex Jones.
	And they're going to say, they will make the argument, Jones amplified it, but the counter, if we were at a stage of any evidence on the merits, would be, The only reason it ever made it to Alex Jones was because it was incredibly wildly popular on its own to even get there.
	But Robert, I don't know who wrote the book on Sandy Hooks having never happened.
	It came out in the trial today.
	Halbig, the author of that book, have they been sued personally for any of the statements they've made?
	Some of them have been.
	So here's the other factor that was going on here.
	My view is there are a lot of people around Sandy Hook in political positions of power who wanted to make sure the parents didn't go fishing where there might be some fish because they didn't want the parents to find out, I think, about the school safety issues.
	I also think they didn't want parents to blame big pharma, didn't want to blame big media, to blame big government, to blame any of those sources of authority.
	So they needed to distract him.
	Now, there are all kinds of funds raised for them that I think was partially intended to push them in a particular political agenda.
	This is an important point for a lot of people out there.
	Most of the parents have not sued Alex Jones.
	It is only a small percentage that have.
	So it's not the case that a bunch of parents blame Alex Jones for this.
	And the parents that are suing him in Connecticut, to my knowledge, didn't even think about this until after Hillary Clinton's speech.
	That's why...
	And the people that are involved with this suit, many of them, not all of them, but at least several of them, are very politically active.
	That was true in Texas as well.
	They believe strongly in gun control and are liberal Democrats, etc.
	So what Norm Pattis wanted to explore in the trial was say, look, whether or not they are being truthful about who and what caused them injury and the scope of that injury.
	This necessarily relates to when they got the idea to sue, what the actual inspiration of the suit was, and whether their real goal was to take down Alex Jones and to be part of an agenda that they may not even be fully cognizant of to take down Alex Jones.
	And that's why he wants to talk about Hillary Clinton, because Hillary Clinton is the one who started this whole thing.
	And to give people an idea out there, Alex Jones and Infowars had been going on at the time of this lawsuit when these cases started.
	Or as of 2016, before Hillary Clinton's speech, like the better part of a quarter century, never faced suit from anybody.
	No lawsuits against Alex Jones, no lawsuits against divorce.
	None of it.
	All of a sudden, after Hillary Clinton's speech, within two years, he will face more than 25 lawsuits and legal claims.
	All of a sudden, it's copyright this, it's defamation here, it's employment this, it's contractor, I mean, all over the place.
	You'd have to be an idiot not to draw the connection.
	That people decide, and not only that, a lot of people suing were represented by big, powerful law firms who are working for free for their cases.
	How does that happen?
	How does Pepe the Frog, the creator of that, suddenly decide to sue Alex Jones?
	They got a documentary out about that, and they stuck my name in the documentary.
	I don't appear in the documentary.
	They stick my face up there once, but they use my name to market their documentary.
	That's another story.
	So that's the other backstory to this whole case.
	You have the three pieces of context they can't allow the jury to hear because it would gut the case.
	And then you have the point and purpose of the case, which is to do two things.
	I should say three things.
	One, take out Alex Jones and then forward.
	So it's specific individual.
	Two, change the rules governing free speech so that you can politically weaponize the court process to go after dissidents and crush them.
	And third, change the rules of how trials themselves operate so that you can openly and overtly run a show trial in America to a high-profile target and almost nobody complain and the courts not whisper a word about it.
	And that's why it's consequential for the rest of us.
	Let's say you don't care at all about Alex Jones and Infowars.
	Your free speech is at issue here.
	And your due process is at issue here.
	And the American civil trial justice system is at issue here.
	And just look at how horrendous this judge's behavior is when she knows she's on camera towards Norm Pattis.
	You must stand!
	You must stand!
	Tons of people make objections while you sit down.
	Do you know how idiotic it is to require you stand up every second and you have to object?
	I've had judges say that.
	Say, well, Judge, I'm just staying the whole time.
	You know, because he does too many objectionable things.
	So, you know.
	Now, Norm, to his credit, as we highlighted and did a Viva clip of, was able to stand up to this corrupt judge repeatedly, this rogue judge repeatedly, when she was trying to badger him into forfeiting his client's rights, try to get him to do what she wants, to participate willingly and openly in this show trial.
	What's conscientious, real trial lawyering looks like.
	So maybe you don't care about free speech.
	Maybe you don't care about due process.
	Maybe you don't care about Alex Jones and InfoWars.
	Maybe you don't care about any of that.
	If you like law, if you care about advocacy, if you want to get better at it, watching this trial to watch how Norm Pattis operates is a great way to learn how to do effective advocacy.
	And in general, if you want to see what social justice warrior types are going to look like in a future liberal democratic dominated judiciary, watch this trial.
	Communists in Cuba and in the Soviet Union would be embarrassed at how much of a show trial this trial is.
	I'll correct myself.
	I was reading the chat.
