I haven't invested time watching all of the trials or following this as closely as some. It is strange that for all of the demonization of AJ, there aren't any

I haven't invested time watching all of the trials or following this as closely as some. It is strange that for all of the demonization of AJ, there aren't any compelling clips of him inciting his viewers or specifically mentioning the names of the family members. Given how aggressive the partisan media is, you'd think they would have an established set of incriminating soundbites. When I did look into it deeper, I found that the case was decided by a default decision. Maybe there are reasons for these legal technicalities. I can appreciate that. If the standard for the discussion is, "AJ was found guilty in court", then we should be clear that this doesn't mean he was found guilty in the substance of the case. Posters here should consider that before going off the deep end in demonizing AJ. HN is a site where discussions routinely involve citing sources. Yet, this part is assumed. An unprecedented 1.5B in judgement, some of which goes to an FBI agent who worked on the case? Specifically on that point, there are compelling reasons why libel laws apply differently or not at all to government officials. Mainly this revolves around the threat of censoring regime critics. See also: lese-majesty. Then we find that the plaintiffs' lawyers are explicitly a political group, "The Everytown Group For Gun Control", funded by Michael Bloomberg. Lawyers have claimed that they don't actually want to collect the damages for their client, rather that they have an ulterior motive in shutting down InfoWars. It isn't unreasonable to view this as a war of political factions. The drama is on-going, but now it is viewed within the context of partisan lawfare against a former and now elected president. None of these observations are inexplicable, but taken all-together, they fail the smell test for this poster.