|Submited on :||Fri, 11th of Jan 2019 - 20:16:48 PM|
|Post ID :||aezedn|
|Post Name :||t3_aezedn|
|Post Type :||link|
|Subreddit Type :||public|
|Subreddit ID :||t5_2qh3l|
A judge in Connecticut has granted the families’ discovery requests, allowing them access to, among other things, InfoWars’ internal marketing and financial documents.
The judge has scheduled a hearing next week to decide whether to allow the plaintiffs’ attorneys to depose Jones.
InfoWars’ internal marketing and financial documents.
Lemme guess. Their biggest investor will be Dmitri Oligarchov.
Their biggest investor will be Dmitri Oligarchov.
I spent the last 15 minutes searching for this guy. I'm a dumbass.
I mean, at worst you’re less of a dumbass than most of the red hats because you took 15 minutes to try and research something you heard of through some anonymous internet poster.
Further, they subsequently questioned their assumption, realized their error, and corrected it. Both pursuing knowledge and fixing errors are intelligent behaviors. If more people did this, we would be much better off.
I mean, at worst you’re less of a dumbass than most of the red hats
In fairness, this is an exceptionally low bar. It's like saying you're taller than Danny DeVito.
This is not, in any way, meant as an insult to the poster you were responding to.
If we see any clear financials at all. Thanks to bullshit rulings like citizens united, the best we the dumbasses are liable to see is "Freedom Patriot NotGay America LLC"
So, the layers have access to the financials then? What happens if they do find something suspicious? Can they report that?
While their objective is to find information that will help their clients in litigation, as officers of the court, depending what they find they may have a duty to report it to appropriate authorities.
It's a kind of misleading headline. They only 'won' in the sense that they passed a legal barrier and can actually sue him if I'm understanding it correctly.
Yes, but that was no small barrier. 1st amendment protections are very strong, and a judge has to decide that the case, even if proven, would rise above those protections. Not an easy bar to get over.
free speech covers him telling about the event, it does not cover him telling his listeners to go "get " these people... it's the same thing about yelling "fire" in a theater. there are distinct limits to free speech, and once you cross them you can be sued. All the judge here has done is made a ruling that the families are now free to sue him (standing) and the suit can proceed.
Yup. There's a difference between saying "I think something is fishy here," and then harassing people directly and pseudo-instructing others to harass them further.
Andrew Anglin, the dude behind the Daily Stormer, has been living off-the-grid as a fugitive for the past year or so because he's learned that firsthand.
Jesus Christ. These people are sick.
Alex Jones watched the Westboro Baptist Church - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church - and said, "Hold my beer".
Let's see if I can top them.
A race to the bottom.
WBC is famous for being filled with smart lawyers who know exactly how far to go without breaking any laws. When they do end up in court, it’s usually because a protestor “assaulted” them
Maybe right-wing political extremism isn’t the solution to our problems 🤔
Edit: yes, I’m aware that extremism of any kind usually leads to more problems than solutions. However, given that the article talks about right-wing extremism I commented on right-wing extremism
What he did is just ... No words. Screw him and his horrible family.
Edited to add ellipsis. Am lazy and my grammer am bad.
"Anglin himself posted an image with Gersh and her son’s face superimposed on a photograph of the Auschwitz concentration camp." Seems like a nice guy.
Yep fuck him. He can go back to working on a coronary while screaming about gay frogs or demanding pictures of Spider-Man or whatever other xenophobic fever dream he’s caught in the throes of today.
he is now advocating for military coup headed by trump. You should listen to his broadcast on the day of trumps address. Knowledge fight is a good podcast to listen to that dissects his current broadcasts using alex's own clips. Its getting a little terrifying since the alt right seems to be letting go of their fake facade of democracy and outright calling for a dictatorship.
The fact that they are venerating Bols' actions in Brazil that are setting the groundwork to a return to the old military Junta should tell you everything (He is starting the purge of civil servants who dont share his views via order to fire them from their positions atm).
it's the same thing about yelling "fire" in a theater.
That being said, I think this case (Alex Jones) is a pretty clear case of wanton inciting of violence and goes beyond any free speech protection.
It was overturned yes, but I would say that it was more accurately clarified. Yelling fire in a theater then directing people to push each other out of the way to make it to the exits(starting a riot) will still land you in hot water. Here's the section on that ruling that sums it up well: "Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.".
