Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theorist Ordered to Pay Victim’s Father $450,000 in Defamation Suit

Adam Lanza's entry point into Sandy Hook Elementary School

Courtesy Connecticut State Police

Just as after virtually every high profile shooting in this country, a cottage industry of conspiracy theorists sprung up after the Sandy Hook shooting. Alex Jones has claimed both that the shooting was a “false flag” operation conducted by the government and that no one actually died there that day. Jones has lost a defamation suit brought by some of the victims’ families.

Another similar lawsuit was brought against James Fetzer and Mike Palacek who wrote a book entitled Nobody Died at Sandy Hook. The two authors claimed, according to npr.com, that “the mass shooting was a FEMA drill to promote gun control and that the grieving father (Leonard Pozner) had fabricated his son Noah’s death certificate, which is a crime in Connecticut.”

Fetzer lost that suit. Now he’s been ordered to pay Pozner a six-figure damage award.

From the Associated Press . . .

A jury in Wisconsin has awarded $450,000 to the father of a boy killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting after he filed a defamation lawsuit against conspiracy theorist writers who claimed the massacre never happened.

A Dane County jury Tuesday decided the amount James Fetzer must pay Leonard Pozner, whose 6-year-old son Noah was among the 26 victims at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.

Fetzer and Mike Palacek co-wrote a book, “Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.” A judge earlier ruled Pozner was defamed by statements in the book that claimed he fabricated copies of his son’s death certificate.

The Wisconsin State Journal reports Fetzer, a retired Minnesota professor, plans to appeal the award. Palacek reached a settlement with Pozner last month. The terms were not disclosed.

As the Wisconsin State Journal reports . . .

Pozner is among a group of Sandy Hook parents whose defamation case against right-wing conspiracy theorist and “Infowars” host Alex Jones is pending. Pozner has filed other Sandy Hook-related litigation and founded the nonprofit HONR Network, which seeks to counter online hoaxes and harassment.

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    Hurting somebody’s feelings is not defamation. I’d love to see what bullshit theory these clowns came up with to claim actual monetary damages. By the logic of this case, I could sue the San Fran city council for defamation because they called the NRA a terrorist organization, and by extension every member a terrorist. If the Washington Post is not liable for defamation over their publication of blatant falsehoods over the Covington Kids episode, I don’t see how a lesser standard can apply to any other publication.

    1. avatar napresto says:

      Purposefully telling provable lies about someone in a published work, in order to make them out to be a criminal, is most certainly defamation. It also hurts people’s feelings, but that is entirely beside the point. And yes, the NRA (and possibly its broader membership) may actually have a case of some kind against San Fran.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Except that the standard for defamation of public figures is absurdly high. You have to prove belief by the publisher that the statement was false. Short of a signed confession by the publisher, it’s an impossible standard. Look at the Covington Kids case for how random people caught in a YouTube video were not protected. This guy was an activist. Any argument that he wasn’t a public figure is absurd on his face.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          The father of a victim of Sandy Hook is probably not a public figure. Moreover, accusing someone of a crime, which is exactly what these authors did, is slander per se, meaning it is unnecessary to prove actual damages; damages are presumed. Although truth is a defense, I am pretty sure that these fools could not prove their contention that the death certificate was forged. All it takes is for the coroner to testify as to its authenticity and they are toast.

          Every time there is some mass shooting, someone is posting an article that day or no later than the following day saying that it was a false flag operation–of course with absolutely no personal information or proof to back it up. They must get off on such antics somehow.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          If the Covington Kids were public figures, I don’t see how this guy would be excluded.

        3. avatar Chief Censor says:

          Jones lied about Sandy Hook then said he shouldn’t have said that, but he had a good reason to do it. Now he lost his case because the video evidence is not a deep fake. He said what he said on his broadcast multiple times. Now he has to pay a little money for his lies he used to earn a lot more money.

          Alex Jones is one of the biggest liars out there. Not one person that used to work for him supports him these days. Jones is all about the money now. Everyone left him because he has become a disinfo agent who hides the truth and makes up lies.

        4. avatar napresto says:

          I doubt the jury considered this father an activist, even though he is now in the public eye. I certainly wouldn’t, even though he advocates publicly for certain positions and policies. He was thrust into that position by a murderer who killed his child one week before Christmas. He’s not all that famous, and no jury in the world is going to let a sleazy conspiracy-peddler hide behind the notion of “public figure” to get away with lying about him, and rightfully so.

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          His public figure status is a matter of law for a judge, not a matter of fact for a jury. In the Covington case a judge already held that the kids in question were public figures. It legally doesn’t matter if the claim is a lie. The same standards should apply.

        6. avatar Huntmaster says:

          Actually the standard isn’t that high. The standard is “known or should have known.” Most reasonable people would go along with that.

        7. avatar pwrserge says:

          New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
          “Held: A State cannot, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, award damages to a public official for defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves “actual malice” — that the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false. Pp. 265-292″
          https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/376/254

          It’s rather hard to prove recklessness on the part of conspiracy theorists. They do an absurd amount of “research”… the result may be wrong, but you can’t possibly show recklessness.

        8. avatar LifeSavor says:

          Just registering my support for Infowars to balance some of the criticism, in this thread, of Alex Jones. Every day, I check 7 news sources, including Infowars. Infowars tends to hyperbolic headlines in their interpretations but they are usually accurate in reporting. Far more so than CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, The NYT, WaPo, NPR, or Reuters.

          Yes, aside from my regular 7, I also surf some of the mainstream sites.

          I shop at the Infowars store regularly. We have a lot of experience with food supplement companies and have found Infowars products to be high quality. Mike Adams (Natural News) has tested Infowars products in his state-of-the-art food lab and says those he has tested are among the purest and most potent.

          So, even though Alex Jones has a lot of critics, even on the right, I will stick with and support Infowars.

      2. avatar Miner49er says:

        Folks, here’s Sergei again, defending those who called the dead children of Sandy Hook a fraud and conspiracy.

