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.

[JamesF0790]

Publicado originalmente por videomike_Ultimate_Plushie:

Publicado originalmente por 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.

"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!

When your enemy is making a mistake, don't stop them. They carried out their legal duty. It's not their fault that Jones's team didn't do their job. Regardless on if they intended to or not the information they sent was admissible. I believe they agreed that the medical data was privileged but it wasn't the relevant part.

[Chunk Norris ☯]

Publicado originalmente por JamesF0790:

Publicado originalmente por Chunk Norris ☯:

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.

It doesn't matter what he said under oath, if the prosecution gets confidential information from the defenses lawyer it's not usable in court.

The left doesn't have integrity at this point. They're jailing people because they feel like it, and the rules/laws be damned.

Just look at all the abuses of power we're seeing the last few years.

Tell me James, is it illegal for the government/prosecution to suppress evidence that would have freed people? Like if there's video footage of people being peaceful, and the prosecution said they aren't peaceful, if the prosecution aka the government suppressed that evidence, is it illegal?

(Jan 6th)

[videomike_Ultimate_Plushie]

Publicado originalmente por JamesF0790:

Publicado originalmente por videomike_Ultimate_Plushie:

"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!

When your enemy is making a mistake, don't stop them. They carried out their legal duty. It's not their fault that Jones's team didn't do their job. Regardless on if they intended to or not the information they sent was admissible. I believe they agreed that the medical data was privileged but it wasn't the relevant part.

No, you absolutely stop. If you know what you've obtained is done without the consent of the person and is thus evidence obtained illegally you don't sit on that and pray the defense makes a mistake you realize that the evidence is illegal and don't openly break a human right to confidence the second you think you can get away with it. Courtrooms aren't the battlefield and even on the battlefield you still have some rules to avoid mutually assured destruction, to quote a wise man, so " ... both victory and defend do not become miserable." What kind of nihilistic crap are you spouting?!

[Chunk Norris ☯]

Publicado originalmente por JamesF0790:

Publicado originalmente por videomike_Ultimate_Plushie:

"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!

When your enemy is making a mistake, don't stop them. They carried out their legal duty. It's not their fault that Jones's team didn't do their job. Regardless on if they intended to or not the information they sent was admissible. I believe they agreed that the medical data was privileged but it wasn't the relevant part.

Ah, the enemy. So Alex Jones can't get a fair trial because the judge and the lawyers are conspiring against their "enemy"

Now you know why people get disbarred for sharing evidence that's confidential.

I'd like to see a DOJ investigation to see if there was criminal conspiracy between the judge/lawyer.

[Dom]

Publicado originalmente por videomike_Ultimate_Plushie:

Publicado originalmente por Dom:

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?

Hence I said Alex Jones is only the cherry on top of the cake. There are crimes, that's what populism causes. If you incite people enough, rhetorically or otherwise, eventually they end up doing something irrational.

You say my side has done everything we claim Alex did... I don't remember the other side (or my side as you like to refer to it if that's the definition you go with) downplaying mass shootings, dehumanizing the victims of mass shootings and exposing them to harassment and threats.

Now, with that kept in mind - if Rittenhouse is the closest example you can come up with making comparisons to Alex Jones then the only thing I can say is gimme a break. Also, even though Rittenhouse pleaded not guilty, there are still legitimate questions to be asked about whether he was acting in a smart manner, whether he should've been there and so on.

As for finding employment, I don't think so. Rittenhouse was very supported by GOP folks. Even though some people like to pretend as if every single business in the country is democrats, that's not quite accurate...

[JamesF0790]

Publicado originalmente por videomike_Ultimate_Plushie:

Publicado originalmente por JamesF0790:

When your enemy is making a mistake, don't stop them. They carried out their legal duty. It's not their fault that Jones's team didn't do their job. Regardless on if they intended to or not the information they sent was admissible. I believe they agreed that the medical data was privileged but it wasn't the relevant part.