	First of all, I know that Halbig did not write the book.
	The book was written by Salisbury, who's one of the names that comes up a lot during the trial.
	Yeah, the incident that Robert is talking about now is there was an objection.
	Because Pattis wanted to open the door to Hillary Clinton, the speech that set all of this off.
	So they had a sidebar.
	Jury's out of the room.
	And then Pattis had asked questions about Hillary Clinton, her speech, Megyn Kelly's interview.
	And then they had some objections.
	And then the judge is like, well, I think I should know what your next questions are going to be.
	He says, no, no, thank you.
	You told me not to talk about Megyn Kelly, Hillary Clinton.
	I won't.
	Well, maybe I should know what you're going to ask so we can avoid problems.
	He says, no.
	And he said no to the judge.
	It was like the first time the judge had ever heard someone say no to her.
	She gets her face on her.
	And then he says, that's it.
	You told me?
	I'll move on.
	And then he continues doing his job.
	But the judge was so flustered it led to her having something of a minor meltdown, which she hasn't had again.
	She lost her temper.
	And she's lost her temper throughout this trial.
	I mean...
	Losing your temper at a lawyer because you're demanding that he stand up in a particular way when he makes an objection?
	I mean, that takes time for one, right?
	I mean, in most courtrooms in America these days, they allow you to sit down when making objections because it makes no sense to stand up, sit down, stand up, sit down, stand up, sit down.
	I mean, it's a dumb thing to interrupt it.
	It shows a power-mad judge.
	So if you want to see what corruption in the judiciary looks like, not quid pro quo corruption, but corruption of the rule of law, corruption of the principles that are supposed to govern us, corruption of the judicial temperament, you can watch this trial to see what a judge looks like in action who is one of those kind of corrupt rogue judges.
	Because this is a judge who loses her temper at a moment's notice, and the backstory is she's enraged at Pattis.
	That Pettis isn't being a Star Chamber lawyer and isn't being complicit in coercing his client to go along happily and eagerly with this show trial.
	Pettis refuses to do it.
	Pettis is an old-school, conscientious, constitutional liberal.
	The ponytail is reflective of who the man is.
	And he's been willing to challenge and contest and question power in many difficult cases.
	If you ever wanted to see, what would it have been like to be William Kunstler in the Chicago 7 trial?
	Also not televised because it was federal court.
	You're seeing it right now.
	This is what Norm Pattis is living exactly what William Kunstler lived in the Chicago 7 trial.
	You get to see it every day.
	The judge trying to provoke him and provoke him and provoke him and attack him and attack him and attack him and undermine him and undermine him and undermine him.
	He never takes the bait.
	Stays with a cool demeanor.
	Says, no, you're not.
	No, you're not.
	I'm going to do what I'm going to do.
	We're going to get sideways, but I'm going to do what I'm going to do.
	Maintains that even keel while protecting and defending his client and his cause without letting a corrupt judge contaminate it.
	All right.
	Let's get into the evidence of the trial.
	So we had the first witness, the FBI agent.
	I don't know what evidence that the witness adjuiced that was any...
	Of any use for the damages portion of this?
	I mean, I was sort of stunned by some of the evidence that was adduced.
	It proves it's a show trial.
	I mean, how much evidence have you seen that actually related to damages?
	And I'll let you talk.
	I have to go get some real quick.
	I'll be right back.
	No, no.
	I'll say I saw.
	I won't say strictly none.
	The FBI agent.
	Here, I'll bring Robert out until he comes back in.
	The FBI agent.
	The evidence that the FBI agent who's a personal plaintiff adduced was.
	It was interesting evidence.
	On the merits, in terms of how the plaintiffs became aware of the allegedly defamatory intentional infliction of emotional distress comments.
	By and large, they didn't hear it directly at the time.
	The agent said it was only a fair bit of time later that he noticed he was back in the news.
	He would occasionally Google his name.
	And then he attributed it to the fact that Jones was talking again about Sandy Hook.
	But the idea that the agent himself confirmed that a lot of these theories that they attribute to Alex Jones were born immediately in the wake of the tragedy.
	And that was it.
	I mean, they went on for, it was almost a day.
	The most interesting part of day one was Pattis standing up to the judge who's, if anybody's watching that and is taken, what's the word, impressed, enamored with the judge's demeanor.
	We'll have to have an agreement to disagree.
	That was the first witness.
	And Robert was right in his assessment of our live stream the first day.
	Strategically, maybe I don't know why you would start off with a witness who's not the most sympathetic witness other than the fact that he was clearly...
	I've taken some flack in the comment sections.
	People don't believe that his tears were legit.
	I believe that his tears on the trauma were legit and then directed for...
	Political purposes, efforts.
	Set that aside.
	Then they had the rep, the corporate rep.
	Pause.
	Pause or pause.
	They've spent now, what day is it today?
	Two days in chief with this witness.
