5 ms·

I hate to burst everyone’s bubble, but this is fake news. This deal is not final. The judge in the liquidation case is holding an evidentiary hearing next week

I hate to burst everyone’s bubble, but this is fake news. This deal is not final. The judge in the liquidation case is holding an evidentiary hearing next week to understand how and why secret bidding was set up and why it was not open to the general public. Sounds like a BIG loss for The Onion, not to mention the potential defamation cases that could arise from news outlets publishing an unverified story about a sale that isn’t final. Source: https://x.com/behizytweets/status/1857195724242329997 https://x.com/behizytweets/status/1857195724242329997

janniehater 2y ago
[dead]
pupdogg 2y ago
I read your comment with skepticism but it looks like you are correct. Very odd that they would publish this story so prematurely.
- briantakita 2y ago
  Odd but not surprising. There are political implications so any press is good press.
pahool 2y ago
do you have a source other than a tweet from the Twitter account of a political hack?
- tim333 2y ago
  https://nbc16.com/news/nation-world/alex-jones-challenges-the-onions-winning-bid-for-infowars https://nbc16.com/news/nation-world/alex-jones-challenges-th...
- djfobbz 2y ago
  https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/judge-onion-infowars-hearing-review-auction-1236211183/ https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/judge-onion-infowars-h...
- qingcharles 2y ago
  I posted the full audio of the 14 Nov 2024 hearing with the bankruptcy judge so you can hear all sides of the story, and the judge's reaction. Apologies it's on the Tweeter/Xitter. https://x.com/magazedia/status/1857962924762898502 https://x.com/magazedia/status/1857962924762898502
barleyworth 2y ago
I doubt you'd call it "fake news" if a corporate acquisition was announced, just because the deal hadn't yet passed regulatory approval. But then again, you clearly seem to have a dog in this fight.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- swat535 2y ago
  Announcing something that hasn't happened yet makes it false. The correctly should be something like "The Onion is attempting to buy Infowars"
  - barleyworth 2y ago
    Right, but one wonders why the parent commenter is not gleefully commenting about "fake news" on all of these articles: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=google+buys https://hn.algolia.com/?q=google+buys This seems to be a notable story and doesn't need nakedly partisan hair-splitting.
russnes 2y ago
The plot thickens...
cogman10 2y ago
It's not fake news. The onion did indeed win the auction. What remains to be seen is if the sandyhook parents are allowed to forego some of their claim against Jones to secure the purchase, which frankly I can't see why they couldn't. The auction is there to settle Jones' debts and some of his largest debtors are willing to release some of his nondischargeable debt for Infowars. He owes some of the family's 100 million dollars. The next highest bid was 3.5 million. The sandyhook families have the leverage particularly in this case. Oh, and not for nothing, the second place bidder was the guy running Jones' new supplement company which mysteriously has 3.5 million to burn after being open for about a month.
- linuxftw 2y ago
  The onion did not win the auction. The trustee selected the onion's offer despite it not being the highest. The judge is going to toss that out. Jone's people are also saying the auction (other than selecting the winner) wasn't conducted in accordance with the judge's order. Most likely the sale will be awarded to the Jones-friendly high bidder.
  - cogman10 2y ago
    > The trustee selected the onion's offer despite it not being the highest. We do not know what the onion's bid was. We only have what Jones says it was. Until the actual hearing happens the exact details of what the onion offered are unknown. We do know they worked with the sandy hook parents and it stands to reason that they are leveraging their outstanding debts against jones to fund the purchase. The ONLY source of the "it was a lower bid" is known liar Alex Jones. Who also spent the entire day yesterday talking about how the democrats were going to storm his building to evict him. Only to later meekly walk out of the building when he realized that wasn't going to happen. > The judge is going to toss that out. Maybe, depends on what is found in the evidentiary hearing. Sort of the point of such a hearing, to get everyone in the room and crack open what happened and why. But I have 2 bits of cold water for the Jones narrative of "the deep state democrats" treating him unfairly. 1. The trustee is a professional receiver court appointed. Meaning they are unlikely to have tried to "fuck" over Jones (That'd screw them out of future receiverships). 2. The company that ran the auction does it professionally. They are unlikely to have to have done the deep state's bidding just to screw over Jones. That would impact their ability to run future auctions. Further, the auctioneers earn money based on the final sale price which would doubly hurt them in the case that the trustee ended up accepting a lower bid. > Jone's people are also saying the auction (other than selecting the winner) wasn't conducted in accordance with the judge's order. I got news for you, Jones says that about every single court case or action against him that doesn't go his way. It's always a secret enemy that's out to screw him or silence him. That's because that narrative allows him to sell more sea algae. > Most likely the sale will be awarded to the Jones-friendly high bidder. If it's found that there were major problems with the auction, the most likely outcome is the auction will simply be reran with a new auction house and a new trustee. If there were such major problems with the way things were done, it's highly unlikely that just letting the results of the last auction stand will be good enough. After all, were their other bidders excluded by the auction house? Was there really a transparency issue? If an auction was ran counter to a court order, you throw out the results and redo.
cvalka 2y ago
Where's the defamation?
jaimsam 2y ago
Their bubble revels in sadistic glee at the pain and humiliation of a man that they hate for reasons that they do not understand themselves. Their bubble deserves to be burst.