No, you absolutely stop. If you know what you've obtained is done without the consent of the person and is thus evidence obtained illegally you don't sit on that and pray the defense makes a mistake you realize that the evidence is illegal and don't openly break a human right to confidence the second you think you can get away with it. Courtrooms aren't the battlefield and even on the battlefield you still have some rules to avoid mutually assured destruction, to quote a wise man, so " ... both victory and defend do not become miserable." What kind of nihilistic crap are you spouting?!

Publicado originalmente por Chunk Norris ☯:

Publicado originalmente por JamesF0790:

When your enemy is making a mistake, don't stop them. They carried out their legal duty. It's not their fault that Jones's team didn't do their job. Regardless on if they intended to or not the information they sent was admissible. I believe they agreed that the medical data was privileged but it wasn't the relevant part.

Ah, the enemy. So Alex Jones can't get a fair trial because the judge and the lawyers are conspiring against their "enemy"

Now you know why people get disbarred for sharing evidence that's confidential.

I'd like to see a DOJ investigation to see if there was criminal conspiracy between the judge/lawyer.

Except that's not what I'm saying. It's not illegal and no amount of saying it is will change that. And yes, the prosecutor and the defence are opponents. They are both trying to serve the best interests of their clients as allowed by the law. Jones's lawyers made a dumb mistake certainly but the prosecution did not break the law. They followed it unlike Jones when he lied. it's that simple. You're also confusing confidential information with privileged information.

[videomike_Ultimate_Plushie]

Publicado originalmente por JamesF0790:

Publicado originalmente por videomike_Ultimate_Plushie:

No, you absolutely stop. If you know what you've obtained is done without the consent of the person and is thus evidence obtained illegally you don't sit on that and pray the defense makes a mistake you realize that the evidence is illegal and don't openly break a human right to confidence the second you think you can get away with it. Courtrooms aren't the battlefield and even on the battlefield you still have some rules to avoid mutually assured destruction, to quote a wise man, so " ... both victory and defend do not become miserable." What kind of nihilistic crap are you spouting?!

Publicado originalmente por Chunk Norris ☯:

Ah, the enemy. So Alex Jones can't get a fair trial because the judge and the lawyers are conspiring against their "enemy"

Now you know why people get disbarred for sharing evidence that's confidential.

I'd like to see a DOJ investigation to see if there was criminal conspiracy between the judge/lawyer.

Except that's not what I'm saying. It's not illegal and no amount of saying it is will change that. And yes, the prosecutor and the defence are opponents. They are both trying to serve the best interests of their clients as allowed by the law. Jones's lawyers made a dumb mistake certainly but the prosecution did not break the law. They followed it unlike Jones when he lied. it's that simple. You're also confusing confidential information with privileged information.

Dude, if you receive a message you, by your own admission know was sent to you without consent from either a privilege or confidential conversation(the latter is only viable to break in criminal court, not civil) then your evidence is illegal. the 30 days you keep trying to push is only under the condition the prosecution isn't aware the material wasn't legal to prevent holding up a trial for extended periods. It does not mean you can just flaunt that you knew it was illegal and kept using it. That is not following the law that is flaunting the fact you know you're breaking it and doing so with malice glee.

If the ♥♥♥♥♥♥ had not known and presented it, with the defense protesting but being told "you didn't tell us this before trial 20 days ago? Sorry it's too late, we can't hold up the trial because you're slow with paperwork," then sure, but that isn't what happened and we have video evidence of that fact. This was a prosecutor admitting he knows the evidence was obtained illegally, and thus isn't allowed in court, and flaunting the judge won't stop him anyway!

[Chunk Norris ☯]

Publicado originalmente por Dom:

Publicado originalmente por videomike_Ultimate_Plushie:

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?

Hence I said Alex Jones is only the cherry on top of the cake. There are crimes, that's what populism causes. If you incite people enough, rhetorically or otherwise, eventually they end up doing something irrational.

You say my side has done everything we claim Alex did... I don't remember the other side (or my side as you like to refer to it if that's the definition you go with) downplaying mass shootings, dehumanizing the victims of mass shootings and exposing them to harassment and threats.