The distinction you provided is the crux of any legal action against this type of speech. It's labeled as 2 elements but it's actually three: intent, imminence, and likelihood. Jones must have intended his speech to cause listeners to go after these families; that action must have likely occurred, and it must have been intended to occur immediately after his statement.
I think intent is and always will be the hardest hurdle to pass in these cases.
I love reading this kind of shit. I should become a lawyer.
Wish me luck!
Which is why access to their internal marketing and other materials is a huge win because it sheds light into the intent, meaning they could be used in a criminal case.
Also, when you are sued by someone for damages, the first amendment doesn't protect you.
Is it just intent, or does reckless disregard factor? The latter appears as an alternative to intent in several matters involving speech. It’s certainly not as cut and dried as intent. But you can be charged with making false statements to the government by showing reckless disregard or indifference to the truth. You can also be found guilty of defamation of a private figure in the same way.
It would surprise me if reckless disregard wasn’t also considered in cases involving incitement. If a reasonable person would understand that people might act on your call to violence, does your intent matter if you show no regard for the potential repercussions of your speech?
What about yelling yeet in a nursery ward
there are distinct limits to free speech
That is shocking to most people
Not American, so maybe I'm being dumb, but surely the 1st amendment only protects you from the government censoring your speech? The 1st amendment means you can't be stopped from speaking, not that there can't be consequences from said speech.
Or am I totally wrong?
You are actually correct (technically and partly).
The constitution protects the people from overreaching government and not each other. The issue is suing the person means you are getting the government involved and thus the constitution becomes involve.
The first amendment lets you say, show, write, whatever you want, with a couple exceptions. Most of these exceptions involve the intentional attack or damaging of another person or group.
Libel: using information to ruin someone’s reputation
Slander: lying to defame someone
Clear and present danger: making up something to cause panic, like screaming ‘fire’ when there isn’t one
Child porn: should b obvious
Obscenity: Throwing racial, hateful, sexual harassing terms at people with the intent to agitate
Fighting words: intentionally inciting violence
The difference between libel and slander is actually simpler. They both involve untrue defamatory statements, but one is written and one is spoken.
so maybe I'm being dumb, but surely the 1st amendment only protects you from the government censoring your speech?
If you post signs all over my neighborhood saying that I'm a pedophile I can turn around and sue you.
You have freedom to speak against the government. You don't have freedom to defame others.
Not quite. It is a legal victory in the sense that the Sandy Hook families likely had to file a motion to compel Jones' attorneys to produce the documents they were seeking because Jones' attorneys believed the documents were not "discoverable" or otherwise objected to the documents being produced under another basis. Jones' attorneys, obviously, made the argument that he should not have to produce the documents. The court deciding that the documents sought were indeed pertinent to the subject matter of the lawsuit (and therefore should be produced) is a victory for the families because it will potentially allow them to better prove their case by using Jones' internal documents. So you're somewhat right in suggesting that it does not mean the lawsuit itself has terminated in their favor, but I would classify this as a significant, if expected, minor legal victory on their part.
The headline, while technically correct, still grossly overstates the issue. A favorable ruling on any of the dozens of motions filed during a typical litigation is a "legal victory" that may not mean much.
Even if this particular ruling is important, the editors should have known that 99% of those reading the headline will think it means the plaintiffs won the lawsuit. Of course they know that. That's the essence of clickbait: over promise and under deliver.
The discovery stuff means they can look for documents to see if Jones knew the information he was spreading was false.
It's a request for documents Jones lawyers said were exempt from discovery. They apparently weren't. It's minor and a common pretrial decision. It's also an appealable issue.
They don't even know if they can directly depose Jones yet.
showing intent to slander these people for the purpose of boosting infowar's bottom line, presumably
Intent is often a big part of if someone can be charged with a crime, or held liable for certain actions, and what penalties they can incur for violation of the law.
It's always illegal to kill someone (short of self defense) but manslaughter is different from murder and then even that has different degrees.
Being able to comb through internal documents at Info Wars will show exactly how Jones and his company view Sandyhook.
Which is important because honestly believing what you say and harassing these families is bad.
Knowing it's all a sham and harassing them just for personal gain because you've got gullible followers is worse.
Getting these documents will ideally tell that story. Whatever it may be.
I first read this incorrectly as "dispose of Jones", and this became an insanely different ruling...
Finally, we'll get actual, empirical proof of how much he's earned from that Caveman bullshit he hawks on his show and in his store.
