Alex Jones has returned to Twitter.

[Ȃ̷̛́͌̚͝r̵c̸̛̒͐̅̇]

After 5 years he has returned into the platform of Elon Musk and was praised by Andrew Tate on lifting the 5 year ban.

US is slowly becoming more in of waking up before the presidential election in 2024 which may be in favor of the Orange Man.

[Pronoun Paladin ☯]

Henry Gamer lähetti viestin:

The good thing is that Musk has ruined Twitter and far less people will see the evil that people like Alex spew.

Eh, I wouldn't count on it.

For instance Louder with Crowder has Alex Jones regularly on the show and they're pulling more views then some major legacy media. On election night Crowder, a YOUTUBER beat MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC in streaming numbers.

The culture is leaving behind the crowd that wants to simply "erase" opinions they dislike.

[Pronoun Paladin ☯]

Dom lähetti viestin:

People will figure out which sides of the fences come with crimes, convictions and unruly behavior and which sides do not. If not now, sooner or later. Alex Jones is just a cherry on top of the big cake. It's music to the ears to hear some people complaining about "political prosecutions" - to the rest, it is an amazing reminder that no person is above the law no matter what the political views are. :)

The laws have spoken and the train moves on, folks!

Nobody is above the law...except Hunter Biden...and Hillary...and Obama...Alec Baldwin....I highly doubt Epstien files will throw Bill Clinton under the bus.

[76561199445701497]

Chunk Norris ☯ lähetti viestin:

Henry Gamer lähetti viestin:

The good thing is that Musk has ruined Twitter and far less people will see the evil that people like Alex spew.

The culture is leaving behind the crowd that wants to simply "erase" opinions they dislike.

That is what the right wants. To revert to the 1940's. You won't be able to do that. Humanity will progress despite your efforts.

[Pronoun Paladin ☯]

Henry Gamer lähetti viestin:

Chunk Norris ☯ lähetti viestin:

The culture is leaving behind the crowd that wants to simply "erase" opinions they dislike.

That is what the right wants. To revert to the 1940's. You won't be able to do that. Humanity will progress despite your efforts.

Do you examples of this? Because right now we're all literally on a thread about Alex Jones the guy reduced to wage slavery for the rest of his life for the "wrong" opinion that wasn't allowed to defend himself or even claim that he was innocent.

[JamesF0790]

Chunk Norris ☯ lähetti viestin:

Henry Gamer lähetti viestin:

That is what the right wants. To revert to the 1940's. You won't be able to do that. Humanity will progress despite your efforts.

Do you examples of this? Because right now we're all literally on a thread about Alex Jones the guy reduced to wage slavery for the rest of his life for the "wrong" opinion that wasn't allowed to defend himself or even claim that he was innocent.

I mean he was allowed to defend himself, he chose not to and played with the court. He found out that wasn't the right choice

[Ulfrinn]

JamesF0790 lähetti viestin:

Chunk Norris ☯ lähetti viestin:

Do you examples of this? Because right now we're all literally on a thread about Alex Jones the guy reduced to wage slavery for the rest of his life for the "wrong" opinion that wasn't allowed to defend himself or even claim that he was innocent.

I mean he was allowed to defend himself, he chose not to and played with the court. He found out that wasn't the right choice

Not if it's true he wasn't allowed to present evidence he feels would have helped his case. If you're only allowed to put up a defense that the prosecutors or judge has pre-determined you should be allowed to have, then I wouldn't exactly call the trial fair whether he chooses to play by those rules or not. So the question is, did the judge really put those limits on the defense or not.

[videomike_Ultimate_Plushie]

Dom lähetti viestin:

People will figure out which sides of the fences come with crimes, convictions and unruly behavior and which sides do not. If not now, sooner or later. Alex Jones is just a cherry on top of the big cake. It's music to the ears to hear some people complaining about "political prosecutions" - to the rest, it is an amazing reminder that no person is above the law no matter what the political views are. :)

The laws have spoken and the train moves on, folks!