Now, with that kept in mind - if Rittenhouse is the closest example you can come up with making comparisons to Alex Jones - to make a point that it's the same thing on both sides, then the only thing I can say is gimme a break. Even though Rittenhouse pleaded not guilty, there are still legitimate questions to be asked about whether he was acting in a smart manner, whether he should've been there and so on.

As for finding employment, I don't think so. Rittenhouse was very supported by GOP folks. Even though some people like to pretend as if every single business in the country is democrats, that's not quite accurate...

We're literally seeing Left wing/ Biden supporters saying the Oct 7th was justified and we're seeing them being protected by people like Harvards Claudine Gay as they chant genodical chants about wanting to kill even more Jews.

How is Biden supporters coming out in supporter of Oct7th not doing every-thing you claim that the left does't do?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L_fONNOAxU

BLM Chicago with the picture of the Hamas terrorist parachuting in on Oct 7th...that's pretty hardcore.

The picture in the youtube clip is one posted showing support for Oct 7th.

And that's one example. We could look at historical events that are frequently lied about, lying about history is mocking history. We could talk about how the legacy media tends to not report crimes from minorities or for gang/drug reality shootings, which are the vast majority of the shootings. Chicago has a mass shooting just about every weekend, but bringing up those shootings would mean very different solutions then what the anti-gun/anti-freedom Democrats want.

[JamesF0790]

Publicado originalmente por videomike_Ultimate_Plushie:

Publicado originalmente por JamesF0790:

Except that's not what I'm saying. It's not illegal and no amount of saying it is will change that. And yes, the prosecutor and the defence are opponents. They are both trying to serve the best interests of their clients as allowed by the law. Jones's lawyers made a dumb mistake certainly but the prosecution did not break the law. They followed it unlike Jones when he lied. it's that simple. You're also confusing confidential information with privileged information.

Dude, if you receive a message you, by your own admission know was sent to you without consent from either a privilege or confidential conversation(the latter is only viable to break in criminal court, not civil) then your evidence is illegal. the 30 days you keep trying to push is only under the condition the prosecution isn't aware the material wasn't legal to prevent holding up a trial for extended periods. It does not mean you can just flaunt that you knew it was illegal and kept using it. That is not following the law that is flaunting the fact you know you're breaking it and doing so with malice glee.

If the ♥♥♥♥♥♥ had not known and presented it, with the defense protesting but being told "you didn't tell us this before trial 20 days ago? Sorry it's too late, we can't hold up the trial because you're slow with paperwork," then sure, but that isn't what happened and we have video evidence of that fact. This was a prosecutor admitting he knows the evidence was obtained illegally, and thus isn't allowed in court, and flaunting the judge won't stop him anyway!

Well the lawyers that analysed it disagreed with you so... I don't know what to say. I'm going to trust the lawyers over some random person I don't know on the internet.

[Sir Seanicus, Esq.]

Publicado originalmente por JamesF0790:

I'm going to trust the lawyers

lol
lmao

[videomike_Ultimate_Plushie]

Publicado originalmente por Dom:

Publicado originalmente por videomike_Ultimate_Plushie:

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?

Hence I said Alex Jones is only the cherry on top of the cake. There are crimes, that's what populism causes. If you incite people enough, rhetorically or otherwise, eventually they end up doing something irrational.

You say my side has done everything we claim Alex did... I don't remember the other side (or my side as you like to refer to it if that's the definition you go with) downplaying mass shootings, dehumanizing the victims of mass shootings and exposing them to harassment and threats.

Now, with that kept in mind - if Rittenhouse is the closest example you can come up with making comparisons to Alex Jones then the only thing I can say is gimme a break. Also, even though Rittenhouse pleaded not guilty, there are still legitimate questions to be asked about whether he was acting in a smart manner, whether he should've been there and so on.

As for finding employment, I don't think so. Rittenhouse was very supported by GOP folks. Even though some people like to pretend as if every single business in the country is democrats, that's not quite accurate...