	And I'm going back to read Rubia's comment back on the YouTube days, who said, my two cents, plaintiff's counsel was boring as heck.
	Inappropriately attacking the corporate rep.
	Absolutely.
	The animosity coming off the plaintiff's counsel is palpable.
	It's palpable in the questions that the lawyer asks, in the manner in which the lawyer, I will say callously, thinking he's scoring pity points or tugging it at heartstring points, it looks cheap and it looks tawdry.
	In the questions that are argumentative questions with the witness, the witness is a rep of the corporation.
	In fairness to the plaintiff's attorney, Brought up some good points about the plaintiffs, sorry, the corporate rep being a new hire, knew nothing of the company, was hired very recently to represent the company, was paid to do it, had some business connection to Pattis as an attorney himself.
	She used to work for him as a lawyer.
	All right, so maybe some questionable, if you want to read into who she is and why she's biased, etc., you can do that.
	If you want to come to the conclusion that Infowars and Alex Jones put her up as a newly hired rep of the company because she would know nothing and she would answer, I don't know, I don't know a lot.
	Okay, she did.
	She answered, I don't know, I don't know a lot.
	I've never seen that email.
	I've never seen those Google Docs, which is further evidence of the fact that they've had all of this evidence for a long time.
	The evidence that was used as the basis to default Jones, they have because they're showing it now.
	And so even if anybody thinks that Jones materially defaulted on his discovery obligations, if you're watching the trial, plaintiffs are not lacking any evidence to make a claim on the merits, but we're past that point, okay?
	Barnes is back in the house.
	Robert, why did they go with, I mean, maybe you're not able to talk about this type of strategy.
	They went with a corporate rep who's new, clearly doesn't know the history of the company, doesn't know the history of the business.
	Why would they pick her?
	As opposed to, say, people are going to say, Jones could have been the rep.
	Why isn't he the corporate rep?
	Well, I mean, they were able to depose him anyway.
	So, I mean, they could depose him on anything and everything.
	So the normal protocol is a lot of times they want someone to be a separate...
	Here's the reality.
	The plaintiff's lawyers knew that he had a very informal business structure.
	So they wanted to force someone independent of him to be the corporate representative, knowing no such person existed.
	So that he had to go find one.
	I mean, this was constantly being done to him.
	Okay, I don't have those documents.
	I never created those discovery.
	I don't do Google Analytics.
	Well, you have to go do them.
	And it's insane.
	Normally, this would never be allowed, but this was the court protocol.
	Because they had to maintain this fiction that this was a sophisticated business operation.
	For the show trial, this was a sophisticated business operation all about the bottom line.
	It's a lot of confession through projection.
	It's what motivates these people.
	I mean, the plaintiff's lawyers are after this case for political reasons, but after they already shook down the gun companies, insurance companies, for $73 million.
	I mean, extraordinary.
	The actual culpable party has never been brought to trial in Connecticut.
	The one plaintiff who tried to go after him, the one parent who did, the courts in Connecticut shut that down fast.
	Oh, no, no, we can't go into the school and say, no, no, no, gotta dismiss those.
	And the media was happy to be complicit in covering up everything about that case for the most part.
	In fact, most people didn't even know anything about it.
	That were in this world until I found it.
	So that's why they always...
	So he's being told by lawyers and he's being told by the courts that he has to produce people that don't exist.
	And he's like, okay, so I guess we'll find someone.
	And originally, a corporate representative were some people who had been around the business, but they objected to those people.
	And often, they did a corporate representative deposition when I was there early on in the case.
	Of two companies that were simply empty companies.
	They created them on paper, never did anything with them.
	And I was like, why are we having a deposition of an entity that only exists on a piece of paper?
	Oh, we know the super secret truth.
	I mean, it's ludicrous garbage.
	That would have been my argument, Robert.
	It's like they're shell games.
	He's hiding money in one company and the other.
	Get them all and find them.
	But you don't need a corporate...
	Well, but why does that matter?
	This isn't a shell game case.
	This is a defamation case.
	This is a libel case.
	How he organizes money has nothing to do with the case.
	Well, it has to do with how he's going to pay out when they default him.
	That's for collection remedies after the case is over.
	You're not entitled to collection remedies at the trial stage.
	And yet this court treated it that way.
	So, I mean, all of this is you have a right to privacy in America.
	That's protected under the U.S. Constitution and pretty much every state constitution.
	In California, they have very robust law developed.
	I had a case alleging corporate lawyers committed major fraud.
	I was not allowed to get into their personal finances.
	Period.
	Ever.
	And by the way, that's the norm.
	So how is it that Alex Jones, in a case that has nothing to do with fraud, that has nothing to do with money, is being forced to disclose his private financial information?
	This is what the case has seemed to hinge on for the last two days of chief deposition of the corporate rep.
	His business model.