janniehater 2y ago

[dead]

pupdogg 2y ago

I read your comment with skepticism but it looks like you are correct. Very odd that they would publish this story so prematurely.

briantakita 2y ago
Odd but not surprising. There are political implications so any press is good press.

pahool 2y ago

do you have a source other than a tweet from the Twitter account of a political hack?

tim333 2y ago
https://nbc16.com/news/nation-world/alex-jones-challenges-the-onions-winning-bid-for-infowars https://nbc16.com/news/nation-world/alex-jones-challenges-th...
djfobbz 2y ago
https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/judge-onion-infowars-hearing-review-auction-1236211183/ https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/judge-onion-infowars-h...
qingcharles 2y ago
I posted the full audio of the 14 Nov 2024 hearing with the bankruptcy judge so you can hear all sides of the story, and the judge's reaction. Apologies it's on the Tweeter/Xitter. https://x.com/magazedia/status/1857962924762898502 https://x.com/magazedia/status/1857962924762898502

barleyworth 2y ago

I doubt you'd call it "fake news" if a corporate acquisition was announced, just because the deal hadn't yet passed regulatory approval. But then again, you clearly seem to have a dog in this fight.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
swat535 2y ago
Announcing something that hasn't happened yet makes it false. The correctly should be something like "The Onion is attempting to buy Infowars"
- barleyworth 2y ago
  Right, but one wonders why the parent commenter is not gleefully commenting about "fake news" on all of these articles: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=google+buys https://hn.algolia.com/?q=google+buys This seems to be a notable story and doesn't need nakedly partisan hair-splitting.

russnes 2y ago

The plot thickens...

cogman10 2y ago

It's not fake news. The onion did indeed win the auction. What remains to be seen is if the sandyhook parents are allowed to forego some of their claim against Jones to secure the purchase, which frankly I can't see why they couldn't. The auction is there to settle Jones' debts and some of his largest debtors are willing to release some of his nondischargeable debt for Infowars. He owes some of the family's 100 million dollars. The next highest bid was 3.5 million. The sandyhook families have the leverage particularly in this case. Oh, and not for nothing, the second place bidder was the guy running Jones' new supplement company which mysteriously has 3.5 million to burn after being open for about a month.

linuxftw 2y ago
The onion did not win the auction. The trustee selected the onion's offer despite it not being the highest. The judge is going to toss that out. Jone's people are also saying the auction (other than selecting the winner) wasn't conducted in accordance with the judge's order. Most likely the sale will be awarded to the Jones-friendly high bidder.
- cogman10 2y ago
  > The trustee selected the onion's offer despite it not being the highest. We do not know what the onion's bid was. We only have what Jones says it was. Until the actual hearing happens the exact details of what the onion offered are unknown. We do know they worked with the sandy hook parents and it stands to reason that they are leveraging their outstanding debts against jones to fund the purchase. The ONLY source of the "it was a lower bid" is known liar Alex Jones. Who also spent the entire day yesterday talking about how the democrats were going to storm his building to evict him. Only to later meekly walk out of the building when he realized that wasn't going to happen. > The judge is going to toss that out. Maybe, depends on what is found in the evidentiary hearing. Sort of the point of such a hearing, to get everyone in the room and crack open what happened and why. But I have 2 bits of cold water for the Jones narrative of "the deep state democrats" treating him unfairly. 1. The trustee is a professional receiver court appointed. Meaning they are unlikely to have tried to "fuck" over Jones (That'd screw them out of future receiverships). 2. The company that ran the auction does it professionally. They are unlikely to have to have done the deep state's bidding just to screw over Jones. That would impact their ability to run future auctions. Further, the auctioneers earn money based on the final sale price which would doubly hurt them in the case that the trustee ended up accepting a lower bid. > Jone's people are also saying the auction (other than selecting the winner) wasn't conducted in accordance with the judge's order. I got news for you, Jones says that about every single court case or action against him that doesn't go his way. It's always a secret enemy that's out to screw him or silence him. That's because that narrative allows him to sell more sea algae. > Most likely the sale will be awarded to the Jones-friendly high bidder. If it's found that there were major problems with the auction, the most likely outcome is the auction will simply be reran with a new auction house and a new trustee. If there were such major problems with the way things were done, it's highly unlikely that just letting the results of the last auction stand will be good enough. After all, were their other bidders excluded by the auction house? Was there really a transparency issue? If an auction was ran counter to a court order, you throw out the results and redo.

cvalka 2y ago

Where's the defamation?

jaimsam 2y ago

Their bubble revels in sadistic glee at the pain and humiliation of a man that they hate for reasons that they do not understand themselves. Their bubble deserves to be burst.