Also, if you click that link, you'll also get to see a picture of Alex Jones with Photoshopped-on hair in the top taskbar. And that's not nothing, folks.
I would avoid driving more traffic to their website.
the fuck is this? bone broth?
Some kind of protein shake concoction that he sells. If you feel like a cheap laugh, go to YouTube and watch "Alex Jones tries caveman shake" as your search criteria. You can watch that bloated gunny sack filled with misshapen balloon animals try a sip, and he looks like he wants to puke.
Chicken stock dehydrated into a powder. Bone broth is just stock... chicken or pork or w.e bone you make it from... Most stocks use bones in them... So then people want to try and be all fancy and call them bone broths.... It's fucking stock...
Nah, there actually is a slight but significant difference. Bone Broth is more viscous due to being cooked for longer - the collagen and other compounds and minerals from the bones seep into the broth, which does not happen in typical animal stock which is cooked for less time and is made with more actual meat in addition to the bones.
Bone Broth has many health benefits over classic stock, and is significantly higher in protein and lower in sodium. Definitely a noticeable difference in flavor and texture as the bone broth is much thicker.
Any good lawyer will do their best to throw up legal challenges. I'm sure Alex Jones' lawyer is doing the same by asking for a separate hearing on the issue of deposition.
A win via a battle of attrition is still a win. And a good lawyer will do whatever is legal and necessary to get a favorable outcome for their client. That includes arguing about the definition of a photocopier if necessary.
Read the article people. They got a court victory that allowed them to move forward with discovery. The case isn’t even close to finished.
It's a standard pretrial ruling.
Thousands of pending cases all over the country bring this issue forward. It's common and not an indicator of really much.
Read the article people.
The headline is technically correct, "Win legal victory in lawsuit". Doesn't technically say "Won lawsuit". But I didn't notice that either until I read the article.
This is Reddit. The reading of articles is forbidden.
So the "just a prank, bro" excuse didn't hold up in court?
Surprisingly yeah. Now this needs to be applied to politicians.
Like spreading misinformation or doctored videos?
That's always been illegal. Question is, whether or not you can prove they knew it was false but published it anyway. It's super easy to fall behind the "I didn't know" or "I do not recall" excuse.
"I do not recall" is the stupidest get-out-of-jail-free card. If you're an American politician interacting with anyone in a position of power, you shouldn't just be able to "forget" what you discussed.
Even if you're not corrupt, if you actually cannot remember what you discussed with an important person at an event, you're unfit to be a representative of the people.
Until we have a way to download a person's memories of an event to prove whether or not they recall something, abusing the 5th amendment to cheat the system is kinda unavoidable.
If you can't recall key parts of whatever you're being questioned about, your ability to perform your role as a member of the government needs to be called into question.
I couldn’t agree more. At some point they should be evaluated by a doctor at least.
Agreed. If you read/listen to "Fear: Trump in the White House", Trump does a mock cross-ex with his lawyer on possible questions Mueller might ask him, and the number of fucking times he says "I don't recall" or "I don't remember that" is positively disgusting. Not knowing his mental state, he could very well not remember, but even if he literally doesn't and isn't lying, a man with that lack of recall has no business being in the highest office in the land.
a man with that lack of recall has no business being in the highest office in the land.
Unfortunately there's no requirement for a fully functional memory. In fact, there's nothing about ones state of mind or intelligence at all. It's just how old are you, are you a citizen, and how long have you lived here since the last time you lived elsewhere. Those requirements aren't good enough, imo. You're absolutely right, but unfortunately it doesn't matter in the long run.
The reason for that was to make sure the person currently in power couldn’t tweak the requirements so one of his/her lackeys or him/herself was one of the few people “fit” to be president. Or bribe the doctor/anyone else in the system.
Are you suggesting that public servants should wear some form of body cam when acting in their official capacity? That’s crazy talk.
That’s true, but people who have significant and frequent gaps in their memory should not be allowed in positions of power.
Pleading incompetence should have repercussions.
Also, let's not forget most of these schmucks are lawyers.
They really need to take the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" card and play that heavily.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, depends heavily where on the economic scale you lie.
Ignorance of the law is an excuse for police to break the law. If they think that they are enforcing an actual law then their actions are usually considered lawful even if the law they are trying to enforce doesn't exist.
