And the icing on the cake was when the judge realized Jones was chewing gum and made him spit it out. I haven’t laughed that hard in a while.
From 213 Things Skippy is No Longer Allowed to Do in the U.S. Army:
-
Not allowed to chew gum at formation, unless I brought enough for everybody.
-
(Next day) Not allowed to chew gum at formation even if I did bring enough for everybody.
Not only that, he’s going to owe a shitload of dimes!
But he’s bankrupt! He said so himself!
Heh, maybe even his lawyers are sick of his shit by now. I wonder if they are still getting paid, what with that fake bankruptcy and all?
He’s gone through about 11 of them by now.
There aren’t that many cheap shitty lawyers around, either, especially those willing to work on the off chance of maybe getting paid. Trump “only the best™” has commandeered most of them. And from the looks of things, he’s soon going to need more.
He meant “morally”.
ISTM that since the scum admitted under oath the massacre really happend, that little bit of trivia can be brought up time and again if he ever tries to deny the massacre again.
Sadly he can just add a little 
to his followers, but just hearing him say it is very nice.
When:
Happens in real-life:
Our hero!
This also happened yesterday… well, the filing was earlier, but the reporting came out yesterday…
That doesn’t mean anything. As you and I both pointed out earlier in this thread, he has already made the legal argument in court that his on-air persona is an act. But that hasn’t hurt his radio career in the 5 years since then. His listeners aren’t going to care what he says in court under oath, they only care what he says on his show. If he’s legally restrained from saying certain things on air, maybe that will actually make a difference.
But in researching this, the United States doesn’t allow this. Other countries do, under the definition of “prior restraint”. In the US, the First Amendment disallows it.
Stemming from the First Amendment to the Constitution, the ban on prior restraint allows publication of libel, slander, obvious untruths, anti-government diatribes, racial and religious epithets, and almost any material, except if public security or public safety is endangered (false claim of poison in the reservoir or exhortation to commit a crime like a lynching) and some forms of pornography. The theory, articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Near v. Minnesota (1931) is that free speech and free press protections have priority, and lawsuits for libel and slander and prosecutions for criminal advocacy will curb the effect of defamation and untruths.
And if I understand this article correctly (being a layman with no real legal training, just a little business law in college) it says that the remedy for defamation is just to sue someone (as is being done to Jones now).
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3494&context=wmlr
It has long been a fixture of Anglo-American law that defamation plaintiffs are not entitled to injunctive relief; their remedies are solely monetary. Indeed, it has been repeated as a truism: “equity will not enjoin a libel.” This precept rests on one of the strongest presumptions in First Amendment jurisprudence: that injunctions against libel and other kinds of speech are unconstitutional prior restraints.
So, I believe that what I was hoping for can’t happen. Alex Jones is legally allowed to go right back on his show and continue his admitted lies about Sandy Hook, continue to harass the families of victims, and that’s protected by law; he is committing no crime. Defamation is a tort, not a crime. Maybe he or his financial supporters will decide that he can’t afford further lawsuits, and that will finally shut him up, but only if this lawsuit actually hurts him enough financially.
Now, if the content of those texts shows that he actually committed a crime, and gets forwarded to the proper authorities, that might be a whole different story.
They show he committed the crime of perjury, at least. After all, that’s how the evidence was introduced: “Do you know what perjury is?” (paraphrased)
Which might not matter much, given this is a civil trial, not a criminal one.
The best answer is that civil perjury is certainly illegal, but rarely prosecuted.
It’s unlikely that anything will happen to him over it, unfortunately.
Called up Jones’ attorney, spoke to their secretary/receptionist (who came in early today). I thanked them for realizing that some clients are just so morally bankrupt, so evil, that, sometimes, honor comes before career. Also thanked them on behalf of America and the January 6th Committee, saying yesterday was a great day for America all because of their firms’ dedication to truth above ideology. Lastly, I asked if she could deliver this message to Attorney Reynal himself, letting him know that hundreds of millions of Americans appreciate him doing the morally correct thing.
Oh! This happened too!
I would wonder whether a loss there would be sufficient for the 14th amendment to kick in.
He’d have to be convicted of a crime, civil cases only determine what damages you’re liable for, not whether you’re guilty of a criminal act. That’s why the standard is so much lower.
However, the discovery process could bring out evidence that might be used in prosecution of a crime later.