The facts make it clear that Jones did not comply. Read the court filings or watch the testimony. He did not hand over the evidence he was ordered to hand over. That is a proven fact that cannot be disputed.
"Would you like to buy a piece of Alex Jones?"
- Thread starter J_Dee
- Start date
Can you admit that a whole lot of people really seem to love censorship right now? I can't figure out why you are so determined to back this sham though. Like I said.. you can't shut him up. He's already got a new studio with better equipment. He is still on the air. He's actually bigger now than when the powers that be decided to take him out. He was banned off every social media site and he was banned from the app store and more people listen to him today then did when that happened.... What is it you want to happen?
Imagine reading 1984 being a sign of right wing extremism... Maybe we can just go back to being normal and rational? $1.4 billion for saying "I think they are crisis actors"... Think about that and make it make cents...LOL
You can post whatever twitter posts you want. It does not change the fact that Jones did not comply with the law. He skipped depositions, was caught ordering staff to destroy evidence, didn’t turn over other evidence he was ordered to and he lied under oath about not having other evidence.
That is the reason for the default judgment. The law was correctly applied when the judge made that ruling.
We can discuss the auction once we close out this discussion about the default judgment. You asserted that Jones was denied the right to defend himself and that you disagreed with that because you believe in our legal system.
We’ve now clearly established that your point of view in that was a nonsense stance to take. The law clearly allows for default judgement in these situations, which you conceded.
You then tried to shift and argue that Jones did comply and that it was only the judge’s opinion that he didn’t. That is a laughably false claim to make as well, and the evidence demonstrates Jones’ consistent bad faith. Only a gullible person would believe Jones’ assertions that he fully cooperated.
Would you agree that is where we’ve landed on the points that you have personally raised?
Once we wrap this up, I’ll be happy to discuss the legality of the auction.
And I don't agree with how you phrase my "shifting stance" . My point is exactly the same as it was from day one. Lawyers sought out the families to sue Jones. The families didn't even know about Jones until the media asked them about his comments. He never sent anyone to their town to harrass them. He said what he said and it's online to see. They shopped for a friendly judge and found her. Her rulings are insane by any honest analysts. You can hate Jones and that's fine. But you need to admit the legal system shouldn't be a censorship tool for the fbi and other government entities.
Last edited:
If you can't admit the government has a censorship problem then I don't know what to tell you. You should read the Twitter files by Taibi and Schellenberger. It's amazing more people aren't pissed about what the doj and fbi were doing with social media outlets.
Hey Cincy... how outraged are you at Hillary? Imagine not just ignoring a subpoena but destroying evidence under subpoena... Wow. I guess she got in a ton of trouble for that. She probably had a judge issue a default judgement against her for this.
Always important when having a discussion online to use your actual words and thoughts and not repeatedly post various tweets as your arguments. I often see this tactic used here and what happens is the person you're engaging with has to speak to you but also is expected to address several tweets from others not involved with the current discussion. Imagine having a disagreement with someone face to face and one person begins holding up index cards with other people's thoughts on them as an argument lol.
Other than that, I'm enjoying reading all this but yeah, imo you've lost the fight once you begin digging up random tweets in place of your own thoughts on the subject.
Other than that, I'm enjoying reading all this but yeah, imo you've lost the fight once you begin digging up random tweets in place of your own thoughts on the subject.
Miss you in the political thread. You were so right on the election just like this post. You are so much smarter and superior to all us rubes. LOL
He said he was going to have so much fun over there after Trump lost only to run away like a little bic*h. HAS to be the biggest chump I've ever seen. Talks down to people from behind his computer and can't back any of it up......eats spaghettios that his mom makes every night at 6pm.
Again, you’re avoiding the topic at hand. I’ll be more than happy go through your list of assertions one by one to discuss the facts you have to support those assertions.
But let’s remain focused on the assertions you’ve made that we’ve been debating. One, at this point, you would agree that the law says a judge can enter a default judgment if someone refuses to comply with discovery, correct?
Two, you asserted that Jones actually did comply with discovery orders based solely on the fact that Jones said that himself and you believed him. Correct?
And we know, from the evidence, that Jones in fact did not comply. Which means a few things:
- Your assertion that Jones complied is an example of you having your facts completely wrong and basing your beliefs solely on what someone has said on social media
- A default judgement against Jones was entirely appropriate in this case given his egregious failure to comply
If you're as right about this as you believe yourself to be, then this should be an exercise you welcome because it will give you a chance to vindicate yourself.
Last edited:
Obviously a judge can rule that. You are refusing to admit a judge saying something doesn't mean it's a fact. What you fail to realize or are ignoring is that Jones said he turned over everything and the Judge "said" he didn't. How do you turn over stuff you don't have?
Ok, let’s use that as an example. Jones was ordered to hand over any text conversations he had on his phone that discussed Sandy Hook.
Jones did not hand over any texts, and swore, under oath, that he personally had searched his phone and that he had no texts to hand over.
Is this the type of thing you’re referring to when Jones said he couldn’t turn over anything he didn’t have?
Yes. Stuff like that. I get a new phone every couple of years. If you ask me for text from 2 years ago you aren't going to get anything. If you ask me for emails from 2 years ago you aren't going to get anything because I've already deleted them. They could have gotten all this stuff from the internet provider and cell provider. The FBI was working with legal firm suing Jones.
You understand this is about public statements he made on camera, right? You act like he's hiding something. It's literally on video of what he said. LOL. It's just wild that you think there was this wild secret plan to just throw these families under the bus to make money...
My concern is that Jones is the canary in the coal mine. They used this to kick him off social media and they kicked tons of people off social media after including the President of The United States.
The Covington kid got slandered and had his life threatened over lies and people paid money and kept right on with their lives. Nobody lost their entire way of life and all personal property. Double standards offend me.
Private investigator for women divorcing their cheating husbands.
Let’s stay on topic. Jones swore under oath that he searched his phone (i.e., opened the text app and searched for “Sandy Hook”) and found zero messages.
Was Jones’ sworn testimony about there being no messages on his phone true?
Or how about this.... Maybe I don't get why you are so upset about this case. What do you think Jones did in secret that needs him to be run out of polite society forever? Maybe I just haven't heard that side of the story. I thought this was just a case of a dude saying something bad online.
That’s fine. We’ll get to that in a second.
But hypothetically, let’s say that there were, in fact, Sandy Hook messages on Jones’ phone.
That would mean that Jones gave false testimony, correct?
Yes. Then he should go to jail for a set period of time and then go on with his life, correct?
We can discuss whatever penalty should be involved for false testimony later. But if you agree that the presence of Sandy Hook texts on Jones’ phone would mean that Jones gave false testimony, do you think that would also call his credibility into question?
Last edited:
