Speaker 1: I told you a few days ago that I have not been paying enough attention to this Alex
Jones defamation trial. It's actually a really big deal because it is going to ultimately test the
limits of what can people with audiences and the responsibilities that come with those audiences,
myself included. What are we allowed to say about just individual, private people before we are
liable for defamation? And that is exactly what is at issue here. This is a trial happening in Texas.
Alex Jones is being sued by parents of victims of the Sandy Hook school shooting. Yes, the one from
a decade ago. And the trial is completely unhinged. Alex Jones seems to have almost like
a cartoon lawyer who I actually wonder if it's a strategy because the lawyer is trying to cause a
mistrial. That's one aspect of this. And we have video from Alex Jones testimony over the last
couple of days. It is wacky. Now, we are going to start in this first clip. Okay. The judge,
Alex Jones, appears to be chewing something during the course of the day's events. And the judge,
Maya Gamble, tells Alex Jones to stop chewing it. And then Alex Jones starts opening his mouth and
says that it's gauze and she's like, You're chewing on gauze. And he doesn't really say
it's every moment of this trial is bizarre. Take a look at this.
Speaker 3: I've been told that it goes on and
he says that he's sorry. And we got to that. These are.
Speaker 5: Stand your ground instructions. Speaker 3: To shut down.
Speaker 5: What is it because you're not allowed food or gum of any kind in the public eye.
Speaker 3: I am not truthful and we can help you out in his eyes. Laws
are here and it's because you have to pay. Speaker 5: So you're chewing on your guys.
Speaker 3: Would you like to show it? Speaker 1: So it's not really clear. He says
he has he had gauze in there earlier. Speaker 5: No, I just want you
to answer my question. Speaker 3: So I was reciting
the whole matter now for you. I can't I'm sure. Speaker 5: I don't want to say inside of your.
Speaker 3: Mouth, oh, no, no, don't hold Saddam. Speaker 1: My every every. So it's it's endlessly
funny. But the problem is. What can she do? She could eventually say there's a mistrial,
but it seems like that's only particularly good for Jones because it just delays judgment. Here
is another moment in which they play a video of Alex Jones saying that the plaintiff dad seems
autistic. And again, the whole thing just goes completely and totally off the rails.
Speaker 3: He explained that.
I thought it was an act when I saw you. Speaker 1: And I'm sorry. What's relevant here is
Alex Jones is doing this stuff during the trial. And so not literally during the trial, but I mean,
in breaks and on days where he doesn't have to be in court. And so his discussions of the trial
are coming up during the trial more and more because the judge is not happy that
he's talking so much about the trial. Speaker 3: Itself on TV just because
he came off his show. What
you're saying is he sees a reason that actually and he's on an action is manipulated by some very
bad people. You say that to be honest. He's slow, okay. And his ex-wife is not. How do you stupid?
I'm just saying, she's got family members that are really smart and always, but they're just
real calm, quiet and have this way about a man. And they move, as it were, like, they're fast in
some ways and slow and others at ease. I mean, I think have one actually somebody on the spectrum
right before I read a bigger jerk. Well, I saw I saw something about this kind of social work
and how long I've been around for over a week. I'm like, okay,
now I know I don't have some calculating point. Just bring it out here. It's just around these
people. And I'm looking at it and I'm watching what's being said and what's going on. And what
really happened makes it clear what happened. Speaker 1: So Alex Jones during the trial
doing doing coverage during which he says that it seems as though the plaintiff dad
is on the autism spectrum. Then here is some of Alex Jones actual testimony and it just goes
he just can't stick to the questions that are asked that goes completely off the rails again.
Speaker 5: Anything else before we bring the jury not.
Speaker 3: Knowing. Speaker 5: Anything? All right. We're
ready to have the jury back. Speaker 1:
Oh, and this may not even be the exact moment that I wanted to.
Okay. Alex Jones sworn in. Okay. So he's he brings up a piece of paper and he's immediately told,
you can't have notes. And then the first question he's asked. He just goes on a rant.
Speaker 5: Oh, if you were here and I explained to a prior witness who perhaps documents the
film that you can't look at any document for any reason while you're testifying in court unless
one of the lawyers or myself instructed to do so. So I'm going to ask you to actually just give it
back to Mr. Reinoehl until he may, if you need it. Okay. You're God. Did you understand that?
Speaker 3: Yes. Speaker 5: Okay. While you testified,
it is not a conversation. It is a question and answer. So the instructions are to let the lawyers
completely finish asking their questions. Speaker 1: So he's told you you have to just
answer the question that's asked and then look at
how quickly that doesn't happen. But I think. Speaker 5: Those are all. Do you understand them?
I do. All right. You may begin the story now. Speaker 3: Alex, would you please introduce
yourself to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury? I am Alex Jones. How are you feeling
now? I actually feel good because I got a chance to for the first time say what's really going on
instead of corporate media and high powered law firms manipulating what I actually do.
I want to start by kind of letting the jury know a little bit about your youth and where you grew
up so that you get to. Okay. Okay. And, you know, before we do that, I just do want to say this on
the here's I said many times I apologize to both. Speaker 5: Sustained was one of the instructions
I just gave you is that this is not a conversation question. And the answer.
Speaker 3: Should she got the monologue without me? I got.
Speaker 5: It. Speaker 1: And so argumentative
with the judge. Yeah. And again, this all could be a strategy to try to get a mistrial,
to make the plaintiffs have to start over. Speaker 5: You have to only answer questions
that are asked to you. Mr.. And I'll ask you, I'm certain all the questions you want
to wait for the question. You may proceed. Speaker 1: Okay. So then at another point during
this, the topic of Alex Jones gravelly voice comes up. You guys know that gravelly voice,
globalist, internationalist, Trotskyite socialist, unlike Obama, Trudeau, Macron. Okay,
that's me, actually. So now let's get to the actual subject matter of his voice.
And then again, the plaintiff's attorney is like,
is there is there any relevance to this? Speaker 3: So one of the things I notice
about you is that you have a very distinctive voice, very deep, sort of gravelly voice.
Does your voice always sound. No. What? What happened to your voice? Why does it sound the way
I remember, the two demonstrations were finally recorded, and one was about. I guess about 12,
13 years ago was actually film of it. Rejection elements. I'm sorry. Go ahead. This is James.
Speaker 5: You have somebody to tie this to. Speaker 1:
Do you have something to tie this to? Anything related to this case?
Speaker 5: No, no, no. I'll just give you here. Speaker 3: This is so that the jury can
understand who my client is. Speaker 1: Right. The jury could
not possibly understand who the client is unless the back story on his gravelly voice
is explained. One more really interesting moment. There are two
assertions that the judge tells Alex Jones This is outside the audience of the jury that he can't say
Alex Jones refused to participate to allow discovery in this trial and we covered that
meaning. He refused to allow the plaintiffs to gather all of the things that he was in order
to allow. And he says during his testimony that he allowed discovery. In addition, he claims that he
is bankrupt, but that's not actually true. He filed for bankruptcy and the judge tells him,
you can't keep saying that stuff. Speaker 5: Mr. Jones.
You may not say to this jury. They do comply with discovery. That is not true. You may
not see it again. You may not tell this jury that you are bankrupt. That is also not true.
You may have filed for bankruptcy. I don't know that, but I heard that it doesn't
it doesn't make a person or a company bankrupt. Speaker 1: So again, she is completely
correct about all of these things. But what's the recourse? Is it to declare a mistrial? And if so,
everything I'm reading is that actually helps Alex
Jones and it hurts the plaintiff. So a completely insane trial. And on on
an upcoming live stream, we may or may not talk about it more. Let me know your thoughts.