	They want to say that he was selling CPM, he was selling ads, he was selling the popularity of his channel to exploit the Sandy Hook tragedy.
	Yeah, but that's just a lie.
	They know that's a lie.
	That's a flat-out lie.
	It was always a flat-out lie.
	If his goal was to exploit Sandy Hook, then why didn't he cover it much at all?
	Why was it less than one-tenth of one percent of total coverage on Infowars?
	Beyond that, Robert...
	They're tracking the growth of his channel from 2012 to 2016.
	Everything in social media and the internet exploded in 2016.
	Everything.
	Jones obviously relates to Trump.
	There was a populist rebellion in 2015-2016.
	To my knowledge, I don't know if they covered Sandy Hook at all in 2016.
	The evidence they've been putting up...
	Just like the evidence that shows all the denier movement had nothing really to do with Jones.
	It all predated Jones and all separate from Jones.
	They actually put that evidence in.
	They just hid that that's what was going on.
	The same with their impressions and money evidence.
	Their evidence keeps showing that when he was not talking about Sandy Hook is when he did very well.
	When he was not talking about Sandy Hook is when he took off.
	So it actually rebuts them.
	But that's why they couldn't allow him to present.
	That's why it always had to go this technical default show trial route.
	They couldn't.
	But all the way, none of this concerns damages.
	Whether Jones had big impressions or low impressions, he's already been defaulted on liability.
	This has no relevance to damages.
	It shows what a joke this trial is.
	What a...
	Disgrace this judge is that they are putting on this show trial.
	What is the grounds for any of this evidence meeting relevance?
	Any evidence about Jones finances has nothing to do with what damages the plaintiffs did or didn't suffer.
	I could only, if I were the plaintiff's lawyers, I would say it evidences malicious intent in the exploitive...
	Doesn't matter.
	He's already been found defaulted on that.
	He's already been defaulted.
	So that is not an issue.
	That does not relate to damages.
	It has no bearing on damages.
	That's what proves the bad faith of all the plaintiffs, all plaintiffs' lawyers, and all the courts, and all the media in this case.
	Because this has nothing to do with damages.
	Legally, it couldn't.
	I wouldn't be allowed to present this evidence in a damages hearing.
	How is any of this coming in?
	None of it has anything to do with damages.
	Would it not be relevant to punitive or exemplary damages to show that his...
	That's not an issue at this part of the trial.
	Okay.
	So it has no bearing.
	Zero bearing.
	Just like Texas.
	It's like, what in the world is this?
	You're having a damages hearing.
	Try to find how many courts have ever allowed this to happen.
	Good luck with that.
	You don't find much case law because this is almost unheard of in America.
	How many damages hearings have been scheduled for four weeks?
	But Robert, someone in the chat over on Rumble said, Viva, start off with the assumption that they were going to default him.
	I've started off on that assumption.
	Let me rephrase.
	I've come to that conclusion because when people say all he had to do is comply, and I say, look, even I will grant you, he's guilty of what you say he's guilty of.
	He didn't provide a list of videos.
	He didn't provide some messages, and he didn't provide Google Analytics.
	Even if he's guilty of all of that, my argument would be...
	Presume he made a billion dollars off of his coverage.
	That's the negative inference you would draw from it.
	You don't default someone on that.
	And of course, they're wrong about those three things.
	Because I was there when the Google Analytics was being done.
	I was there when the list got turned over.
	All of it got done.
	All of it got done.
	So they kept demanding he produce proof of guilt that didn't exist because he's not guilty, because he's innocent.
	And anyway, as you know, the remedy is never...
	Default.
	Not the death penalty sanction.
	Even if it were, why are we having a trial on liability issues when liability has already been decided?
	It's because it's a show trial.
	It's a joke of a trial.
	None of these witnesses should even have been allowed to testify to 90% of the things they testified to.
	How does the corporate representative have anything to do with the damages the plaintiffs suffered?
	Nothing.
	And just so people who might be hearing this and be a little confused as to what you're saying, Robert, It's been determined guilt by a default verdict.
	Now it's the quantum.
	And they're holding...
	How much did I suffer?
	That's all that's about.
	It's not about what the other person did.
	It has nothing to do with what the other person did.
	It's solely, how much did I suffer?
	And you're not hearing any evidence of that.
	Maybe because they don't have strong evidence of that.
	Maybe because it would be rebutted.
	Maybe because the real reason we're here is Hillary Clinton's speech.
	Right?
	But what they want is the court wants to have the appearance of a trial.
	And thus you're hearing a whole bunch of evidence about the merits that have already been decided and are mooted.
	So this is solely for public consumption and a bill, hence show trial, and the literally making a movie, as was the case in Texas.
	And on top of that, it's to tell the story later.
	That a jury actually heard all the evidence and decided the case and came to this conclusion.
	We're already seeing that in the media about the Texas case, where he was not allowed to defend himself.
