4 ms·

This is like getting accused of murder, and the judge finding you guilty because you didn't produce knife during discovery, the prosecution said you had. Just

This is like getting accused of murder, and the judge finding you guilty because you didn't produce knife during discovery, the prosecution said you had. Just absurd. Then skipping ahead to the sentencing, and the judge telling your lawyers that if you testify you're not guilty to the jury, he'll find you and your lawyers in contempt (jail-able offence). While lining up a long list of crying victims to tell the jury how horrible you are.

rtkwe 2y ago
That's far from what actually happened to Jones and also you're mixing metaphors of criminal and civil trials which are very very different in the US. There were years between the start of the trial and the default judgements and the behavior extended beyond just failing to produce requested files people legitimately don't have requested records all the time in litigation and they do not suffer the same outcome because they properly cooperate with the process and demonstrate they they do not have the documents instead of refusing to provide them. Jones lied and continues to lie to this day about why he lost the case because it's a liar and a con man and the claim he's persecuted unfairly helps him sell his supplements to his audience.
- dukeofdoom 2y ago
  >they properly cooperate with the process and demonstrate they they do not have >the documents instead of refusing to provide them. You make the assumption that it's practically possible to prove a negative like that. For example, prove that unicorns don't exist ... maybe you just haven't looked long and hard enough. > Jones lied and continues to lie to this day about why he lost the case because > it's a liar and a con man and the claim he's persecuted unfairly helps him > sell his supplements to his audience. If all that Alex did was lie, I don't think anyone would care about him. Clearly he's been on the political radar because his "conspiracy theories" too often turned out to be true.. I don't think you're being very charitable to his audience. People enjoy listening to a counter negative to the mainstream narrative. And some people find great value in it, enough to support him by buying his supplements. Alex speaks in hyperbolic ways, people can make whatever they want of that. If he calls P. Diddy a deep state demon, for example. Is that a lie? Demons don't exist. Sure. But can humans approach demon like behaviour. I think so.
ceejayoz 2y ago
> This is like getting accused of murder, and the judge finding you guilty because you didn't produce knife during discovery, the prosecution said you had. Just absurd. To extend the analogy, it helps if you don't subsequently mail the knife you said you didn't have to the prosecution. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alex-jones-lawyers-accidentally-leak-years-emails-infowars-financial-d-rcna41378 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alex-jones-lawyers-acci... > Then skipping ahead to the sentencing, and the judge telling your lawyers that if you testify you're not guilty to the jury, he'll find you and your lawyers in contempt (jail-able offence). The same will happen to you in any criminal trial if you try to argue innocent post-conviction, during the sentencing phase. The time to argue innocence is during the trial itself. > While lining up a long list of crying victims to tell the jury how horrible you are. Again, standard practice in sentencing. Jones is entitled to his own character witnesses, if he can find some.
- dukeofdoom 2y ago
  Here's the clip of the testimony at the key moment in the trial. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DMbGhAU77ns?feature=share https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DMbGhAU77ns?feature=share 1. The phone records are from the last 2 years. So not during the time frame of the actual broadcasts about Sandy Hook happened ( which happened way earlier...) 2. He gave the phone records to his lawyer, which goes against claims of him not co-operating. His lawyers would determine which messages get sent over to the prosecution. For example, private communications with his legal team would be protected and would not need to be disclosed. The defence sent over the entire phone backup, by mistake. Why is this a gotcha you think it is? The prosecution also acted unethically by not informing the defence that they received protected communications, they weren't entitled to. The prosecution let the trial happen for 2 weeks, and had not informed the judge that they actually had the information, that they used to get the judge to default him for not cooperating! So how is this not actually grounds to throw the case out? Seems like misconduct. Also, just because he mentioned Sandy Hook in a text message with his lawyers, or privately, doesn't mean the prosecution is automatically entitled to it.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago

rtkwe 2y ago

That's far from what actually happened to Jones and also you're mixing metaphors of criminal and civil trials which are very very different in the US. There were years between the start of the trial and the default judgements and the behavior extended beyond just failing to produce requested files people legitimately don't have requested records all the time in litigation and they do not suffer the same outcome because they properly cooperate with the process and demonstrate they they do not have the documents instead of refusing to provide them. Jones lied and continues to lie to this day about why he lost the case because it's a liar and a con man and the claim he's persecuted unfairly helps him sell his supplements to his audience.

dukeofdoom 2y ago
>they properly cooperate with the process and demonstrate they they do not have >the documents instead of refusing to provide them. You make the assumption that it's practically possible to prove a negative like that. For example, prove that unicorns don't exist ... maybe you just haven't looked long and hard enough. > Jones lied and continues to lie to this day about why he lost the case because > it's a liar and a con man and the claim he's persecuted unfairly helps him > sell his supplements to his audience. If all that Alex did was lie, I don't think anyone would care about him. Clearly he's been on the political radar because his "conspiracy theories" too often turned out to be true.. I don't think you're being very charitable to his audience. People enjoy listening to a counter negative to the mainstream narrative. And some people find great value in it, enough to support him by buying his supplements. Alex speaks in hyperbolic ways, people can make whatever they want of that. If he calls P. Diddy a deep state demon, for example. Is that a lie? Demons don't exist. Sure. But can humans approach demon like behaviour. I think so.

ceejayoz 2y ago

> This is like getting accused of murder, and the judge finding you guilty because you didn't produce knife during discovery, the prosecution said you had. Just absurd. To extend the analogy, it helps if you don't subsequently mail the knife you said you didn't have to the prosecution. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alex-jones-lawyers-accidentally-leak-years-emails-infowars-financial-d-rcna41378 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alex-jones-lawyers-acci... > Then skipping ahead to the sentencing, and the judge telling your lawyers that if you testify you're not guilty to the jury, he'll find you and your lawyers in contempt (jail-able offence). The same will happen to you in any criminal trial if you try to argue innocent post-conviction, during the sentencing phase. The time to argue innocence is during the trial itself. > While lining up a long list of crying victims to tell the jury how horrible you are. Again, standard practice in sentencing. Jones is entitled to his own character witnesses, if he can find some.

dukeofdoom 2y ago
Here's the clip of the testimony at the key moment in the trial. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DMbGhAU77ns?feature=share https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DMbGhAU77ns?feature=share 1. The phone records are from the last 2 years. So not during the time frame of the actual broadcasts about Sandy Hook happened ( which happened way earlier...) 2. He gave the phone records to his lawyer, which goes against claims of him not co-operating. His lawyers would determine which messages get sent over to the prosecution. For example, private communications with his legal team would be protected and would not need to be disclosed. The defence sent over the entire phone backup, by mistake. Why is this a gotcha you think it is? The prosecution also acted unethically by not informing the defence that they received protected communications, they weren't entitled to. The prosecution let the trial happen for 2 weeks, and had not informed the judge that they actually had the information, that they used to get the judge to default him for not cooperating! So how is this not actually grounds to throw the case out? Seems like misconduct. Also, just because he mentioned Sandy Hook in a text message with his lawyers, or privately, doesn't mean the prosecution is automatically entitled to it.
- ceejayoz 2y ago