We're not talking about a crime we're talking about a civil offense, an incident of slander. This isn't robbery, embezzlement, kidnapping, murder, it's one dude who went off the handle on a belief he had but went too far in promoting. But I guess Kyle Rittenhouse doesn't exist and in no way shape or form will have difficulty finding employment or a free life, right? No way Your side of ball has done everything you claim Alex did and worse and didn't get a lifelong wage slavery demand, right?

Ulfrinn lähetti viestin:

JamesF0790 lähetti viestin:

I mean he was allowed to defend himself, he chose not to and played with the court. He found out that wasn't the right choice

Not if it's true he wasn't allowed to present evidence he feels would have helped his case. If you're only allowed to put up a defense that the prosecutors or judge has pre-determined you should be allowed to have, then I wouldn't exactly call the trial fair whether he chooses to play by those rules or not. So the question is, did the judge really put those limits on the defense or not.

It is, it was proven earlier in the thread. And given we were also given clips of the prosecution flaunting illegal evidence they presented its not hard to make clear the judge didn't care bout alex's legal rights

[JamesF0790]

videomike_Ultimate_Plushie lähetti viestin:

Dom lähetti viestin:

People will figure out which sides of the fences come with crimes, convictions and unruly behavior and which sides do not. If not now, sooner or later. Alex Jones is just a cherry on top of the big cake. It's music to the ears to hear some people complaining about "political prosecutions" - to the rest, it is an amazing reminder that no person is above the law no matter what the political views are. :)

The laws have spoken and the train moves on, folks!

We're not talking about a crime we're talking about a civil offense, an incident of slander. This isn't robbery, embezzlement, kidnapping, murder, it's one dude who went off the handle on a belief he had but went too far in promoting. But I guess Kyle Rittenhouse doesn't exist and in no way shape or form will have difficulty finding employment or a free life, right? No way Your side of ball has done everything you claim Alex did and worse and didn't get a lifelong wage slavery demand, right?

Ulfrinn lähetti viestin:

Not if it's true he wasn't allowed to present evidence he feels would have helped his case. If you're only allowed to put up a defense that the prosecutors or judge has pre-determined you should be allowed to have, then I wouldn't exactly call the trial fair whether he chooses to play by those rules or not. So the question is, did the judge really put those limits on the defense or not.

It is, it was proven earlier in the thread. And given we were also given clips of the prosecution flaunting illegal evidence they presented its not hard to make clear the judge didn't care bout alex's legal rights

It wasn't illegal. It was legal, just not intentionally sent. It was evidence that Jones had said didn't exist. Under penalty of perjury I might add. The prosecution TOLD Jones's legal team that they had sent more than they meant to., They had a chance to try and correct it and they didn't follow the procedures. Alex Jones lied to the court, refused to cooperate with the court. He played games and now he's in the find out phase.

[videomike_Ultimate_Plushie]

JamesF0790 lähetti viestin:

videomike_Ultimate_Plushie lähetti viestin:

We're not talking about a crime we're talking about a civil offense, an incident of slander. This isn't robbery, embezzlement, kidnapping, murder, it's one dude who went off the handle on a belief he had but went too far in promoting. But I guess Kyle Rittenhouse doesn't exist and in no way shape or form will have difficulty finding employment or a free life, right? No way Your side of ball has done everything you claim Alex did and worse and didn't get a lifelong wage slavery demand, right?

It is, it was proven earlier in the thread. And given we were also given clips of the prosecution flaunting illegal evidence they presented its not hard to make clear the judge didn't care bout alex's legal rights

It wasn't illegal. It was legal, just not intentionally sent. It was evidence that Jones had said didn't exist. Under penalty of perjury I might add. The prosecution TOLD Jones's legal team that they had sent more than they meant to., They had a chance to try and correct it and they didn't follow the procedures. Alex Jones lied to the court, refused to cooperate with the court. He played games and now he's in the find out phase.

Do you know what confidentiality is? If those messages weren't sent by intent of Alex or his legal representation, they aren't legal to be brought up in court let alone used. Even mentioning the evidence exists is enough to sway a judge and especially a jury and thus across all court proceedings is enough to have mistrial declared on the spot. If particularly egregious, like it is here where the prosecution is flaunting the illegal material it would have the man disbarred. It's not Alex's or his lawyers job to order the prosecution to not use evidence that they KNEW was not given to them under the givers consent and knowledge.

