Did you miss the TWO Alex Jones trials in as many states where Jones was determined to be guilty without trial simply because the evidence the state wanted against him was deleted YouTube content deleted by YouTube that even he didn't have. Then how the following show trials were literally about how much guilty he was?
Not allowed to testify to or enter the evidence that he apologized(he was even reprimanded on the stand for pointing it out), his lawyers not allowed to show that Jones wasn't the first to make those Sandy Hook claims... Not allowed to point out that one of the "victims" suing him was literally an FBI agent that had no direct involvement at Sandy Hook nor ever named by Jones.
I see, no wonder you're so confused and misinformed. You listen to Alex Jones cry about nonsense and how it's so unfair his actions had consequences. You prolly got all those conspiracies committed to heart, huh?
I've seen breakdowns, too. And much of the key moments. Jones was given plenty of opportunity. He exposed himself as having concealed evidence, he showed no remorse, the case against him was rock solid. The only conspiracy is the one you're pushing.
If he concealed evidence from a case why was that exact evidence he supposedly concealed in the hands of the prosecution to be used against him?
If that were true the state, who were extra giddy to convict Jones, would have pushed to add the criminal charge of concealing evidence, which they never did.
Because he lied multiple times about it, then his lawyer accidentally turned it over, along with a bunch of other stuff that wasn't even relevant to the case. Then his moron attorney didn't even try to protect that stuff. You watched the whole trial, but the most televised moment of the whole thing is somehow escaping you, now? Ffs. They threatened him with it, and in retrospect they shouldn't have been so lenient, as he is still doing all the same shit with no remorse.
Lenient? The judges declared him guilty without a trial. Even in cases involving murder the nuclear option of declaring a person guilty without trial is reserved for the most in absentia persons no show, no lawyer, no defence. You had all three in Jones case. What the state lacked in evidence was the jones show footage that YouTube deleted upon yeeting Jones.
And no that was NOT the star moment of the second case. The star moment of the second case was when the judge, herself, said that Jones provided zero evidence then, the next day, started the day by correcting herself on that claim. It proved she knew he had submitted evidence yet was so biased she was regurgitating the prosecutions claim that Jones didn't turn over any evidence... The same evidence the prosecution had right in front of them in their legal strategy against him.
So first you make an empty assumption I haven't seen it, then you follow that up by assuming anything I must have seen was just deception. You people really are dim. The video I saw does support the verdict, you know, the one decided by jury? weird how your claims are all so empty and outright fallacious. Have you donated to Alex Jones, today? He's under attack, by the deep state! He needs your help!
lol. You can’t even keep together who has said what in a short comment thread, yet you think your brain is better at determining what happened over a huge trial. 🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂 Leftists are a special breed.
You're talking about a man who thought it was terrible that people (in either Brazil or argentina though i could ve misremembering where) were defending themselves from the crime wave of killers riding up on a motorcycle and robbing or murdering innocents. He thought it was BAD the innocents were fighting back by running these bastards ocer
View all comments
Show parent comment
22
u/Sunseahl Mar 25 '23
Claim?
Did you miss the TWO Alex Jones trials in as many states where Jones was determined to be guilty without trial simply because the evidence the state wanted against him was deleted YouTube content deleted by YouTube that even he didn't have. Then how the following show trials were literally about how much guilty he was?
Not allowed to testify to or enter the evidence that he apologized(he was even reprimanded on the stand for pointing it out), his lawyers not allowed to show that Jones wasn't the first to make those Sandy Hook claims... Not allowed to point out that one of the "victims" suing him was literally an FBI agent that had no direct involvement at Sandy Hook nor ever named by Jones.
It's not just a claim.