Alex Jones Trial

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Noproblemo said:
Alex needs to countersue, then exhume the bodies during discovery. Idk why he would think Sandy Hook was faked, tho. What's easier for the feds? Staging an elaborate school shooting with media, or just killing a bunch of kids?
Click to expand...
I don't think the theory of Glowie handlers got the shooter to do it was a thing yet. Tin foil hats of the time were a little different.
 
MadStan said:
It would pay to actually hear how he lies and purges himself. It is a lawsuit and the jurors have no “predetermined” outcome. That is merely you deciding that what he did was so disgusting only a reasonable person could find him disgusting but if you were on the jury you’d ignore the actual evidence and instead have predetermined notions of innocence.

Alex Jones has lied. Repeatedly. He is lying because he has legal liability for his actions and he is beginning to experience legal repercussions.

I’ll give you an example. Let us say you have a daughter and she comes home with her dress torn claiming the neighbor just raped her. You grab your gun and shoot the neighbor. Turns out it was just an aprils fools joke. But now your neighbor is dead. Yes you pulled the trigger but do you think a reasonable person would conclude your daughter actually had a hand in what happened? Obviously.

What we say has repercussions and what we convince people of has repercussions. Especially when you know they are lies and your are trying to get people to act on your lies.

That’s the real world.

Grow up.
Click to expand...
You have a lot of misconceptions about this case and are falling victim to exactly what you've used as your example. Consider learning more about who on Alex Jones' network said what and when, what Alex Jones himself said on air, the nature and timeliness of the suit brought forth by the alleged victims, the behavior of the judge in this case, the admission of evidence and claims to the contrary (especially as relates to the default judgement against Jones) and also look at the venue and the jury pool.

There is bias and impropriety abound in this case and it is not hidden very deeply. But a lack of impartiality and respect for the spirit of the law are allowing Alex Jones to be railroaded because he represents a part of society that the people in charge want to get rid of. This is very troubling.
 
Too Many Catgirls said:
You have a lot of misconceptions about this case and are falling victim to exactly what you've used as your example. Consider learning more about who on Alex Jones' network said what and when, what Alex Jones himself said on air, the nature and timeliness of the suit brought forth by the alleged victims, the behavior of the judge in this case, the admission of evidence and claims to the contrary (especially as relates to the default judgement against Jones) and also look at the venue and the jury pool.

There is bias and impropriety abound in this case and it is not hidden very deeply. But a lack of impartiality and respect for the spirit of the law are allowing Alex Jones to be railroaded because he represents a part of society that the people in charge want to get rid of. This is very troubling.
Click to expand...
The judge nor the lawyers nor the jurors are the elites. They are you and me people. They are not being visited by men in black telling them to do this or that.

You’re upset that regular people are actually able to topple Jones and his pile of crap.

A big fuk you to your support for this human shit pile. I’ve read and heard what he said. How the fuk you stand by him is a reflection on you. How you can listen to the pile of filth and lies about Sandy Hook and stand there and defend it is breathtaking. There are many examples of people taking to heart what Alex said and the acting on it. You sound like one of them so I wouldn’t expect you to understand at all.
 
This is devastating. His counsel is incompetent. Opposing counsel laughs like a comic villain but Jones's lawyer truly fucked up.

 
b0o0pinsn0o0tz said:
Well Johnny Depp and Kyle Rittenhouse didn't kneecap themselves like Alex Jones did, so it's kind of an apples and Oranges thing.

Considering the shit the average journo says and gets away with I get where you're coming from though.
Click to expand...
Alex will put a spin on it in his next show, he always does.
 
Noproblemo said:
Alex needs to countersue, then exhume the bodies during discovery. Idk why he would think Sandy Hook was faked, tho. What's easier for the feds? Staging an elaborate school shooting with media, or just killing a bunch of kids?
Click to expand...
I mean they still have to prove it actually happened in a court of law give me those dna tests baybee
 
The reason this trial is happening at all is because Alex Jones is an absolute fucking retard who ignored one of the first rules of media with regard to coverage of a crime: You do not, under any circumstances, accuse someone of committing a crime which they have not already been found guilty of in a court of law.
"Allegedly" is a magic word which could have easily prevented all of this.
 