Yes, sometimes that means the murderer gets away with killing someone because the body was found by stupid bad luck during a search for drugs under a requested warrant. But it's better than having courts like this were a single accidental button press denies someone their legal right to privacy. News flash, things you say in front of confidants is far -far- less controlled and thought-out and thus prone to error and miscommunication, it's not a viable confession to anything. It's one reason why we have the concept of privilaged information at all. The second you ask? To avoid situations where we cause trauma. And yes, breaches of personal confident is a form of psychological trauma consistent with physical abuse and with dramatic long-term psychological consequences; This isn't some ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ emotional thing it's a human right, because anything else causes permanent damage to the human psychy. Any court that breaks that is unacceptably evil and should be deemed as such.

[JamesF0790]

videomike_Ultimate_Plushie lähetti viestin:

JamesF0790 lähetti viestin:

It wasn't illegal. It was legal, just not intentionally sent. It was evidence that Jones had said didn't exist. Under penalty of perjury I might add. The prosecution TOLD Jones's legal team that they had sent more than they meant to., They had a chance to try and correct it and they didn't follow the procedures. Alex Jones lied to the court, refused to cooperate with the court. He played games and now he's in the find out phase.

Do you know what confidentiality is? If those messages weren't sent by intent of Alex or his legal representation, they aren't legal to be brought up in court let alone used. Even mentioning the evidence exists is enough to sway a judge and especially a jury and thus across all court proceedings is enough to have mistrial declared on the spot. If particularly egregious, like it is here where the prosecution is flaunting the illegal material it would have the man disbarred. It's not Alex's or his lawyers job to order the prosecution to not use evidence that they KNEW was not given to them under the givers consent and knowledge.

Yes, sometimes that means the murderer gets away with killing someone because the body was found by stupid bad luck during a search for drugs under a requested warrant. But it's better than having courts like this were a single accidental button press denies someone their legal right to privacy. News flash, things you say in front of confidants is far -far- less controlled and thought-out and thus prone to error and miscommunication, it's not a viable confession to anything. It's one reason why we have the concept of privilaged information at all. The second you ask? To avoid situations where we cause trauma. And yes, breaches of personal confident is a form of psychological trauma consistent with physical abuse and with dramatic long-term psychological consequences; This isn't some ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ emotional thing it's a human right, because anything else causes permanent damage to the human psychy. Any court that breaks that is unacceptably evil and should be deemed as such.

Except what got him in trouble wasn't privileged so... yeah.

[Pronoun Paladin ☯]

JamesF0790 lähetti viestin:

videomike_Ultimate_Plushie lähetti viestin:

Do you know what confidentiality is? If those messages weren't sent by intent of Alex or his legal representation, they aren't legal to be brought up in court let alone used. Even mentioning the evidence exists is enough to sway a judge and especially a jury and thus across all court proceedings is enough to have mistrial declared on the spot. If particularly egregious, like it is here where the prosecution is flaunting the illegal material it would have the man disbarred. It's not Alex's or his lawyers job to order the prosecution to not use evidence that they KNEW was not given to them under the givers consent and knowledge.

Yes, sometimes that means the murderer gets away with killing someone because the body was found by stupid bad luck during a search for drugs under a requested warrant. But it's better than having courts like this were a single accidental button press denies someone their legal right to privacy. News flash, things you say in front of confidants is far -far- less controlled and thought-out and thus prone to error and miscommunication, it's not a viable confession to anything. It's one reason why we have the concept of privilaged information at all. The second you ask? To avoid situations where we cause trauma. And yes, breaches of personal confident is a form of psychological trauma consistent with physical abuse and with dramatic long-term psychological consequences; This isn't some ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ emotional thing it's a human right, because anything else causes permanent damage to the human psychy. Any court that breaks that is unacceptably evil and should be deemed as such.

Except what got him in trouble wasn't privileged so... yeah.