Also, disobeying them would amount to disobeying a lawful order even though the order is not lawful since what is lawful is up to the officer's discretion in most instances.
Even if you wind up being in the right, you still wind up having to deal with getting arrested, getting arraigned, bailing out (if necessary), and going to court to get the charges dropped. That's where the phrase, "you might beat the rap but you can't beat the ride" comes from.
Police officers should be required to know the law.
The law itself says only intentionally (legalese is "willfully") doing that is a crime.
It's not illegal to spread false information generally. Slander or libel are different issues, though.
Doesn't hold up in the eyes of the Lord either
Like a maniac shooting flaming arrows of death is one who deceives their neighbor and says, “I was only joking!”
Every day we stray farther from God's light
WOW! had to double check that and it's legit. Amazing find.
Even with your confirmation, I didn’t believe it was real. Sounded so contemporary!
If it helps to make it feel less contemporary, it originally said:
כְּֽמִתְלַהְלֵהַּ הַיֹּרֶ֥ה זִקִּ֗ים חִצִּ֥ים וָמָֽוֶת: כֵּֽן־אִ֖ישׁ רִמָּ֣ה אֶת־רֵעֵ֑הוּ וְ֜אָמַ֗ר הֲֽלֹא־מְשַׂחֵ֥ק אָֽנִי:
But seriously, here's the KJV translation of the scripture:
As a mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death, So is the man that deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not I in sport?
Am not I in sport?
I need to start using this phrase more often.
"'Tis merely in jest, brother!"
He was just playing a character, right?
I think a lot of people thought so until his insane comments came out in his custody hearings.
If you're willing to go to court to keep your kids after a divorce and still ramble as if you have real, actual mental problems, it's not a character or a joke.
A guy I know who's an Alex Jones believer denies that Alex Jones ever said he was playing a character during his divorce. It was his lawyer who said that so it doesn't count.
Denial is a wonderful thing.
I mean he's right, Alex never said he was playing a character and doubled down on his opinion that what he says is absolutely what he believes. It was his lawyers that said it.
Nor did the 'big bowl of chilli' excuse.
Huh. Who'd have thunk?
Haven’t been following Alex Jones’ court cases. What was the “chili defense”?
Hah, not exactly sure what to expect, but this ranks up there in terms of absurdity. Certainly god-level douchebaggery.
"Wait, you didn't let me finish. I was gonna say, 'Not' and totally exonerate myself!!"
I said all that stuff on Opposite Day.
Surprised Joe Rogan didn't testify and vouch for his buddy Alex Jones.
The plaintiffs — families of four children and two educators killed in the December 2012 shooting — have said the “deeply painful” lies they’ve accused Jones of pushing have caused them to endure “malicious and cruel abuse” as well as harassment and death threats on social media.
Pretty much the lowest of lows to send these poor people death threats.
The people sending death threats to these families are probably die hard alex jones' fans that hang off of every word he says and dont have the critical thinking skills to consider that maybe hes just a tv personality that doesnt know what hes talking about.
So to these people "jonesing" for blood, the lowest of lows is getting paid to say that your child was murdered in a "fake" shooting.
Not in anyway defending these assholes, just pointing out their probable line of reasoning.
You're right though, sending death threats to the poor families is fuxking awful, and they should be ashamed.
The people sending death threats to these families are probably die hard alex jones' fans
I expect more clips of him chasing people down the street while live screaming.
There is that video recorded by a bystander where Alex Jones is screaming into a pile of dog or horse shit in the middle of the street. I wonder if that ever made into his show or they edited it out.
Where can I get some of this live screaming? It sounds exciting!
If you punned live-screaming from live-streaming, I want to give you more than one upvote.
it was the only way I could describe his style I was pretty much forced into that pun
Lmao about 10 seconds in
OK, first of all WTF did I just watch?
I believe we are referring to it as live screaming
Alex Jones painfully underestimating the political disposition of Seattleites and subsequently enduring a very warm PNW welcome in the form of coffee-slinging Blöödhag vocalist J.B. Stratton.
Guy: *walking away* Fuck off.
Alex: No, YOU fuck off!
Guy: I am fucking off.
*random incoherent chatter while guy fucks off*
He's like if Sam Kinnison had an unfunny Incel brother.
With as much grief as this asshole has caused those families, I sincerely hope they're able to bankrupt his ass.
InfoWars does need some more lawsuits, I'm surprised they don't have that many.