	There was no argument on the merits allowed to the jury.
	The jury did not determine the merits.
	But the media is saying, a jury found Alex Jones.
	No, they didn't.
	But that's the goal, is to build this.
	That's why I call it a fake case.
	It's supposedly a case about fake news that is, in fact, a fake case because it's built to tell a big lie later on, and they're using the American civil justice process to perpetuate it, propagate it, and create it.
	That's why this is truly the classic definition of a show trial, a trial not on the actual merits because they're not allowed to be discussed or debated by the defense, but yet a lot of the merits are coming in because it's for show.
	By law, none of this would be relevant.
	None of this is material.
	What is amazing, and people will appreciate your insight right now, maybe in a year or two, is that in a year or two, the story is going to be, look at all the evidence that was introduced.
	The business model, Jones' statements.
	He had a fair trial.
	I mean, not able to defend himself, barely able to...
	The fact that the default will disappear from the news coverage.
	It'll be that there was a jury, there was a full trial, it was fully decided, it was fully debated, it was fully presented, it was imparted.
	That's why this is purely a show trial.
	None of this evidence has anything to do with how much money the plaintiffs feel they are out of pocket or emotionally suffered or need for their emotional suffering.
	We might get there in a week or two.
	I'm sure there'll be little bits of it along the way, but it'll be less than 10% of the total evidence.
	That's why this is such a crock.
	Here's the question, though, so that nobody gets to...
	Well, people are asking the question.
	We've talked about it a dozen times, but appeal.
	So he's got the default verdict.
	Is that being appealed on its own?
	You can't.
	You can't appeal until there's a judgment in America, generally speaking.
	Now, you can appeal anti-slap law rulings, but he was denied that.
	Went up to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
	Connecticut Supreme Court initially recognized there's a big problem with what the judge did here, and then folded and capitulated.
	And didn't enforce the First Amendment and created terrible precedent for the future.
	For anybody else in Connecticut or anyone else in the country, if it's cited as an example for it.
	Some of the Texas case had some issues go up on appeal, but the Texas Supreme Court didn't hear it.
	The Texas Court of Appeals, two judges on the...
	When I was involved, there were two judges in the Texas Supreme Court that wanted to hear it based on how they voted.
	All we needed was one more, and it would have all ended right there.
	But we didn't get the third.
	A lot of Bushites in Texas.
	This is also a story of a class conflict because Jones' strongest fans are working-class people.
	Now, sometimes they're businessmen and successful working-class people, but they're working-class folks.
	They're not the credentialed class, the licensed class, the professional managerial class.
	And so, consequently, his core of his audience has an underrepresentation of people within positions of political power.
	Not a surprise because he preaches against those that occupy the power and what they do with it.
	Meanwhile, the professional class, which by definition includes every single judge in America, increasingly includes a lot of elected representatives as well.
	Senators, congressmen, governors, state legislators, etc.
	A lot of them are lawyers, doctors, similar things.
	That's the group of people who dislike Alex Jones the most.
	And so he has the least amount of representation within that group.
	And he has the most amount of opposition within that group.
	And he's being judged by that group.
	So it goes all the way back to the Magna Carta.
	The Knights were like, we want to be judged by Knights.
	We don't want to be judged by the king.
	We don't want to be judged by anyone.
	We want to be judged by knights because they're the only people who are capable of doing it.
	Imagine being judged by your enemies.
	That is what he is being forced to do.
	And it's the professional class dislike of the working class and its strongest patrons and supporters and advocates who one of the number one thing Jones exposes is that the professional managerial class as a class keeps mismanaging our society.
	And they do so under the guise of credentialed power.
	And this is their personal class revenge.
	I mean, that's the other aspect that's present in the case.
	And the media is part of that same credentialed class.
	Lawyers are part of that same credentialed class.
	That's why you're seeing so little support from those communities and so much hostility from those communities.
	But what we're seeing is, I would say this, someone like Alan Dershowitz is conscientious enough.
	If he sat down and studied the records in the case, he would share the same outrage that I have.
	You can see that example with Norm Pattis.
	Norm Pattis is an old-school liberal.
	He wasn't an Alex Jones Infowars follower.
	He's not on that political side whatsoever.
	Makes no bones about it.
	Liberal Democrat through and through.
	When he saw what was happening here, he was not only willing to take the case, he was willing to take all the public hits, PR hits, smear campaigns, and judicial attacks that come with it.
	And that's what someone who really studied this case, that's conscientious and cares about civil liberties, the American civil justice system, would come to the same conclusion.
	And the problem is not enough of those people who have good intentions, who want good outcomes.
	are looking at this case.
	And that's why there's been such a media blockade, such a social media blockade around anybody that actually tries to cover it or discourage and deter them from covering it.
	Because anybody who watches it can see in live time this violates every rule known to man.
	I mean, just the rules of evidence are being violated.