It was private communications between lawyer and client it was privileged.

Face it, the fascists don't care about following the law. Look at some of the other things the fascist have gotten up to since Trump was in power...I mean heck they're even going after Trumps lawyers for providing Trump legal counsel.

Just be aware though that if someone gets int office in 2024 and they have integrity we might (and it's a big might) see the DOJ going after and arresting some of these folks for violating the law, don't be shocked if it happens.

[JamesF0790]

Chunk Norris ☯ lähetti viestin:

JamesF0790 lähetti viestin:

Except what got him in trouble wasn't privileged so... yeah.

It was private communications between lawyer and client it was privileged.

Face it, the fascists don't care about following the law. Look at some of the other things the fascist have gotten up to since Trump was in power...I mean heck they're even going after Trumps lawyers for providing Trump legal counsel.

Just be aware though that if someone gets int office in 2024 and they have integrity we might (and it's a big might) see the DOJ going after and arresting some of these folks for violating the law, don't be shocked if it happens.

What got him in trouble was the image of the phone data that had messages that he said he did not have. UNDER OATH. After repeatedly being combative and refusing to comply during discovery. Not messages between him and a lawyer, messages between him and someone else at Info-wars. And while I"m not going to get into the irony of you calling the people trying to hold Trump accountable as fascists. I'll just say that if someone with integrity does get into office in 2024 then I think it will be different people than you think who are facing more charges.

[videomike_Ultimate_Plushie]

JamesF0790 lähetti viestin:

videomike_Ultimate_Plushie lähetti viestin:

Do you know what confidentiality is? If those messages weren't sent by intent of Alex or his legal representation, they aren't legal to be brought up in court let alone used. Even mentioning the evidence exists is enough to sway a judge and especially a jury and thus across all court proceedings is enough to have mistrial declared on the spot. If particularly egregious, like it is here where the prosecution is flaunting the illegal material it would have the man disbarred. It's not Alex's or his lawyers job to order the prosecution to not use evidence that they KNEW was not given to them under the givers consent and knowledge.

Yes, sometimes that means the murderer gets away with killing someone because the body was found by stupid bad luck during a search for drugs under a requested warrant. But it's better than having courts like this were a single accidental button press denies someone their legal right to privacy. News flash, things you say in front of confidants is far -far- less controlled and thought-out and thus prone to error and miscommunication, it's not a viable confession to anything. It's one reason why we have the concept of privilaged information at all. The second you ask? To avoid situations where we cause trauma. And yes, breaches of personal confident is a form of psychological trauma consistent with physical abuse and with dramatic long-term psychological consequences; This isn't some ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ emotional thing it's a human right, because anything else causes permanent damage to the human psychy. Any court that breaks that is unacceptably evil and should be deemed as such.

Except what got him in trouble wasn't privileged so... yeah.

Dude, the prosecutor and yourself both said, and I quote you: The prosecution TOLD Jones's legal team that they had sent more than they meant to," if you know the stuff your sent was not sent with the consent of the client you can't show it off in court like it's suddenly not a breach of confidence!

Also, drop the passive aggressive, your lack of knowledge about the case against Donald in New York for example is evident but let's focus on the case at hand shall we?

[JamesF0790]

Actually no, the law in the state specifically said that they had I believe 30 days? I'm not sure on the exact amount of days to be honest but they had a set amount of time to respond with a list of what was and wasn't confidential. They failed to do so and as such it became legally admissible as evidence.

[videomike_Ultimate_Plushie]

JamesF0790 lähetti viestin:

Actually no, the law in the state specifically said that they had I believe 30 days? I'm not sure on the exact amount of days to be honest but they had a set amount of time to respond with a list of what was and wasn't confidential. They failed to do so and as such it became legally admissible as evidence.

"Sir, I am fully aware and admitting you did not intent to sent this message and thus did not consent to me having it," that is an admissions by the prosecution that he knows it was still in confidence. The 30 days is for the defense to inform the prosecution should the prosecution not be aware, it's not an excuse for the prosecution to admit it knew for a fact this was a mistake and flaunt that!