You know what, you’re right. It’s literally impossible that someone would have faked a story or lied to get their face on TV/push an agenda.
1 Like
David Hogg would never do that.
5 Likes
dude, if you ‘don’t understand’, make an effort to understand, lol.
This isn’t what happened here. If you decide to pay attention to any of the testimony in the upcoming third case, you will see testimony from a family who has literally had to uproot and move across the country multiple times because of death threats and stalking that directly resulted from Alex Jones’s show. The father of the child who died will testify to the fact that he hasn’t made a friend in the last 10 years, based on the fear that an ‘infiltrator’ is trying to harm him and his family. People who aren’t following these trials have no idea how much these families suffered as a result of Jones’s accusations. Jones directly incited violence against these families. It’s bad stuff.
Out of curiosity, has anyone else here watched a substantial amount of the first two cases? It seems like everyone’s talking about things they don’t know much about.
And once again, ignorance isn’t an excuse. If you don’t see how, pay more attention. That’s a you problem.
This is a fun side conversation, and a really fun rabbit hole/deep dive, if you ever feel like reading about it. The lawsuit, as a whole was widely misunderstood, in terms of how things got from point A to point B, whether it was truly frivolous, who was responsible for the legal escalation, etc. Highly recommend. Also: read about the McDonalds Monopoly scandal. That one is GREAT.
EDIT: also wanted to add, for anyone who hasn’t followed, these three cases all resulted in summary judgements against Jones because he failed to comply with basic discovery requirements. Meaning, there was never a full trial in any of the three cases. In all three, it’s more or less an ‘automatic’ guilty because Jones didn’t comply with his legal obligations preceding full trials. So in each case, all that is to be decided is amounts of damages, not IF damages should be assessed. That’s a massive problem for Jones, and why he hasn’t been able to make certain arguments about free speech and such. He’s already guilty.
1 Like
I haven’t read too much into it, but I knew it was rigged AF and the prizes all went to surrogate names for one guy that didn’t really exist or some craziness lol. Scandals are always fun, conspiracies are even more fun IMO (assuming they have any legs).
Serious question: do you think it is physically possible for someone in Jones’ position to receive a fair trial? What jurors could possibly not know of him in some facet? How could they effectively sequester themselves from something that is prevalent on every form of media? Particularly considering almost every media outlet hits harder against podcasters (as a buisiness model, see Joe Rogan RE: Vaccines for example)… IF they had glimpsed something about AJ on any form of media, except Info Wars, he would have been portrayed as a crackpot.
Oh, and I didn’t watch much of the cases. I think AJ is funny as hell and I thoroughly enjoy him on Rogan’s podcast, but I was never vested enough to watch the cases. I also knew they were going to find him guilty as soon as they had gotten him to trial… not interesting to watch a game when you know who loses.
1 Like
No. I left off around the time that this happened and will never watch him again unless its accompanied by the warden asking “Any last words?”.
1 Like
I think so, but unfortunately we’ll never know since he wasn’t willing to put in the bare minimum effort to get to that point. His lawyers are fucking jokes, his arrogance is a joke, and he’s paying for that now. I DO think he could have ended up with a significantly different outcome had he approached these cases differently. He did goddamn everything wrong. This dude wanted to hoc his fucking supplement line while testifying on the stand. Seriously.
Just remember, OJ got off. Being a celebrity doesn’t guarantee that any given verdict will go one way or the other. If anything, we expect celebrities to get off easier in most circumstances. I think it would have been interesting, at the very least, if Jones and his legal team had put him in a position to argue for his first amendment rights at trial.
Aside from that though, as I mentioned previously, Jones was a fucking donkey on the stand. Had the cases actually been tried, he still would have come across EXACTLY as the media portrays him. All I watched was direct courtroom footage. No spin. I’ve watched… maybe 30+ hours of coverage at this point. I’ve kept his cases streaming at my office while I work. His defense was garbage. MAYBE he could have put something interesting together for a regular trial, but you would THINK that, knowing damages were on the line, and essentially every penny he has, he’d have put his best foot forward. I honestly don’t think he took any of this seriously. I think he will soon.