I only claimed multiple news Outlets lied about Kyle and slandered his name worse than Alex ever did with the sandy hook families. I made no mentioned of those groups being allied to you, I only implied they are on an an opposite political "side," to Alex Jones. what they did was everything Alex did but worse, and no amount of your personal moral judgement changes what the civil charge itself is and was, slander. Which do you think has more a direct provable effect on someone's life: The young men who himself was slandered and whose personal being was dragged through the mud in major and pubicly traded commercial practice across air waves, or the cult following internet personality making a broad conspiracy theory about the motives a large spread out group of multiple people who he rarely mentioned by name? Tell me, who was more neglectful, the single man and his small team whose brand was at the time built on being exaggeration and zelous, or the AAA publicly traded professionals who outright denied doing basic research onto the events in question and knowingly balked at immediately provable facts?

Frankly, I cant say one way or the other off the top of my head to the confidence I find worthy of saying I'm certain on, but like it or not what those companies did was at very least as bad as if not worse than anything Alex ever did. No amount of trying to use the titles of someone not even involved in the case as your moral bludgening tool will change that.

[Sir Seanicus, Esq.]

Meanwhile, the Fed drops dozens of charges against people who violently rioted and firebombed federal buildings in Portland...

But hey, law is totally fair in America and has never had any injustices lol.

[videomike_Ultimate_Plushie]

Publicado originalmente por JamesF0790:

Publicado originalmente por videomike_Ultimate_Plushie:

Dude, if you receive a message you, by your own admission know was sent to you without consent from either a privilege or confidential conversation(the latter is only viable to break in criminal court, not civil) then your evidence is illegal. the 30 days you keep trying to push is only under the condition the prosecution isn't aware the material wasn't legal to prevent holding up a trial for extended periods. It does not mean you can just flaunt that you knew it was illegal and kept using it. That is not following the law that is flaunting the fact you know you're breaking it and doing so with malice glee.

If the ♥♥♥♥♥♥ had not known and presented it, with the defense protesting but being told "you didn't tell us this before trial 20 days ago? Sorry it's too late, we can't hold up the trial because you're slow with paperwork," then sure, but that isn't what happened and we have video evidence of that fact. This was a prosecutor admitting he knows the evidence was obtained illegally, and thus isn't allowed in court, and flaunting the judge won't stop him anyway!

Well the lawyers that analysed it disagreed with you so... I don't know what to say. I'm going to trust the lawyers over some random person I don't know on the internet.

You cited the law allbeit in paraphrase yourself. I reject your priests and whatever they say in your head since you haven't provided any and Legal Eagle outright is wrong in his video and has a history of misrepresenting the law for his own benefit to boot well before that video. Thankfully this is a conversation not a court of law with a limited time period, we don't need titles to understand and know how courtroom law works and discuss it, nor do you get to worm your way out of everything you said by hiding behind and pretending some priests you called get to declare from the aether that as a class above you, in your mind, they are the only ones fit to even have a judgement.

[Chunk Norris ☯]

Publicado originalmente por Sir Seanicus, Esq.:

Meanwhile, the Fed drops dozens of charges against people who violently rioted and firebombed federal buildings in Portland...

But hey, law is totally fair in America and has never had any injustices lol.

What would you think the charges would be if you set a Wendy's on fire and burnt it to the ground in a violent riot?

How does community service and a 500 dollar fine sound?

https://apnews.com/article/rayshard-brooks-wendys-arson-guilty-pleas-d3656cb469b4ca4d0e292221e9483584

[videomike_Ultimate_Plushie]

Publicado originalmente por Sir Seanicus, Esq.:

Meanwhile, the Fed drops dozens of charges against people who violently rioted and firebombed federal buildings in Portland...

But hey, law is totally fair in America and has never had any injustices lol.

♥♥♥♥ me I forgot about that. Why did you remind me! Thank you for reminding me but why did you remind me! And dont forget the people who outright incited that little incident and even the people charged with it didn't lose their Twitter accounts(nor should they have on a charge it can effect your ability to publicly defend yourself and thus is a breach of right to fair trial at minimum,) while Alex lost his the second he was accused of anything.