	The way trials are, what's relevant to a trial is being violated.
	What's unduly confusing is being violated.
	What's unfairly prejudicial is being violated.
	What's unduly cumulative is being violated.
	I mean, one thing after the next, after the next, after the next, they're just throwing it all out for a show trial.
	Now, Robert, so what is the path for appeal?
	They've got to wait for a verdict.
	They've got to wait for a quantum.
	Then they can appeal.
	In Texas, the Court of Appeals are very liberal in Austin, so they heard certain limited issues, and they set some crazy, perilous precedents.
	They changed a lot of the rules just in order to get Jones.
	The Texas Supreme Court didn't ultimately take it.
	Connecticut Supreme Court is as politically bad as all the other courts are in Connecticut at the state level.
	They ultimately, even though their initial reaction was this was outrageous.
	What took place here against Jones, they all wussed out when they didn't want to be on the side of Jones, even if it meant being on the side of the First Amendment.
	So in Connecticut, the way this works is once there is a judgment, that's how the appeal process works in America generally.
	You can't appeal it until, you can do what's called interlocutory appeals, but that's where you request the Court of Appeals take it.
	They almost never grant those.
	So you usually have to wait until there's a monetary judgment, and then you can appeal that.
	to the Connecticut Court of Appeals then the Connecticut Supreme Court then the United States Supreme Court The Connecticut Supreme Court doesn't have to take the case.
	The U.S. Supreme Court doesn't have to take the case.
	Only the Connecticut court repeals has to take the case.
	The perceived political prejudice of these courts is such that not a lot of people have great confidence that any of these courts, other than the U.S. Supreme Court, if they were to get involved, is going to issue meaningful remedy, given the history of conduct.
	You see that in the brazenness of the judges.
	In the trial court judge here.
	If this judge had been disciplined early on in the case by the Connecticut Supreme Court, which they initially implied they would do by taking up the case in an interlocutory stage, then a lot of this egregiousness would not be occurring.
	Both the Texas trial court and the Connecticut trial court got the message, you can violate the rules and the law when it comes to Alex Jones.
	And so now a judgment is not immediately collectible in Connecticut.
	The way it works is that the judgment is stayed pending appeal.
	So only when the U.S. Supreme Court either does or doesn't take the case will the judgment become enforceable.
	And all of this is going on while Infowars itself is in corporate bankruptcy.
	And so that also has a complicating factor.
	In Texas, he gets to appeal that judgment.
	To the Texas Court of Appeals, Austin, a bunch of liberal Democrats, not likely to do anything about it.
	The Texas Supreme Court, however, has been a constitutionally minded court in the past.
	And so that court and two of them wanted to take this case early on from my understanding of the record.
	So if they would take this case, they would throw out the Texas judgments on many, many grounds.
	Violations of the First Amendment, violations of the tort laws governing intentional inflictions of emotional distress, violation of the failure to give notice under the defamation laws in Texas.
	That's what the Texas court judge lied about.
	One of the things she lied about, the main thing she lied about was the right to mitigation, which she denied him, which is actually explicitly in the statute.
	The various rules of evidence that were violated, the improper use of a death penalty sanction to strip him of his right to a trial by jury, which is present, and the right to trial by jury raises constitutional issues that could get to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the free speech aspect and free press aspect would be the strongest grounds for the U.S. Supreme Court.
	The only courts likely to give relief are the U.S. Supreme Court or the Texas Supreme Court.
	The bankruptcy court has certain powers to adjudicate aspects of the debt.
	So it also has certain power as well.
	And it may give ultimate relief or remedy.
	But I think unless enough people make enough noise in the court of public opinion, these courts, the Texas and U.S. Supreme Court in particular, won't look at the underlying facts.
	If you think I'm wrong, fine, look at the whole record.
	They'll see I'm right.
	I mean, it hasn't almost everything.
	We said was going to happen, happened already in this trial.
	You see tons of evidence that show he actually did produce any discovery that could be relevant or material for their case.
	The fact that they would pursue this case for political reasons.
	The opening statement of the plaintiff's lawyer said that they were there, that justice equaled shutting him down, not allowing him to ever have a microphone again, ever be on the broadcast again, ever be able to publish again.
	Made it clear.
	And then when Norm Pattis exposed that in his opening statement, the plaintiff's lawyer went nuts because he didn't like the jury to fully understand what he was asking for.
	The First Amendment implications, the constitutional implications.
	This is an anti-American lawsuit.
	That's the best way to describe it.
	It's a shameful embarrassment of the American civil justice process that I take pride in and just desecrating it in an extraordinary way I have not witnessed in my lifetime or know of in American legal judicial history.
	And it's an attack on our core civil liberties and civil rights, the right to trial by jury, the right to free speech, the right to freedom of press, the right to freedom of association, the right to freedom of expression, your Second Amendment right to self-defense, which is also implicated, of course, in the nature of this case.