Given how many people he's made stupid claims about on his show, I absolutely agree with you. I'm surprised as well.
Clearly that’s an admission by those people (Obama, Killary) that they are, in fact, inter-dimensional vampires who eat babies! /s because it’s necessary now.
They aren’t inter dimensional space vampires, that’s ridiculous
They’re just your run of the mill spirit cookin’, pedophile lizard satanists. Duh.
I mean, they collect art and eat pizza. It’s all there.
his cultists defend him in the same way they defend trump, they have to explain "what he actually means." with the magical ability to rewrite actual words spoken out of people's mouths, some "scholars" on the right have learned the long-lost art of making anyone say anything you want! it's just great. you should try it!
What /u/unfeelingzeal meant to say is that Jones has such a way with words that they seem to keep up with the times, like a well-written play or movie. Each time his voice graces our ears, new notes of genius can't help but to expose themselves, as if they were simply begging to be discovered. The man is a true modern Shakespeare.
precisely. jones is an absolute gem and we're all lucky to be graced with his presence in our lifetimes. quite the literary icon of our time!
What /u/unfeelingzeal meant to say is that his lust for Jones is so insastiable that he needs to keep a picture of him taped to his genitals at all times. The sheer thirst can't be quenched by anything other than Jones' tight, round belly nuzzling his cheekbones as they bathe.
i like you.
For us non-USA folks, eli5 what happened?
A few years ago there was a deadly mass shooting at an elementary school called Sandy Hook that took the lives of dozens of children. It immediately began to spark a fear into the American right wing that President Obama would use this as an excuse to rob them of their guns. As that theory circulated radio personality Alex Jones began to say that the whole Sandy Hook shooting didn't even actually happen and that everyone involved was an actor. His fans soon began to send death threats to the parents of the grieving children, because it was believed by a bunch of violent morons that they were actors being paid.
And this is how dumb they are. Obama isn't in office any more, not one gun was taken. Yet they still believe it didn't happen. These people make a strong case for human culling of the herd.
some of these assholes demanded that parents dig up their dead children to prove those children ever existed.
Sandy Hook Elementary was shot up in December of 2012 by a deranged gunman. 20 children between the ages of 6-7 and 6 adult staff members were killed.
Democrats sprang to action in an attempt to restrict gun regulations. Many of the grieving families opened themselves up to the media in support of this legislation.
Alex Jones is very Anti-Democrat and very Anti-Gun Regulation. He perpetuated a conspiracy theory that the families were crisis actors, and that Sandy hook never actually happened - but rather, it was all a stunt orchestrated by Democrats to rip guns away from Americans. He leaked their personal information among other nasty shit to incite his supporters to harass them.
Edit: Fixed some info
Remember, he was the dude who protested Bush and the Iraq war.
Alex Jones is a conspitard nutjob, who completely lost his mind quite quick after becoming famous.
Yeah the weird thing is he used to be against the elite/politicians and then he jumped right in bed with Cult 45.
Man uses conspiracy theories to convince idiots to buy his crap. Said idiots also harass the victims of these conspiracy theories. The judge says the case can go ahead to the discovery phase. Plaintiffs get access to documents from defendants which may be incriminating.
Muh free speech!!11!
Unless, of course, you live in Texas and support Palestine
Free speech is not a republican doctrine. They don't like free speech either.
Posting personal information of people with intent to ruin their lives is not free speech, it's terroristic threatening and harassment.
On one hand, I really want to see Alex Jones completely penniless for his bullshit, but then again, you just know that he's going to try to sell his shitty products even more.
To punish them for First Amendment protected speech on this matter of public concern will not bring back the lives lost.
He's ruined some of their lives over this slanderous speech. This needs to be a clear message you cannot do this to people and hope to get away with it. I hope they really hit him hard and he doesn't get a slap on the wrist.
If someone is hurt when you scream fire in a crowded theater, and there is no fire, guess what? You are at fault.
Jones needs to be ruined, permanently, in the "Walmart won't hire you for the backroom janitor job" way.
Something I always wondered about those "prank" videos where people dress up as scary clowns; if they scared someone, they turn and run but fall and crack their head open - are they at fault for "causing" that accident?
of course. If that person dies, that's manslaughter at least. they're also liable for damages in a civil suit.
in a civil suit
Yeah but we're talking about a clown suit
Yes. Those scare pranks on strangers are really, really stupid.