And again, this is just factually incorrect. No jury found him guilty. He didn’t comply with the basic goddamn discovery rules, lol. He forced the court into summary judgement after years of noncompliance, hiding evidence, blatantly lying about the existence and ownership of documents, etc.
1 Like
Well, yes - he was guilty by default of his own doing, not disputing that.
I’m saying that had he done everything that was required of him - I think the outcome would have been more or less the same.
The media still goes after him for saying stuff like “The chemicals in the water are turning the frogs gay”, despite it being (more or less) true. He doesn’t help himself in these scenarios - at all - but he wasn’t a celebrity for playing ball or singing or acting… he was a celebrity for acting crazy (being himself). OJ didn’t have negative stigma surrounding him, until he did what he did. Jones simply is not in the same situation, and I don’t know if theres another case that could be used accurately as a model for his trials.
It’s fine if we disagree here, but I don’t believe it was ever possible for Jones to get a fair trial; I would have bet money on the ‘verdict’ had there been a pool (and had he done what was required of him). I would imagine he believed this as well, which could be a reason as to why he never complied with what was required of him; although a better public judgment would have been for him to do as he was told.
What wasn’t fair about it?
There would still be evidence. I mean, you wouldn’t make it up, would you?
Is this you sticking your Canadian nose into US civics again? Lol
The billion dollar payout is a good indicator of lacking fairness.
1 Like
Go ahead and do a google (or any search engine) search on “sandy hook crisis actor” and tell me how many pages you see saying the same exact thing lol.
It’s out there, but buried under a mountain of other stuff; as is the case for many subjects in today’s age of too much information.
Regardless, i wasn’t trying to debate Sandy Hook, or AJs claims - just the fairness of a billion dollar payout being demanded of a single citizen.
Could not happen to a nicer guy.
2 Likes
I guess I’m the only one that has listened to the show enough to know he never asked anyone to harass these families. In fact he did express concern that these tragedies do occur and have occurred.
I think people that haven’t listened to the show themselves might take the time aand give it a listen. I’ve listened to cnn/msnbc call Trump a racist many times. I be listed to BLM call for violence against police and it happened. I’ve heard congress people say Brett kavanaugh engaged in gang raped enough times that when a man with several guns showed up to his home I wasn’t surprised.
Does anyone remember when Steve scalise was shot? Why are the people that say heinous things about them not tried and convicted.
3 Likes
I believe Jones had default judgements from courts in Texas and CT. This wasn’t just one case in one court in the state where Sandy Hook is located.
Jones’ problem is that he is more arrogant than intelligent.
Something to consider, with regard to the amount awarded, is that they combined the three cases he lost. That’s a total of 15 individual plaintiffs so it added up. It could have been worse if the families of every victim had been part of the lawsuit.
1 Like
I’m sure I could do the same with Flat Earth theory.
Either it was a conspiracy or wasn’t a conspiracy. There is no almost conspiracy.
Once he knew families were being harassed and threatened, one lunatic threatened to dig up one child’s grave, did he stop pushing the lie that he knew was a lie?
Well sure, but this thought process would require the narrative to be 100% accurate or else it would have to be a conspiracy.
I don’t believe any news channel is 100% correct, and i don’t think you do either. It’s important to question diligently i think, and if the questions are answered by evidence - good to go… but what if the question can’t be answered…?
Canadian civics is not as entertaining as yours.
Maybe that 1 billion was adjusted for inflation.
No it wouldn’t. A conspiracy is deliberate, an error or inaccuracy is not.
You can’t go full binary and then say that one side can be wrong but the other can’t. There are intentional inaccuracies and errors all the time, so I can’t get behind your argument.
I think the truth is often not told to the public, and that the story we hear often has many half-truths. The doesn’t mean you need a smoking barrel to question it, but it does raise suspicions when plot holes can’t be repaired with evidence.
Shall we bring up the Whitmer Kidnapping incident to keep pursuing the topic of “it’s either a conspiracy or it’s not”? Or can we leave that thought process behind us?
1 Like