	So that's why I'm as animated about it as I am.
	Robert, I was saying, anybody watching this trial, watching the evidence that plaintiffs are adducing like they did in Texas, would be saying, what did they not get that they needed to take this case to the merits such that they got a default verdict?
	But Robert, before we get to your prediction, I'm just going to read some rumble rants.
	Barnes, what happens if the jury decides to award nothing?
	Can they do that?
	Yes, they can.
	They can award nominal damages.
	They can award a dollar.
	They can award zero.
	Okay, and now that was my question is, what's your prediction?
	It's going to be big.
	I mean, I think that the case is such a show trial.
	Jones is gagged.
	His lawyer is constantly attacked.
	The plaintiffs are presenting evidence that is entirely intended to simply inflame the jury for an irrational verdict.
	All the things you're not supposed to do, they're being allowed to do.
	Improperly and inappropriately and in violation of the rules.
	And so given that...
	Who knows?
	So I don't have a prediction.
	It's a six-person jury in Connecticut.
	They have four alternates.
	I don't know anything about the jury selection, don't know anything about the jurors.
	So what I can tell you is, if you're allowed to present even just a little bit of the evidence, the average jury was coming back with verdicts much lower than plaintiff's lawyers wanted.
	Now, the thing here is he's being stripped of all of his defenses.
	So when it's a complete show trial that says, hang him, hang him, hang him, hang him, hang him, hang him, hang him.
	It's really hard to overcome the preexisting prejudice that already has with a bunch of liberal Democrats, most likely a liberal Democratic jury pool that, of course, is sensitive and sympathetic to what happened at Sandy Hook.
	I mean, the plaintiff's goal is for some outrageous verdict.
	To be more outrageous than what took place in Texas.
	They'll probably ask for like $10 million per person, something like that.
	The ordinary American is shocked by that.
	And especially when you tell them, hey, a person is suing for intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation, but they never complained at the time, and they didn't complain until the eve of suit.
	And there's no evidence that the source of their actual injury is Alex Jones or Infowars that I've seen or witnessed.
	Just any of those facts, average juror was awarding damages of $10,000 or less.
	And for people out there, defamation cases.
	I was explaining to this to people in the Covington Kids case.
	The highest verdict in the history of Kentucky in defamation was like $97,000.
	That's the norm.
	People don't normally write checks bigger than they make in a whole year.
	For someone saying, I have hurt feelings, and I can't quite articulate when and where and how those hurt feelings even came about, or have real demonstrative physical injury that associates with it.
	I mean, for a while, our courts didn't even like emotional distress claims because it invites this kind of improper verdicts being issued.
	It's a method of redistributing political power through outrageous verdicts.
	But if it's a conscientious jury that somehow sees through everything crazy happening, The verdict will be less than six figures per person.
	If it's crazy, if they were influenced by the crazy nature of this case or came in with pre-existing prejudice that they weren't able to figure out or expose or out during the jury selection process, then you could have another crazy verdict.
	In Westboro Baptist, I think that verdict was $77 million for people protesting in a funeral.
	Now, by the way, it's what got the court's attention.
	The crazier the verdict...
	The more likely the higher courts would be like, okay, we all know what happened here.
	Do we fix this or do we let the American justice system go down in flames because a few people hate Alex Jones?
	I'll read a couple of rumble rants and then we're going to wind it up, Robert.
	Kenzie67 says, what's the best way for a norm to show that Infowars was not instrumental in the harm that plaintiffs suffered?
	I think that's coming out.
	He's doing what he can.
	The judge is prohibiting him from introducing such evidence.
	That's why she lectured him repeatedly saying that basically she was threatening to put Alex Jones in jail if he didn't stick to the script she was demanding he read.
	At his own trial.
	He can't say he's innocent.
	At his own trial.
	And by the way, she said, I'm going to be ready there.
	I'm going to be watching.
	And if I have to come with contempt, I will.
	If he talks about what he's not allowed to talk about.
	Barbara Nellis would have made a good inquisitor.
	That's the best thing I can say about her.
	We got anti-menticide.
	Says every word of this commentary and overview is appreciated.
	Love you guys.
	I always learn and I thank you for it.
	But will you discuss any particulars of today's court session?
	I didn't think there was much to talk about.
	I mean, what we're discussing is that, in other words, they put witnesses on, and the nature of the testimony is a lot of inflammatory attacks on Alex Jones that don't relate to the damages of the plaintiffs, that they are then, that Norm Pattis is then not allowed to cross-examine them on anything, including the name, can't even say the name Hillary Clinton.
	And you're seeing it every day.
	You get to see the judge's lack of control.
	You get to see the grandstanding by the plaintiffs.
	You get to see evidence that doesn't appear to relate to actual damages or even, in many cases, the actual statements that are supposedly the core of this case.
	I mean, how are seven minutes of words over seven years going to take up four weeks of trial anyway?
	Everybody should appreciate, like, Robert, that they're playing the same impugned clips over and over again.
	There are very few of them.
	But they sound stupid when you hear them.
	They sound callous when I hear them.
	He has apologized for it.
	Notice they want to play that one video where he says, if anybody died, I feel bad.
	But I've also seen this, this, and the other.
	They don't want to play all the other statements he made apologizing throughout.
	The including statements made after that time frame that necessarily contextualize that, because they don't want the jury to know that InfoWars, 99% of what they said, didn't say Sandy Oak was a hoax, but also they don't want them to know that Alex Jones went on effectively an apology tour, repeatedly, profligately apologized on Joe Rogan, on other national networks and national stations, has explained this.
	He did it in his deposition that you covered.
	He admitted he was wrong, and he tried to explain.
	He was very introspective.
	He was like, you know, I think I almost was to a point where I was thinking irrationally because of all the crazy things I had seen in my life.
	And that, by the way, was used against him somehow.
	You're introspective, and you get attacked for being introspective.
	He admits he suffered from psychosis was the headlines.
	Yeah, exactly, which is not at all what he said.
	But Robert, you know, even the statement that I did hear, which I'll say it's callous, it's silly, it can be hurtful, it is hurtful.
	When I hear it, it just sounds like an opinion of someone that I would...
	I mean, well, think about the consequence of this.
	If the FBI guy can sue here, who else can sue?
	Can the FBI sue anybody that's questioned what they've done in Russiagate, what they've done?
	Whismur, January 6th.
	You know, Mike Lindell, what they're doing with the January 6th people, exactly.
	I mean, if you question the government, you can now be sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress of the government?
	That's the precedent they're trying to establish here.
	Okay, we got that one.
	There was one more, Robert, and then we're going to, I guess, we'll continue covering it, but only when there's really something to...
	Today was a very boring day.
	It was examination and chief...
	Go back and watch our full coverage of day one.
	Day one was amazing.
	That's the best snapshot of this whole case.
	You get every bit of everything.
	You get opening statement.
	You get analysis of the quality of that opening statement.
	What's going on?
	You get by both sides.
	You get all the craziness with the judge.
	You get exactly what the witness is about.
	What the direct and cross-examination about.
	All the craziness of this case, as well as its content, all perfectly summarized in that first day and our coverage of it.
	So you can go to Rumble and get the whole video.
	And one more.
	It says, We'll be continuing to cover this when there's, you know, something important in terms of testimony, like they're going to continue going on with the rep tomorrow.
	The cross-examination of the rep might be useful to see what Padas can get into evidence that will piss the judge off in terms of telling the story completely, not just one-sidedly.
	We'll see.
	Robert, do you have any questions on locals that are...
	I believe we...
	I've been watching them as they come through, so on the locals live chat, I think we really answered all of them, save one, which is just, do we think Nick Riccata would have enough of a case to sue YouTube over these suspensions?
	It's almost impossible to sue YouTube because of Section 230 immunity.
	So I'm hoping Nick might be a permanent place at...
	I do know one place he can go.
	He can come to Rumble.
	And my own advice is I think he and his audience and his message would be best served if he doesn't have to deal with YouTube craziness and makes an exclusive Ghost to Rumble instead.
	We'll work on Nick.
	Robert, wait a minute.
	We got Sunday night coming up.
	Do we know who we have next week for Sidebar?
	Yes, but I forget who it is.
	I'll be going live during the day tomorrow.
	Robert, if you can, we'll pop in and out.
	But other than that, Rob, I'll see you Sunday night, if no later.
	Absolutely.
	Everybody, thank you very much.
	Snip, clip, share around.
	Everybody should understand, this is not about defending the tenor of statements.
	The question is, do people have the right to even have outlandish, hurtful theories?
	And even if they do, is this how you go about a trial in a free society?
	Default verdicts, and then you just have show trials on the merits with what is going to happen, because Robert is right.
	It's going to happen.
	In two years from now, no one will remember the default verdict.
	They're just going to remember enough evidence being abused to justify their Mandela effect of guilt beyond, you know, whatever, jury.
	Oh, sorry.
	One last question, Robert.
	The verdict, unanimous of six, or can it be five of six?
	I don't know, actually.
	That varies by state, but I don't know if when they go to a six-person jury, can it be five or does it have to be unanimous?
	So with that said, people, this is impactful.
	I mean, we're going to see what happens, and we'll see if the verdict is going to be $150 million or $50 million or $1 million.
	We'll see, but we'll continue to cover it, just not every day because it's four weeks, and if it moves at this pace, there's going to be a lot of days which are just days at court.
	Robert, stick around.
	We will say our proper goodbyes.
	Everybody else out there, enjoy the evening.
	See you tomorrow.
	See you Sunday.

▲