Now maybe if the scare was to somebody who had made their own videos (like that couple who make all those scare pranks) I am sure there is some legal theory that you were both essentially involved in the "prank" and you can't be liable in that particular case. Maybe akin to a sort of "mutual combatant" situation. I would let an actual attorney comment on that though.
They're all fake, so its fine
A lot of prank videos are staged and everyone involved is scripted.
I hope so, too. The most despicable part of this is that there are morons who believed this fucking twat’s lies and took it upon themselves to persecute, threaten and shame these families. I also hope these fickle fucks are held accountable for their actions.
What fascinates me is that the attorney’s statement seems to contradict her client’s claim that no lives were lost and the whole thing was a hoax. I haven’t followed the case closely; I wonder if attorney and client are working with separate sets of “facts”, or if Jones has admitted that all of that stuff was preposterously false but still claims his First Amendment right to blatantly lie about it. I guarantee he’s got listeners who still believe it in either case.
They believe it even though nobody came for their guns. We are talking the dumbest, most hate filled people you can imagine.
r/outoftheloop european here.
a couple years ago there was a horrible shooting at an elementary school where many children were murdered; afterwards "conspiracy theorist" Alex Jones started broadcasting inflammatory content pertaining to the event saying that it was staged, the survivors were 'crisis actors', and even leaked some family's address.
Drag him and bankrupt his ass.
Two more bankruptcies, and he can run for president
Jones has sought to dismiss the lawsuit. "Plaintiffs suffered a horrible tragedy," his defense attorney, Jay M. Wolman, wrote in a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. "Alex Jones and InfoWars are not responsible for this tragedy. To punish them for First Amendment protected speech on this matter of public concern will not bring back the lives lost."
First Amendment protected speech does not include wanton libel, false defamation or other speech that presents clear and present danger. I.E. it is not acceptable to yell "FIRE" and incite a panic given there is no fire, or to hold up a gun a say "I'm going to shoot you" and claim that you are protected under free speech unless you actually shoot the person.
The plaintiffs — families of four children and two educators killed in the December 2012 shooting — have said the “deeply painful” lies they’ve accused Jones of pushing have caused them to endure “malicious and cruel abuse” as well as harassment and death threats on social media.
This man has undeniably and callously proliferated a lie and incited an angry mob to harass the victims of a horrific school shooting. I hope they throw him in prison and he dies there.
Edit: I changed "terrorist attack" to "horrific school shooting". This terminology has been hotly debated and many people fall under criticism for refusing to call white assailants "terrorists" and rather "deranged individuals". The term "terrorism" does require that political motivation is involved, so I will admit I was wrong. However, please note that Jones also makes similar rhetoric about 9/11 which was absolutely a terrorist attack, so I don't really think that should be the point of contention here.
That statement by his attorney is sickening, no one is trying to bring back the dead and to even infer that type of reasoning when it’s obvious why they are pursuing this is just disgraceful. This disgusting shadow of a human being is broadcasting blatant lies about the deaths of innocent children, why would you poison their memories like that? Why would you stoop so low, every christmas the families are reminded of their loss and to think that people don’t believe them and go as far as to attack them is just unbelievable.
It pains me to remember the photos and horror I read, I read every child’s obituary, they were loved little babies going to school like millions of other kids across America. What was done to them was unforgivable, an act most heinous and to deny them their deaths is quite honestly just as bad because I am willing to bet anything that those families wish it was a hoax because that would be so much better than the truth they live with every day.
Their child was 6 years old. Alex Jones lied about them over and over again and gave out their address. They had to move seven times because of his actions.
The heartbreak of losing a child must be one of the worst feelings in the world, imagine getting harassed by crazy Infowars fans at the same time...
After watching Get me Roger Stone and seeing how InfoWars was involved in riling up the whacky base in 2016 to swing the election, it would be amusing, in a weird twist of justice, if the Sandy Hook victim’s lawyers inadvertently unearthed some evidence that would be of interest to the Mueller investigation whilst going through InfoWars’ records...
Unfortunately, InfoWars' records is a bad place to check if you expect to discover anything that is true.
This is off topic and shallow, but wtf? I'm not familiar with Alex Jones, so I Googled. How can he only be 44?? I'm 45 and dude looks old enough to be my dad.
Drugs and stress
Lets hope we get to see Alex on the streets of Austin with a cup in his hand asking for spare change.
Fuck that fat sack of shit Alex Jones.