First they censored Amber Heard's free speech and now Alex Jones'.
The constitution is dead.
 
Apologies, I'm gay and retarded, and I've basically ignored this case until now. It's a defamation case and the Sandy Hook parents are saying there's over a hundred million dollars in damages? And "sorry your honor I'm dumb as fuck" isn't a legal defense against defamation? I mean if they could prove he was lying about it and caused them a bunch of grief in order to make money or promote his show, that would be one thing, but I would imagine you'd need solid proof. Then again, if his lawyer just gave up a trove of phone records...

I guess I would just expect this to require very rock-solid proof that he knew it was false and insisted on it anyway.
Penis Drager said:
The reason this trial is happening at all is because Alex Jones is an absolute fucking retard who ignored one of the first rules of media with regard to coverage of a crime: You do not, under any circumstances, accuse someone of committing a crime which they have not already been found guilty of in a court of law.
"Allegedly" is a magic word which could have easily prevented all of this.
Click to expand...
...although that would probably explain it. If he was specifically claiming they committed crimes, and there's proof he made it up for ratings/advertisement/etc., and he didn't hedge his phrasing at all, I could see how he gets stuck for this.
 
xX_rAcE_wAr_420_Xx said:
Apologies, I'm gay and retarded, and I've basically ignored this case until now. It's a defamation case and the Sandy Hook parents are saying there's over a hundred million dollars in damages? And "sorry your honor I'm dumb as fuck" isn't a legal defense against defamation? I mean if they could prove he was lying about it and caused them a bunch of grief in order to make money or promote his show, that would be one thing, but I would imagine you'd need solid proof. Then again, if his lawyer just gave up a trove of phone records...

I guess I would just expect this to require very rock-solid proof that he knew it was false and insisted on it anyway.

...although that would probably explain it. If he was specifically claiming they committed crimes, and there's proof he made it up for ratings/advertisement/etc., and he didn't hedge his phrasing at all, I could see how he gets stuck for this.
Click to expand...
Defamation doesn't necessarily require proving the statement is knowingly and willfully false, just that it's not provably true but reported as fact.
I can't go around saying "@xX_rAcE_wAr_420_Xx fucks kids" on public record. Even if it is true that you fuck kids, your right to sue for defamation on the matter remains until you are actually found guilty of the act of fucking kids (so long as you can also prove that my saying so has done tangible harm to your reputation, of course). There's a reason news coverage of an incident typically goes along the lines of "man is accused of doing thing. Here is video of him allegedly doing it and his own statement admitting his responsibility." Until he is found guilty in a court of law, he is a "suspect" and not a "criminal."
This is also why Kyle Rittenhouse has a solid case for defamation against several media outlets.

Defamation is notoriously a messy law to wrap your head around as caveats and asterisks abound. But careful wording is key to keeping yourself in the clear.
 
murph said:
This is devastating. His counsel is incompetent. Opposing counsel laughs like a comic villain but Jones's lawyer truly fucked up.

o-jsabyLNM1NzR8d.mp4_tag=12.mp4
Click to expand...
The amount of railroading in this clip is pretty fucked. lets just do some arm chair lawyering.

  1. Jone's privileged text are read into court prior to Jone's even knowing about it (allegedly)
  2. Jone's lawyer is the one that disclosed these text
  3. Jone's lawyer isn't screaming his head off for a mistrial
  4. The judge is reprimanding Jones for trying to answer a question in a way that she doesn't like
  5. Jone's lawyer didn't fight this at all.
Jones will likely only get a slightly fairer trail than Chauvin. That is to say he could have Johnnie Cochran hired for tomorrow and still have no chance of winning. I don't know if Johnny could have saved him earlier with what I've seen in a few clips with the judge.

This is now looking like a feasible future.
q_court.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom