Hope they win 1000 times what they are suing for.

[ZR]

The families of two children killed at the 2012 school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut filed suits against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones on Tuesday. The families are seeking more than $1 million for defamation, relating to Jones' repeated claims on his widely popular radio show that the shooting was staged in order for left-wing politicians to push gun control laws.
"This heartless and vile act of defamation reignited the Sandy Hook 'false flag' conspiracy and tore open the emotional wounds that [the family] has tried so desperately to heal," the lawsuit for the family of deceased 6-year-old Jesse Heslin said.
Another, brought by the family of Noah Pozner, also 6 at the time, read: "Our clients have been tormented for five years by Mr. Jones' ghoulish accusations that they are actors who faked their children's deaths as part of a fraud on the American people. Enough is enough."
The charges relate to Jones' use of his Infowars radio program to continuously push the theory that the Sandy Hook shootings did not occur, even going so far as to say interviews with Pozner's mother had been doctored, and that she was lying about her son's death.
Both lawsuits allege that Jones' actions have inspired others to make death threats against their families.
Heslin and Pozner were two of the 20 children and six adults killed by Adam Lanza on December 14, 2012.

[90LXCoupe]

Damn straight! I agree!

[Gabe]

Couldn’t agree more. What a scumbag

[92redragtop]

You mean this guy isn't batshit crazy? And to think some folks take him seriously.....


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kgUDbvKYbWk" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[RedSN]

It’s gotta be an act, doesn’t it?
What I don’t understand are the followers. Who seriously listens to this baffoon?

It’s sad that he spreads this nonesense and his army of retards have threatened the families of Sandy Hook victims. I hope they win their case and bankrupt this con man right off the air.

Conspiracy theorists drive me up the wall. Ugghh. [RANT/OFF]

[ZR]

We need a more defined line between free speech and spewing venom.
These poor people have already endured any parents worst nightmare without this guy and his mouth forcing them to relive it again and again.

[stangstevers]

Damn! What an opportunistic piece of shit! Hope he gets a lesson, a hard one.

Free speech is needed but also need a lot more investment in mental health awareness and treatment.

[ZR]

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. To me, comes down to old fashioned right vs wrong.

[5.4MarkVIII]

We are already there in Canada.

Have you not been condemned and denounced for having a different view?

No such thing as free speech anymore.

[92redragtop]

It’s gotta be an act, doesn’t it?
What I don’t understand are the followers. Who seriously listens to this baffoon?

It’s sad that he spreads this nonesense and his army of retards have threatened the families of Sandy Hook victims. I hope they win their case and bankrupt this con man right off the air.

Conspiracy theorists drive me up the wall. Ugghh. [RANT/OFF]

In the divorce proceedings his wife has also said it's an act (but she did claim he's violent) but people still believe the bullshit.

[RedSN]

...but people still believe the bullshit.
You mean like right-wing Stephen Colbert on the Colbert Report? LOL

[Bksrt8]

Actually I'd claim the opposite as far as this board goes. My views and opinions aren't popular here, I have not been stifled.

Out in the real world my sense is conservative views are kept in the closet for the most part. Myself I am somewhat guarded although I do express my views to lefties who I view as intelligent enough to listen to an alternative view point and possibly consider the implications. So far I don't run across too many of these rare lefties
I agree....as far as my oppinions go, ive voiced some of them and recieved minimal flack about them on here. Out in society i think people are too stupid to listen to more than one idea at a time....so they pick the idea that everybody else seems to be supporting and they go with that. Freedom of speech only helps those with enough brains in thier heads to come up with an argument opposing what the rest of the sheep in society believe and mactually is an argument that holds water and pisses the sheep off because they cant wrap thier heads around anything other than what the Zionist media leaders are telling them is right or wrong at that particular time.

That guy has a right to express his oppinion....even if it is fucking retarded. I dont know about suing him for it tho....it just seems like another case of Americans taking anyone and anything to the courts that they possibly can to try and get a dollar. No diffefent than suing McDonalds for "making you fat" or suing Tim Hortons for coffee thats too hot.....get a fucking life!

[92redragtop]

You mean like right-wing Stephen Colbert on the Colbert Report? LOL

Yup - some folks still believe that was real.

[92redragtop]

still not defending Alex Jones, but I would't consider a divorcing spouse to be unbiased.

I do watch the occasional Paul Joseph Watson video, who has some affiliation with InfoWars. He doesn't seem deranged and appears to make good points.

Agreed, have to take a divorcing spouse with a grain of salt but who better to know that is an act (public vs private persona). However, considering she may want alimony or child support from the divorce settlement, I would assume she's smart enough to not kill the proverbial golden goose via an unnecessary scorched earth approach. She may take that risk on the other hand, if there was violence involved (as alleged) in an attempt to sever quickly.

[92redragtop]

you ever been divorced?

Twice for me and scorched earth is my experience, emotion versus logic.

Not so far but I think I read that Infowars revenue (mostly advertising and sales of supplements, ED pills, and disaster preparedness products) was around $45MM so if she's smart (or has a smart lawyer), scorched earth wouldn't be the strategy to go with.

[RedSN]

...so if she's smart (or has a smart lawyer),....
Is it Michael Cohen?
Please please please let it be Michael Cohen

[5.4MarkVIII]

Is it Michael Cohen?
Please please please let it be Michael Cohen

It’s not. The left and CNN are already calling for the other clients of Michael Cohen to be fired from their jobs for having an evil lawyer who works for evil Trump.

[RedSN]

Randall Wilhite.
It would have been much much funnier if it was Michael Cohen.

[92redragtop]

Is it Michael Cohen?
Please please please let it be Michael Cohen

I believe they are saying Cohen only had 3 clients currently (based on the documents released via the court proceeding earlier in the week). Two of whom seemed to need specific services he offers. Not sure about the 3rd client's needs but there's a pattern to the services offered to the other 2 clients....apparently.

[5.4MarkVIII]

I believe they are saying Cohen only had 3 clients currently (based on the documents released via the court proceeding earlier in the week). Two of whom seemed to need specific services he offers. Not sure about the 3rd client's needs but there's a pattern to the services offered to the other 2 clients....apparently.

the third client is a fox news reporter. so of course the left is trying to tear him apart including calling for his firing because apparently they feel he should have made it known that he once used trumps lawyer for real estate advice


but no this is all normal no bias at all.

[5.4MarkVIII]

what's the big deal, Trump hires a lawyer

Lawyer has other clients

end of story???

should be the end of the story but the left needs to take down trump so bad that apparently now any one affiliated with trump and anyone affiliated with someone who is affiliated with trump is fair game.
tyipicaly to get a warrent there has to be very specific list of what they are looking for and what thay will take down to words they plan on useing to search computers. but in this case they took everything and fo some reason no one can explain he was forced to name his other cliants. how is that relivent? so a roofer commits a crime and goes to court is he going to be forced to make public everyone he ever fixed a roof for?

but no its not a witch hunt

[92redragtop]

So you have a lawyer that potentially broke one or more laws (plus violated the rules of the Bar that could cause him to lose his licence to practice law) in certain dealings on behalf of his client(s), acting as a bribery/payoff agents for 2 of 3 clients - apparently his current specialty - may or may not have been in Eastern Europe during a certain notable period of time, and any number of other questionable or shady dealings on behalf of 1 client - no cockroaches in this house. A propaganda TV mouthpiece who railed (almost appearing to take it "personally") on anything to do with any investigation of said lawyer's activities and investigations into such activities, without acknowledging a conflict of interest - got it.


"and fo some reason no one can explain he was forced to name his other cliants" - so multiple judiciaries/legal hurdles were cleared to get warrants to access this material without supporting documentation/evidence, and the court material presented in court does not include such rationale (disclosure: I haven't searched for it) - quite the Putinesque style operation.

[92redragtop]

I was unaware of those details, or alleged details. If only alleged shouldn't his clients remain unnamed until he gets convicted?

I haven't paid that much attention to it except for brief snippets but avoided the internet rabbit hole of looking at public releases of the documentation. Had my own stress dealing with/negotiating with lawyers, bankers, etc., over the past few weeks.

Evidence would be required for prosecution and defence - the courts would have to hear arguments for and against opening the records (plus I believe going after a lawyer's records require a higher level of due diligence and proof - it appears in the US at least) before ruling to allow them opened in court. I think it was only the third client was revealed in court - the other 2 may have been previously known for paying women to stay quiet (Trump and senior RNC guy), and the 3rd alleged "client" was revealed in court. Apparently he only had 3 clients last year?

[5.4MarkVIII]

I was unaware of those details, or alleged details. If only alleged shouldn't his clients remain unnamed until he gets convicted?

All of that is pretty much word for word the CNN talking points. Not one of which has been proven. Aside from stormy danials was traveling around trying to sell her I had sex with trump story and They payed her to sign a non disclosure agreement. (Which is not illegal)


She then broke the agreement and is interviewing around like a victim. Even though she openly admitted that the reason she has sex with trump was becasie she hoped it would earn her a job.
(Both those things are in a way illegal.)

[5.4MarkVIII]

I haven't paid that much attention to it except for brief snippets but avoided the internet rabbit hole of looking at public releases of the documentation. Had my own stress dealing with/negotiating with lawyers, bankers, etc., over the past few weeks.

Evidence would be required for prosecution and defence - the courts would have to hear arguments for and against opening the records (plus I believe going after a lawyer's records require a higher level of due diligence and proof - it appears in the US at least) before ruling to allow them opened in court. I think it was only the third client was revealed in court - the other 2 may have been previously known for paying women to stay quiet (Trump and senior RNC guy), and the 3rd alleged "client" was revealed in court. Apparently he only had 3 clients last year?

That’s kind of the point. The way it’s looking the typical rules for attaining a warrent and the subsequent information wasn’t followed.

The media isn’t focusing on that becasie all they want to do is bring down trump.

And there where more clients but they dont fit the agenda. So they are being ignored.

[92redragtop]

I haven't seen/read the court documents so I don't know how anyone can say rules/process were broken (or not) by the respective Justice Departments, government prosecutors, district court judges, etc. Have you guys seen the court docs?

Either way, we're off topic now as this was about the crazy folks and tin-foil conspiracy theories at Infowars and the victims' families.

[5.4MarkVIII]

I haven't seen/read the court documents so I don't know how anyone can say rules/process were broken (or not) by the respective Justice Departments, government prosecutors, district court judges, etc. Have you guys seen the court docs?

Either way, we're off topic now as this was about the crazy folks and tin-foil conspiracy theories at Infowars and the victims' families.

I’m not a lawyer but lawyers that have been discussing it are saying it would almost be unprecedented for a warrent to allow them to take everything, and not just info directly related to the case
More so since they are using the acquired info for both the stormy danials deal. And the Russian investigation.

We won’t know for sure until all the info comes out but currently it’s not going forward as it normally would.
Especially since what' are they investigating?
They say it’s related to the stormy danials issue
But that was a non disclosure agreement
That’s not illegal.

Then they said the 100k could under very specific circumstances be counted as an in kind contribution which would be a campaign donation violation.

Okay not great. But that happens in every single election.

Obama’s last election the found over 2 million in campaign violations. They said bad Obama’s pay that back. So he payed back 40k of the 2 million.

There was no fbi shinanigins.
There was no court order for Obama’s lawyer or staff to make public all the other peole they worked for
So what’s the difference here?

Only Trump.

But definitely not a witch hunt.

[1quikgt]

Didn’t this thread start off on the topic of Alex Jones and Sandy Hook? Now all I see are posts about Cohen, Clinton, Obama and Trump. All of which has nothing to do with ZR’s original topic.

[RedSN]

Didn’t this thread start off on the topic of....
it might get on track yet

https://media.giphy.com/media/XNHthUPvDdEqI/giphy.gif

[5.4MarkVIII]

Didn’t this thread start off on the topic of Alex Jones and Sandy Hook? Now all I see are posts about Cohen, Clinton, Obama and Trump. All of which has nothing to do with ZR’s original topic.

That’s usually how conversations work

[TZWILD]

It’s gotta be an act, doesn’t it?
What I don’t understand are the followers. Who seriously listens to this baffoon?

It’s sad that he spreads this nonesense and his army of retards have threatened the families of Sandy Hook victims. I hope they win their case and bankrupt this con man right off the air.

Conspiracy theorists drive me up the wall. Ugghh. [RANT/OFF]

We need to carefully discern between fact and fiction. Albeit, Alex Jones is an animated speaker and much of his popularity is attributed to his verbal tongue lashings, which he over embellishes. I think most would agree that hes an over actor. Nonetheless, there is some form of evidence, for the main subject points which he discusses on his shows. I'm by no means an Alex Jones supporter with respects to the Sandy Hooks shooting, however with respects to other topics, I'm not sure if there's definitive proof one way or the other.

Calling people "army of retards", is no different than Hillary calling Trump supporters "deplorables". Furthermore, finding a video with the title "Top 10 ridiculous Alex Jones moments" shows extreme bias. As a viewer, one needs to search out everything, whether you agree with the person or not, and base your own opinions on the information/facts that cross your path.
Alex mentioned topics which many other people have been talking about for some time, only difference is, he puts the "InfoWars" spin on it, and yet some people call it "tinfoil hat conspiracy". Did you know that, Obama, months before he left office, stated that Nasa now has the technology to venture through the Van Allen belts. Nasa spokesperson reiterated the same thing. Only difference was, he said "we had the technology but lost it, but now we have it again." Is this not odd to anyone else? Didn't we need to go through the Vanallen belt in order to get to the moon?

Alex Jones and many other people, myself included, are starting to question everything. This does not make me a "retard" or a "deplorable" or a "tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist". It does however make me a truth seeker, and allows me the freedom to base my own opinion, after distinguishing between fact and fiction and not, following the masses or the propaganda spewed out by the mainstream media.
Freedom of speech is a right. If you do not agree with me, that is your right. But if we continued to condemn people who have different believes, opinions, ideas, dare I say"conspiracies", and we begin to shut them up, or sue for everything which offends us....then we will be heading down a slippery slope. If this continues, we will have CNN, MSNBC, Facebook and other media outlets, telling us what to think, what is right, what is acceptable and what isn't.

1 Corinthians 3:18
“Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.”

[RedSN]

Is this not odd to anyone else? Didn't we need to go through the Vanallen belt in order to get to the moon?

Oh that one is a classic! The faked moon landing conspiracy!

The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners. The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them. Apollo flight trajectories bypassed the inner belts completely, and only passed through the thinner areas of the outer belts.

Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SMIII_Problem7.pdf

[TZWILD]

Cognitive dissonance, the mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information. The unease or tension that the conflict arouses in people is relieved by one of several defensive maneuvers: they reject, explain away, or avoid the new information; persuade themselves that no conflict really exists; reconcile the differences; or resort to any other defensive means of preserving stability or order in their conceptions of the world and of themselves. The concept was developed in the 1950s by American psychologist Leon Festinger and became a major point of discussion and research.




ENJOY !!!


https://youtu.be/0vOXj3aRueY




https://youtu.be/VhtilJ6iotY

[RedSN]

he said "we had the technology but lost it, but now we have it again."

Perhaps it’s metal conflict, but those out of context quotes are referring to the fact that we don’t currently have the technology, i.e. a rocket, capable of going to the moon. There hasn’t been a rocket quite like the Saturn V since the Apollo missions until just recently with the development of the BFR. We haven’t “lost” the technology, we just don’t currently have it. The quote would be more accurately stated as: “we had the capability but lost it, but now we have it again."

I would honestly, sincerely, appreciate it if you point me in the direction of the actual NASA article (not some YouTube video) stating that astronauts can not physically travel beyond low earth orbit. The NASA link I provided had calculations showing the radiation dosage during a trip through the belt as very low risk.

[TZWILD]

Hey brother,

I think we've gotten a bit of course from the original thread topic. The truth be known, I don't usually respond to any threads, whether I agree with them or not. Heck, just look at our avatars and see the difference between post counts.

Today, something compelled me to attempt to either, set the record straight, or for nothing else, voice my opinion. All I was trying to do was stay on the theme, all the while making other viewers aware that people can have different opinions, without being ridiculed and called a conspiracy theorist.

It just so happened that I picked the topic of Moon Landings. I could have easily said Pizzagate, 9/11, Uranium One, JFK, Stormy Daniels, Las Vegas shooting, Werner Vonbraun and tombstone, Operation High jump, Operation fishbowl, Operation Domenic, Nephilium, Georgia Guidestones, Russian collusion, Denver Airport, Revelations 12 sign etc. The result would have been the same.

Please don't take any offence to this, but it is not my job to point you, or anyone else, in any direction. It is however, your job to discern and siphon through the information and hold fast to that which is truth. Perhaps there's another thread that would be better suited for us, but for now....

My apologies in advance to the original poster, I believe it was ZR.

Cheers,

Joseph Rodrigues

[RedSN]

Fair enough, I can appreciate that. I was sincere about the request for the credible information link because space fascinates me. But we can disagree on what constitutes credible information.

I have three triggers: 9/11, flat earth, and the moon landing.



Now back to discussing the Alex Jones court case.

[stangstevers]

Fair enough, I can appreciate that. I was sincere about the request for the credible information link because space fascinates me. But we can disagree on what constitutes credible information.

I have three triggers: 9/11, flat earth, and the moon landing.



Now back to discussing the Alex Jones court case.

The moon is flat, not the earth - they all have it wrong.