        A jury of his peers, as required by the United States Constitution, found the author of the book guilty of lying about dead children.

        Yet Sergei has posted multiple times defending the lying, money grubbing author.

        Do we need to know anything more about the character of this person?

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yes… how dare I demand that the court adhere to SCotUS precedent? Or do you want every single main-stream media company to be owned by the Trump organization after they get taken to court for publishing “muh’ Russia” conspiracy theories they knew were false or as one of their sock puppets got caught on tape… “a nothingburger”

          But I suppose I shouldn’t be shocked that a commie scumbag like you has as little respect for the 1st amendment as you do for the 2nd.

        2. avatar Huntmaster says:

          We know that A.Nobody is right all the time and B. His batting average is way, way better than yours.

        3. avatar drunkEODguy says:

          you talk/type like you’re in a Soviet mock-trial even when you’re trying to come across as a “regular joe” forum lurker. Work on it shareblue

    2. avatar LifeSavor says:

      Agree.
      I did not read the book, so, I only know what people report it says, which means I know nothing about it at all. However, the jury may have seen this as a case of poor, grieving father against conspiracy publisher. We all know how that plays out, regardless of the facts.

      BTW, I have several times heard Alex Jones challenge anyone to provide evidence that he supported the Sandy Hook hoax theory. I HAVE heard him say the theory promoted it the book is interesting and the evidence it presents is worth reading.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Which would be a great reason to fight this case as far as possible. As a matter of law, the plaintiff can’t prove defamation. If the 1st amendment protects a multi-million dollar publication attempting to destroy the lives of a handful of high school kids over an out of context YouTube video, I don’t see how a lesser standard can apply to a guy publishing his theories about an activist.

        1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          “I don’t see”

          Yeah, we get it. You should probably not be trying to argue fine points of law.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Ok kiddo… cite SCotUS case law on point. Because if a college coach is considered a public figure, a political activist certainly qualifies.

        3. avatar Ing says:

          The Covington Kids are only “public figures” because legacy media like the WaPo made them so by lying about them, but the media can say anything it wants about them because hey, public figures.

          Meanwhile, this Pozner guy arguably *makes himself* into a public figure by doing the activist thing in the national media sphere, but he gets damages paid.

          It’s probably right that he should…but the fact that he does and the Covington Catholic kids don’t makes me think we’ve got a Catch-22 going on here.

    3. avatar Dan W says:

      The legal standard at play here is “loud internet man bad.”

    4. avatar Merle 0 says:

      It actually can be considered slander/libel. However, as you noted, The pendulum swings both ways, and yes, you in-fact could sue, and the NRA did sue SF. And I imagine that when Trump is out of office, he will likley sue the hell out of a lot of left wing publications.

      1. avatar Patrick H says:

        Trump has a long history of threatening to sue and not following through.

    5. avatar Thixotropic says:

      It does not seem to matter that Sandy Hook WAS a False Flag.

      This is a great example of what public brainwashing can accomplish for the Globalist Elites and their agenda.

      Try making the case that 9/11 was a false flag (it was) sometime and see what you get.

      1. avatar No One Special says:

        Try making the case that 9/11 was a false flag (it was) sometime and see what you get.

        Under what pretence? Let me guess, the jet fuel angle, right? Jet fuel burns at 1800 degrees Fahrenheit and steel melts at well over 2000 degrees Fahrenheit. Guess what, even structural steel becomes like a wet noodle at 1800 degrees Fahrenheit. Go visit an iron forge sometime and you can see exactly what I’m talking about. Get steel that hot with enough force and even structural steel is going to give. Some people need to keep their tin cap on and stay in their hole.

        1. avatar arc says:

          Except the steel never reached 1,800*F, it reached, at best, 600*F making it around 132% /stronger/ than room temperature.

        2. avatar No One Special says:

          So that must mean you are one of those that believes the government planted thermite on the structural support members of the twin towers, right? Apparently they don’t make tin hats thick enough for some people. Fly a airliner into any building and shits going to happen without much help from outside sources. Yep sorry that kool-aid doesn’t go down well either. I like to think rationally for myself not buy into every asinine scheme that comes down the pike. That conspiracy theory isn’t rationale. Knuckle head terrorists flying an airliner into a building? Now that’s rational. How do I come to that conclusion? I got to see how they operate first hand in 03 Baghdad Iraq. That’s proof enough for me.

        3. avatar Merle 0 says:

          Don’t forget to tell the “truthers” that guy who made loose change admitted he doctored hours of 9/11 footage to make it seem like there was may more to the conspiracy theory. Also, he admitted he made up the entire film simply to “get rich”. Thanks to him, there’s so much altered 9/11 footage online now that it’s actually hard to find the real stuff.

      2. avatar frank speak says:

        these people are nuts…and despicable opportunists……..

      3. avatar Larry says:

        Are you saying that those children at Sandy Hook elementary were fake or never killed by that nutjob that had easy access to guns in his house?

        Please tell us.

    6. avatar arc says:

      They gota keep the hoax alive, for gun cont… I mean for the children!

    7. avatar Red says:

      The level for defamation is much lower for a private citizen than for a public official or Hollywood star. Just like when Elon Musk defamed the guy who worked the cave rescue in Thailand by calling him a “pedo”. Now Musk is being sued, probably very successfully, by the guy he defamed. You can’t just run around writing books or tweet false information about someone and think that’s okay. One thing if the person is public, hence the National Enquirer. But private individual? They get what they have coming and I have zero sympathy for them. The First Amendment doesn’t cover blatant lying when you defame someone with zero basis for your lies.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        In what way is an activist who testified to Congress a “private person”.

    8. avatar Larry says:

      They defamed him by saying he committed a crime when he did not. The high price they are paying is “FUCK YOU!!!!!” money for saying that shit about his kid.

      I do not think it was enough. I hope Alex Jones gets hammered so hard by lawsuits that he ends up living on the street.

      People that make money off of the horrible tragedy of others by spreading lies are the worst of the worst. Right up there with child molesting priests and dirty cops.

  2. avatar burley says:

    Just because they found a judge willing to punish a truth speaker does in no way validate the notion that Sandy Hook was NOT a false flag. When you see the memorial website set up to receive donations for “victims of Sandy Hook” with an SSL certificate issued DAYS before the event took place, you’ll know your position on this heinous crime must be adjusted. You should feel abject horror when you realize that not only did children die, but they were killed by U.S. government operatives who then immediately covered up their crimes; solely for the purpose to motivate emotional support for disarmament. This was NOT a single madman bent on hurting a few innocent children, this was the action of a rogue government bent on total domination of every single person in the nation.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      It doesn’t matter if the publication was the truth or not. Defamation of public figures has an absurdly high threshold. If the Convington Kids were “public figures” I don’t see how the same standards do not apply to an activist waving a bloody shirt

      1. avatar napresto says:

        It seems like your argument is that because the Covington case was decidedly wrongly, all defamation cases should be decided wrongly.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          My argument is that once you get up on a soap box, you’re a public figure. The Convington Kids didn’t get on a box, this clown did. At that point, I lost any feeling I had for him beyond contempt.

          This and the Convington cases are both ripe for SCotUS review to properly definite the limits of who is and is not a “public figure” under Sullivan.

        2. avatar Ing says:

          No, the point he’s trying to make is that the law needs to be applied CONSISTENTLY and fairly.

          If the Covington Catholic kids are public figures — simply because some people with big megaphones lied about them, btw — then somebody like Pozner, who stood up on a soapbox in the public eye *on purpose*, sure as hell should be too.

          There actually is a legal standard, but it’s not being applied. Right now the legal situation in these cases is more like Catch-22 than anything else.

        3. avatar No One Special says:

          So instead of blowing sunshine up the Supreme Courts ass lets say it like it should be…the Supreme Court was wrong! How about that?

      2. avatar I wonder what some of you are smoking says:

        I take it you are so involved with the Covington kids case because they were your children who were viociously killed when a native American who in reality is the top agent in Mossad threw bird seed which resulted in their deaths by metal bird beaks as robotic pigeons descended on the helpless lads. Birds who were created by the lizard people to take out rogue milita and top commentators on TTAG.

        Oh sorry, I was channeling whatever the hello burley was smoking.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah… I happen to be of the radical opinion that Sullivan was one of the best decisions in SCotUS history and that the definition of public figure needs to be strictly defined to avoid the retardation where a bunch of kids on a school trip are “public figures” while a scumbag using his kid’s coffin as a soap box is not.

        2. avatar No One Special says:

          Proof is the child dead and buried due to the shooting. That’s all the proof that’s needed. Nope in this case I hope they have to pay every penny. I don’t feel sorry for them in the least. Some things have to remain off limits. For the sake of morality, ethics, and just plain right and wrong. If not than nothing is sacred.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Again, if Sullivan applies, as I think it should, then it doesn’t matter what the facts are, this guy has every right to publish whatever he wants. Just because you or I find his publications objectionable does not give us the right to shut him down.

      3. avatar No One Special says:

        “My argument is that once you get up on a soap box, you’re a public figure.”

        If that’s the case anyone that comments here, Fakebook, Twitter, or any other social media outlet is a public figure. Hell I bet you yourself are a Rockstar under that standard. Saying that something is a conspiracy is one thing. Saying someone faked their own kids death when it can easily be proven is something totally different. Not only is it different it’s just plain fucking wrong. If you can’t see that you need to get off the sauce and drugs and pull your head out. I promise you if someone accused me publicly of faking my child’s death after they had really died I’d bring the same suit. I would have no problem taking them for all they are worth either. At that point the gloves are off and I fight dirty.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          What he said legally doesn’t matter. Either Sullivan applies or it does not. Once you appear in front of Congress to lobby for legislation, pretending you’re not a public figure is absurd. Comparing that to a social media post is absurd and you know its absurd.

          It doesn’t matter if you like what this guy published or not. The simple matter is that they can’t prove “actual malice” as defined under Sullivan. Publishing crazy rants is not libel. If it was, Trump would own CNN and MSNBC.

    2. avatar Miner49er says:

      “not only did children die, but they were killed by U.S. government operatives who then immediately covered up their crimes; solely for the purpose to motivate emotional support for disarmament.”

      Friend, you have lost your grasp on reality. I beg of you, turn your lethal weapons over to a responsible member of your family or a trusted friend before you completely break with reality and cause a great tragedy.

      1. avatar Merle 0 says:

        That’s rich coming from you. You’re just as mentally deranged as Alex Jones so don’t even get on that high horse.

    3. avatar LifeSavor says:

      Burley,

      Brave of you to post your view of this.

      I did not read the book, but have seen everything Barry Sotoro published on this topic.

      All I can conclude is that the official government narrative is ‘fur schiese’.

    4. avatar frank speak says:

      sanity test required!…

    1. avatar jwm says:

      See. We can agree on something.

  3. avatar Popeye the Sailor Man says:

    Good.
    We don’t need people spouting this crazy bullshit, making our entire side of the gun argument out to be tinfoil hat whack jobs. And the victim’s families damn sure don’t need the false labels to their character, having their grief dragged out and capitalized upon. That’s CNN’s job and there’s no need for us to sink to that level.

    1. avatar napresto says:

      Thumbs up

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      What’s good for the goose. The SCotUS needs to set strict definitions of what constitutes a “public figure”. There’s no practical way to prove “actual malice” in a court, so the only case where Sullivan doesn’t apply is where the plaintiff was not a “public figure”.

      I’m always on the side of more speech. If you don’t like this guy’s book, don’t read it.

      1. avatar No One Special says:

        Stop bringing up SCOTUS. The Supreme Court can change precedent on a whim depending on the Justices that sit on the bench at the time. They can even decide the court was wrong at a later date and the next thing everyone knows precedent changes. Precedent is what the court says it is at the time. Most usually that is dependent on on which way the political winds are blowing.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          If the law doesn’t matter, then what are we talking about here?

          Current case law states that any publication against a “public figure” needs to show “actual malice” to constitute libel.

          If publishing crazy conspiracy theories constituted “actual malice” then Trump would own CNN and MSNBC. If being a political activist who has appeared in front of congress does not constitute a “public figure” then how the hell are kids on a school trip “public figures”?

        2. avatar No One Special says:

          Read JWM’s reply, he gets it.

        3. avatar No One Special says:

          Oh and Trump has offered nothing but condolences for any mass shooting. Even if Trump did think the dipshitocrats had something to do with it he did not say the deaths were staged. That’s the problem here. Not the conspiracy theory agenda but that a death actually did occur and these idiots are saying that death or deaths are a lie. I’m pretty fucking cold hearted at times but even I have limits. Pulling a cloud of bullshit over a child’s death and their grieving parents is going too far.

        4. avatar jwm says:

          Serge. If accusing a grieving father of faking his son’s murder, which murder actually occurred, isn’t considered ‘malice’ what would be? Especially since the ‘people’ doing the accusing know damn well the murder actually occurred and they are simply trying to vulture up money from the tragedy.

        5. avatar No One Special says:

          Precisely!

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          Short of the respondent admitting to that on the stand or in admissible hearsay, you have no legal way to prove that.

        7. avatar No One Special says:

          Let’s take a poll of who thinks accusing a grieving parent of faking their child’s death when the death can be proven is not only right but prudent? That is in the eyes of a reasonable person of course. I consider myself pretty reasonable in a not so reasonable, politically charged society. Clearly I don’t think it’s right or prudent.

          So I ask, what say you (anyone)?

        8. avatar pwrserge says:

          No One…

          What you, I, or a poll may think on the issue is irrelevant. The precedent is rock solid.

          You’d have to prove that the publisher either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded the veracity of his statements. Against a conspiracy theorist, showing recklessness is quite a stretch. His conclusions may be wrong, but a room full of red string is rather good evidence to disprove recklessness.

        9. avatar No One Special says:

          Whoa, slow down there hoss! The precedent is only as rock solid as the Supreme Court says it is. Think they can’t renig on a ruling? Wrong! They have and that sets the precedent that they can again as they see fit.

        10. avatar pwrserge says:

          Given that Sullivan has only expanded in scope over the past 55 years? Unlikely. The could would have to completely about face. Given the right wing of the Supreme Court is not likely to restrict the 1st amendment rights of individuals, I’m not that concerned.

          In any case, what matters is the law as it is now. As it is now, the plaintiff is a public figure due to his political activities and as such black letter law states that the plaintiff has to show that either the respondent knew that the statements were false or that the respondent didn’t bother to do any work before he published. The former is a legal impossibility and the latter is almost impossible to prove. Simple fact is that this case should never have gone to a jury. Just because the statement is false and you find it offensive does not make it defamation. That’s textbook reversible error.

        11. avatar No One Special says:

          I’m sure it will be appealed. If the Supreme Court even decides to hear the case. Given their track record thus far I bet they won’t. They don’t want to kick that dog. Not now and not as long as we have a very clear cut division coast to coast politically.

        12. avatar pwrserge says:

          This won’t hit the court until long after Ruthie is confirmed dead and Trump has appointed her replacement. Hell, we might have a 7:2 conservative split by the time this makes it up to their level.

      2. avatar Red says:

        When you claim someone faked their child’s death certificate? If that isn’t malicious, what is?

        It is pretty obvious he didn’t do any research, just sat at his computer and made it up out of thin air. If that’s not malicious toward the parent, what is?

        The law is what it is and I have no problem with it. Alex Jones is a wingnut. I read him from time to time, but always quit because he would go off the deep end from time to time. This is one of those times and it will cost him. Perhaps he should think through what he says before he says it next time.

        1. avatar No One Special says:

          Yep he should have stuck to the conspiracy theory and left the parents that lost their children out of it. Hell include the deaths in the theory even. Not say that the deaths were faked.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah… how dare he upset genocidal commies.

          “Actual malice” in civil law isn’t defined like you think it is.

  4. avatar Nelson says:

    ” Jones has lost a defamation suit brought by some of the victims’ families.” – THAT, is FAKE NEWS. He merely got denied ONE PHASE of appeal. The TRIAL never even started yet. STOP propagating official US Pravda (NPR) nonsense, without verifying.

    https://sports.yahoo.com/court-hear-alex-jones-appeal-100600089.html
    https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-alex-jones-supreme-court-20190926-35idflw4rjbydo6yezfosqhzlm-story.html
    https://www.law.com/ctlawtribune/2019/09/04/alex-jones-lawyer-norm-pattis-criticizes-opposing-counsel-at-koskoff/?slreturn=20190916135417

    In a sane truly lawful jurisprudence world, this ‘suit’ would’ve been thrown out with a laughter by the 1st judge who read the docket. There is ZERO basis for this civil suit. Alex Jones has been on FCC controlled airwaves for over 25yrs with nary a complaint. He NEVER incited violence, he NEVER even cited the individuals suing him by name, nor EVER encouraged his audience to harass or target them. There is literally NO CASE. And this is still motherfucking America. He could believe and air that the Sandy Hook was done by Martians dressed like ninjas, and it’d STILL be lawful. It’s called the 1st Amendment. This, is what happens when SJW-taliban grow up and infest govt, and the Bar.

    FFS.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      The point is that the left like to use Sullivan to defame minors on a school trip as “public figures” when it suits them and then claim that their activists are not, in fact, “public figures” when it suits them the other way. The SCotUS needs to set strict definitions on what does and does not constitute a “public figure” under Sullivan. Right now, Sullivan is being used to shield gigantic multi-million dollar propaganda networks and persecute small time publishers. The exact opposite of the intent of the 1st amendment.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        Those kids only became public figures because of the defamation campaign waged against them by the major networks and new publications while intentionally ignoring the context of the situation.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          I should qualify that Sullivan has been expanded by Butts to not just apply to government officials, but all “public figures” without defining what a “public figure” is. That is the core of the problem. The left likes to twist the “public figure” definition as it suits them. That’s why we need the SCotUS to step in and define “public figure” to set a concrete standard.

        2. avatar No One Special says:

          “That’s why we need the SCotUS to step in and define “public figure” to set a concrete standard.”

          In this politically charged climate? Forget it, it’s not going to happen. The Supreme Court has already demonstrated they want to try and ride the fence rather than choose a side. The Justices keep trying to appease everyone rather than set a clear cut precedent that would favor one side more than the other. There’s really no need to wonder why. Socially we are already sitting on a powder keg. Too many times of the Supreme Court ruling in hard favor of a side would most definitely put the match to that keg. They don’t want that, soooo……

    2. avatar Billy says:

      I don’t know why wacky Alex is still being sued. He has multiple times, publicly recanted his assertion, stating that Sandy Hook was not a hoax.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        Because he’s a right wing conspiracy theorists. Left wing conspiracy theorists fearlessly spout their opinions, and they’re well paid for it.

        1. avatar No One Special says:

          The left shouldn’t be allowed to do either when it is defamatory in nature. Just saying

      2. avatar Dude says:

        If we use the same logic of de-platforming Jones, then Google, Facebook, and Twitter should have suspended CNN and MSNBC for pushing the Trump secret Russian agent conspiracy.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Oh look, more dirty Russian money in the Trump administration! Looks like Rudy Giuliani is one heck of a bagman for Donald Trump, 500 K for consulting is good work if you can get it. And millions to subvert American elections, all into the Republican pockets.

          That’s honor and patriotism for you.

          “The indictment, which was filed on Oct. 10 in the Southern District of New York, alleges the defendants “conspired to circumvent the federal law against foreign influence by engaging in a scheme to funnel foreign money to candidates.”

          David Correia/Social Media via the Campaign Legal Center via Reuters
          Ukrainian-American businessman Lev Parnas and businessman David Correia appear with former U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) and former Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) in a 2018 screen capture from Correia’s social media account.
          more +
          (MORE: Arrest of Giuliani associates tied to Ukraine scandal renews scrutiny on campaign finance rules)
          Court documents describe how the four defendants allegedly funneled “$1-2 million” from a Russian donor into the U.S. political system between June 2018 and April of this year.”

          Oh wait, it’s the Russia hoax, right?

        2. avatar Dude says:

          49er or Vlad or whoever you are, you’re such a fool, it’s almost not responding to. Foreigners attempting to gain favor with U.S. politicians isn’t ground breaking news. It happens every day in D.C. It is rarely prosecuted because people are getting rich from it. Those guys donating money to a Trump PAC doesn’t in anyway prove that Trump is a treasonous Russian agent, which was pushed, not only by the pundit class, but by the former intel chiefs that would benefit from preventing the DOJ to getting to the bottom of their scandal. Try again.

  5. avatar Dave the Carnie says:

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes!

  6. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    Sounds like two pieces of crap trying to get rich off of other people’s misery. That’s not necessarily a crime in itself, despite being reprehensible. Going so far as to accuse others of having committed crimes and asserting scandalous acts as facts when they are pure fiction, however, is unlawful. I hope they’re bankrupted in addition to the thorough discrediting they’ve brought upon themselves.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      That’s the entire left wing. By your logic everyone to the left of Ronald Reagan deserves to be sent to the poor house.

      The reality is that this is a case where Sullivan should have been an iron-clad defense. The only reason it was not is because the court ignored precedent. If you don’t like somebody’s book, don’t buy it or publish your own.

    2. avatar Miner49er says:

      ”Sounds like two pieces of crap”

      No, one is a grieving father who son was viciously murdered by an insane man wielding an AR 15.

      The other is a greedy, self-serving, lying bastard who attempts to profit from slanderous lies with zero evidence to support his outlandish claims.

      As provided for in the US Constitution, the first gentleman petitioned the government for a redress of grievances. Following the constitution’s decrees, a court of law impaneled a jury of their peers to decide the case.
      The jury returned a judgment against the lying bastard, ordering him to pay almost a half million dollars.

      May God bless the United States Constitution.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Yeah… that’s not what “a redress of grievances means” you commie piece of shit. The court had no authority to order anything regarding a publication regarding a public figure. The piece of shit here is the scumbag using his kids coffin as a soap box and then claiming to not be a public figure.

        1. avatar napresto says:

          I just KNEW you were going to call someone a commie. You need some new tricks, lest we all start thinking you’re an old dog.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Nah… 49er is a well known commie around these parts.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          “The piece of shit here is the scumbag using his kids coffin as a soap box”

          Have you no decency, at long last, have you no decency? We wouldn’t know Posner’s name if his son hadn’t been shot to death and conspiracy vultures like Alex Jones hit the airwaves with their cruel lies. And this isn’t just about intentional infliction of emotional distress, Alex Jones alleged Posner and others committed crimes. That’s slander, an actionable tort.

          Sergei, how about I put posters all around your neighborhood with your face with large print saying ‘warning pedophile, known child molester in our neighborhood‘, that would be perfectly acceptable under your view of free speech, right?

          We already know your game, you revealed yourself to be a Putin supporter from the Ukraine. You said you’ve been there as recently as 2014 and complained about the people overthrowing Moscow’s puppet and having a free election, and yet here you are accusing others of being Commies.

          I believe the correct term is ‘agent provocateur‘.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          Try it commie, see how it works out for you.

        5. avatar Miner49er says:

          That’s no answer, do you have a valid response in you? Or just more baseless insults.

          Sergei, you do have excellent grasp of colloquial American speech mannerisms, I’ll give your trainers some credit for that.

          I would guess your hometown is Vinnytsia, Ukraine, It is obvious you spent much time there.

      2. avatar Merle 0 says:

        “God bless the United States Constitution.”

        Says the America hating socialist who supports the removal of the second amendment. In one breath you blame the AR15 then say hail the constitution. That’s some epic level double speak you leftist piece of trash. You’re a despicable human being who is just as bad as Alex Jones. The only difference between you and Alex Jones is his soap box is bigger and he got rich off his lies. You wish you could be the con man he is.

      3. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        @Miner49er, excellent comment.

      4. avatar Larry says:

        This right here. Good comment. The gun argument is a whole different story and does not even need to be part of the story for all I care.

        Fact is children were murdered at school by an mentally ill person. Then Alex Jones and other bottom feeders tried to cash in on event by spreading false lies about a man he just lost his son. Anyone defending their actions are just as bad at them. If you actually have children and actually love them I do not see how you could support Alex or the author of this book.

  7. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Let us set aside “Public Figure” speech legal considerations for a moment and talk about what is righteous and what is not.

    Publicly claiming (e.g. publishing in a book) that John Q. Public fabricated a false death certificate without credible evidence is dishonorable.

    Even if you have credible evidence that the event (which allegedly caused the death) never happened, that all by itself does not establish exactly who fabricated the death certificate. Therefore, the authors of that book cannot righteously claim that the father fabricated the death certificate. They may be able to claim that the certificate is phony, but they have no basis to claim that the father fabricated it.

    Details matter.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Details matter.

      Indeed. I thought I could claim any theory. First amendment and all that. It sounds like some people here are okay with folks being punished for having certain opinions. Where do we draw the line on that? What if your opinion (that’s what this is about) becomes unpopular or hurts peoples feelings and the mob comes after you? Should you be protected or does it just depend on how popular the opinion is currently?

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Apparently, in the minds of commie scumbags like comrade 49er above, publishing blatant defamation of a bunch of minors with no prior public exposure is ok, but publishing a conspiracy theory against a scumbag using dead kids as a soap box is somehow off limits.

        Basically, “the line” is wherever the treasonous commie left says it is. I mean if they were held to a consistent standard, Trump would own every major media company in the country after they published “muh’ Russia” reports that they knew for a fact were false and got caught on tape admitting were false.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          So the reports of trumps entanglement with Russia or false?

          Oh look, more dirty Russian money in the Trump administration!

          Rudy Giuliani is one heck of a bagman for Donald Trump, 500 K for consulting is good work if you can get it. And millions to subvert American elections, all into the Republican pockets.

          That’s honor and patriotism for you.

          “The indictment, which was filed on Oct. 10 in the Southern District of New York, alleges the defendants “conspired to circumvent the federal law against foreign influence by engaging in a scheme to funnel foreign money to candidates.”

          David Correia/Social Media via the Campaign Legal Center via Reuters
          Ukrainian-American businessman Lev Parnas and businessman David Correia appear with former U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) and former Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) in a 2018 screen capture from Correia’s social media account.
          more +
          (MORE: Arrest of Giuliani associates tied to Ukraine scandal renews scrutiny on campaign finance rules)
          Court documents describe how the four defendants allegedly funneled “$1-2 million” from a Russian donor into the U.S. political system between June 2018 and April of this year.”

          Oh wait, it’s the Russia hoax, right?

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          You had a three year witch hunt and the only person found to have taken Russian money was Hillary Clinton.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          Sergei, I understand why you continue to propagate end as that Russia did not interfere with our election, your sugar-daddy KGB Col. Putin is giving you a strict orders about your posts in American social media.

          “Arrest of Giuliani associates tied to Ukraine scandal renews scrutiny on campaign finance rules)
          Court documents describe how the four defendants allegedly funneled “$1-2 million” from a Russian donor into the U.S. political system between June 2018 and April of this year.”

          The federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York are in possession of sufficient evidence to bring about this indictment, do you have evidence to the contrary that you are ready to present?

          Remember, SDNY prosecutor is a trump appointee, yet he believes these charges have merit.

          Or is he just more ‘common scum’?

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          I don’t have to defend jack shit commie vermin. An argument presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. But please, tell me more about why I should trust commie insurgents in New York to anything other than a USMC firing squad.

          Oh, and you know damn well that you are a ball-less coward. You’re awful brave from behind a screen knowing that if you said any of your bullshit in person, I would have put your face through a wall.

        5. avatar Miner49er says:

          Sergei, you are the snowflake making threats of physical violence.

          “I would put your face through a wall.”
          Ooooh, big man behind the keyboard!

          It is common for bullies to resort to threats of physical violence when they have been proven to be full of shit.

          Sad little flower, got its little panties all in a wad.

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          Commie, I don’t make threats, I make observations.

          The reality is that commie vermin like you talk a big game up until you have to do so in person. It’s easy to accuse a holocaust survivor of being a nazi from behind a keyboard. Doing so in person, however, requires a level of testicular fortitude you simply are not capable of. Why? Because your last experience with having to back up your words with actions got your head dunked in a toilet and then locked in your school locker.

          The sad part is that you think anybody gives a shit about your opinion. You’re a moral and physical coward.

        7. avatar Miner49er says:

          “ accuse a holocaust survivor of being a nazi“

          So what you’re saying is you’re one of the ones accusing George Soros of being a Nazi collaborator? What is that all about?

          Soros was a little too young to be a Nazi collaborator, he was just fortunate he did not end up in the gas chambers with all the Jews, Gypsies, socialists, etc.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Dude,

        I did NOT say that it is dishonorable to publish unpopular opinions or hypotheses or that we should not have First Amendment protection to publish unpopular opinions or hypotheses.

        What I DID say is that it is dishonorable to declare that someone committed a serious crime (falsifying a legal document) without compelling, credible evidence that he/she committed that crime. That is libel and does not get First Amendment protection.

        Saying it another way, declaring facts are never a crime. Declaring speculation as fact IS a crime if that speculation damages someone’s reputation.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          You just described what every left wing propaganda outlet does all day, every day. If some commie scumbag using his own kid’s dead body as a soap box deserves damages, then CNC, MSNBC, etc deserve to be owned by the Trump organization at this point.

  8. avatar enuf says:

    These Sandy Hook Deniers are demented idiots who deserve scorn and financial ruin. We should bring back the village stocks of old, put these shitforbrains scum in them and encourage decent folk to throw spoiled fruit and veggies.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Yeah… can we bring back village gallows for commies? Because that argument would hold about as much weight as ignoring the iron-clad precedent set by Sullivan.

    2. avatar Merle 0 says:

      I think both groups of ardent leftists and Alex Jones worshippers would do well to be hauled off in front of the nearest public venue and whipped with a cane.

  9. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Truth is solid defense against claims of “defamation” (public figure, or not). Interestingly, the report on the jury verdict shorthands the complaint, but presents none of the information believed true by the book authors. We are left to conclude that somewhere along the line, the judge and jury declared the claims in the book were false, proven false, and the authors knew it. Not seeing that element, nor any of the “documentation” of claims by the authors.

    Defamation relies on an untruth. For some reason, the reports on the trial results ignore the basic element, and just dance in the street over a verdict they like. I wasn’t at Sandy Hook. Have very limited (almost none) familiarity with the hoax “evidence”. Just a firm, unshakable skepticism at anything the government states in a crisis.

    Keep in mind, publishing a theory is not a crime….yet. However, the climate change religionists are claiming those who question “the settled science” of climate change are engaged in a criminal conspiracy, with the US the center, and the single most cause of climate change.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      If you upload a video on Youtube questioning any part of the agreed upon climate change religion, google places a wiki link at the top to let viewers know the facts (as google sees it). Tech companies can and will police all opinions they don’t like. Apparently China can as well, even in America.

  10. avatar former water walker says:

    Golly gosh gee how many of us believe the entire Newtown narrative with such a dearth of evidence?!? Kids & teacher’s died is all I agreed with. Never forget the dumbocrats wanted to screw all gun owners from this. Oh and Serge gets it right.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      You’ll believe what you’re told to believe, and you’ll like it or suffer the consequences.

  11. avatar Truckman says:

    I don”t know what went on at the sandy hook school. All I do know that there were so many different stories that were put out by the law enforcement up there nobody will ever know the truth like the guns first report was a pistol was used and the law said there were numerous pistol shells on the floor then they showed them removing a rifle from the trunk of his car and then story changed that he used an AR15 for the shooting and what makes it worse they did not allow any law enforcement to confirm there statements this and the fact that they boarded up and put fencing to keep people out and then tore the building down all off these were things that had never been done before or since so what are people to think especially with the Governments history of coverups

    1. avatar arc says:

      Sounds like the country festival shooting in LV, government had half a dozen different stories, and still can’t get its story straight. Private security guarding the hero cop’s house hadn’t renewed any of its licensing until after it was called out in the news and a matter of hours later, licensed up again. Inspections and registration on the cars around the house were out of date by years…

      Yeah, I don’t believe one worthless word of any “official story” anymore because its just that, a “story”.

    2. avatar Miner49er says:

      Trucker and Ark, it’s clear that you are easily duped by the conspiracy vulture salesman, filling your head with nonsense.

      Please, consider therapy, as soon as possible.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Says the commie nut job who believes that a holocaust survivor could be a Nazi agent.

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Miner49er,

        I have a hard time believing any reports from our government and news media unless a neutral and trustworthy third party confirms the reports. or I confirm the reports myself.

        The latest and most egregious example: just this last Sunday ABC World News Tonight showed a video clip from the Knob Creek, Kentucky recreational machine gun shoot and claimed that it was military forces from the country of Turkey attacking Kurds in northern Syria. And ABC even altered the lighting/shading of the video clip to ensure that we could not see the hills and trees in the background and the temporary shelters in the foreground which made it obvious that this was a recreational shoot and not a military action.

        An egregious example of heinous government action and deception in the past was the unforgivable Tuskegee syphilis experiment.

        These are just two of several examples where news outlets and our own government have knowingly tried to deceive us for who knows what purpose. A wise response, therefore, is to distrust anything that news reports or government tells us that we are unable to independently verify.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          The knob Creek video was just a screwup Bassham over anxious video content manager, what point would there be in some nefarious conspiracy by using it?

          Some low levels person got in a hurry and used stock footage for a news story. Unfortunately, the Kurds are being massacred, and it’s difficult to get raw video from the area because the Turkish army has a policy of killing journalists.

          Tuskegee syphilis experiment was more about a renegade, racist Doctor Who had no qualms about using African-Americans in a harebrained scheme to chart syphilis progression. It was more about racism than any government conspiracy.

          I am more concerned about real criminal acts for which there is solid evidence, such as the story of actual Russian involvement in Republican politics:

          “Arrest of Giuliani associates tied to Ukraine scandal renews scrutiny on campaign finance rules)
          Court documents describe how the four defendants allegedly funneled “$1-2 million” from a Russian donor into the U.S. political system between June 2018 and April of this year.”

          The SDNY federal prosecutor is a trump appointee, yet he has solid evidence to file these charges against the Russians behind the scheme, do you have evidence to the contrary?

          The whole point of the conspiracy theories is to distract folks like you from the actual evidence against the perpetrators.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Hey Miner… What you miss is I don’t care. The DNC has is an illegitimate terrorist organization and any accusations presented by them or their pet propagandists has no weight.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          “The DNC has is an illegitimate terrorist organization and any accusations presented by them or their pet propagandists has no weight.”

          These indictments weren’t issued by the DNC, they were issued by the Trump appointed federal prosecutor of the Southern District of New York.

          Ivan, was a really sad attempt at deflection, we’re going to dock 20 rubles from your pay.

          Again, what evidence do you have that contradicts the findings of the federal prosecutor of the SDNY in his charging documents?

          The evidence shows that right here in West Virginia, the Republican candidate for the office of Attorney General accepted $1.1 million from the Russians’ illegal campaign contribution.

          Do you have evidence to the contrary?

          Or just more baseless claims and week personal insults?

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah… whatever you say commie… I notice a distinct lack of links in your rants… could it be because you’re pulling assertions out of your ass? or because you’re omitting key details? Nah… couldn’t be… According to the very standard you’re defending in this thread, that would make you civilly liable. Looks like I might have to retain counsel and get your personal info so you can cough up the half million dollar in defamation damages you owe me.

        5. avatar Miner49er says:

          Still more empty speech from you, Ivan.

          Do you doubt that the Southern District of New York Trump appointed prosecutor is investigating Giuliani and the millions of dollars from Russians funneled into Republican politicians’ pockets?

          You are long on insults and short on facts, very typical of Soviet era disinformation attempts.

          Or does the truth hurt so much that you are incapable of a rational response?

          Whatever. I am somewhat interested in what lies ahead in the American prison system for the indicted Russian-born Ukrainian co-conspirators, their interaction with the Aryan brotherhood, MS13 and the bloods & Crips should be entertaining.

        6. avatar Miner49er says:

          Hey Sergei, here’s a direct link to the Southern District of New York federal prosecutors’ indictment of your Ukrainian fellow travelers, I hope this brings a little light into your world.

          http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/10/10/u.s..v..lev.parnas.et.al.indictment.pdf

          I’m surprised you’re having such difficulty doing your own research on the Internet, but I’d be happy to give you a few pointers about using Google if you like.

        7. avatar pwrserge says:

          Ah… CNN… got a REAL news source commie? But let’s not forget, an indictment means exactly jack shit. How many amendments of the Constitution are you ignoring now? I lost count at 5.

        8. avatar pwrserge says:

          FYI, that act is unconstitutional in its entirety as the federal government has no authority to tell me who I can and cannot give money to. Donations are a form of political speech and the 1st amendment prohibits the federal government from regulating political speech. Sorry kiddo, but this case is going down in flames. The Supreme Court is going to spike it 6-3 just as soon as RBG finally keels over dead and becomes a good commie.

    3. avatar Matt says:

      I watched, possibly live on TV (it was 7 years ago I can’t remember if it was live at this point), video from helicopter when they pulled the rifle out of the trunk. It was clearly visible at that time that it was not an AR pattern rifle and something too big to be a rifle cartridge was ejected from it. There are plenty of pictures from inside the school in the official investigation documents to support the use of a rifle and the use of the handgun for suicide. To put it bluntly, the pictures clearly show someone blew their brains out with a handgun in a classroom. I don’t think there is any incorrect information regarding the firearms used, except the erroneous identification that the rifle was an assault weapon, which was legally defined in CT law at the time and the AR15 used did not meet that definition.

      I do agree there are many unresolved questions and speculations and the demolition of the building does nothing to help quell conspiracy theories; mostly I think this regards the official response and potential ineptitude in that response and other governmental failings. In addition, the Sandy Hook Report is unsatisfactory because there is a significant CYA tone in regards to everyone who missed intervention opportunities and a blame game to the wrong parties happening; it appears to have an overt agenda.

      Ultimately I don’t think there can be any doubt that this happened and a number of children and adults were murdered by Lanza.

      I also am very surprised uncensored photos of the crime scene have managed to not be leaked in the 7 years since it happened.

  12. avatar George Wythe says:

    So many lies and hoaxes commited by our goverment (any goverment) over the course of thousands of years and we still believe what we are told (the media/goverment creates both sides of the story). How do any of us know is true? Unless you were a first responder/LEO you god damn don’t. We are only shown and told what to believe. Calling people tinfoil nut jobs is not productive. Tuskegee, Op. Paper Clip, Dancing Israelis, USS Liberty,UFOs. They always apologize later and the masses still believe the lies. After or before the “truth”. You only know what you can confirm yourself. That goes for the deniers or the ones that accept it. Look at how divided ya’ll got. Aren’t we on the same team against our lying Military and democratic government.

    1. avatar Arc says:

      Constitutional republic form of government and are you calling me a liar just because I decided to enlist? Replace military with Pentagon and deepstate and you would be closer to the truth.

      Some of us (me) don’t believe a word of the government, and question the conspiracies just as much. TBH, unless it directly affects me, I couldn’t give a squirt of piss about what happens in the world anymore.

      -retired 0311.

  13. Oh ✋ wait….What about about the Las Vegas mystery mass shooting incident…Who’s going to sue to silence the people who DON’T buy anything in that high profile (but remarkably quiet ) American horror story….And I DON’T buy anything out of what was reported either! No without a shadow of a doubt….

  14. avatar Joseph says:

    I can’t believe the stupid shit people argue about on this site. Looks like a bunch of old widow women with nothing to do all day except bicker.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Joseph,

      What you are seeing is the struggle between facts/honor and emotion.

      Roughly half of our population operates purely on emotion which means that facts and honor are irrelevant to them. As a result, they spew all manner of untrue trash which can be very harmful to people who are seeking the truth. I feel honor-bound to refute demonstrably untrue/dishonorable emotional positions. Many other commenters on this site appear to be equally honor-bound.

      And it is more than a sense of honor that compels me to call-out untrue/dishonorable emotional positions. I also want to sustain and strengthen my community and our nation. That also requires refuting untrue and/or dishonorable emotional positions which, left unchecked, tear down communities and nations.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        Great comment!

        I now officially forgive you for reneging on your wager, I guess I’ll buy my own whiskey.

  15. avatar Dan W says:

    I don’t know what happened at Sandy Hook. All that can be known for sure is the official story is a lie.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      And what evidence do you have to support your claim that the official story is a lie?

      Can we count on your honor and patriotism as a gentleman to back up your words with facts?

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Commies making an argument based on honor is about as hillarious as satanists making an argument based on Jesus.

        But I’ll simple it up for you.
        – 100% mortality rate.
        – All the physical evidence is sealed and buried.
        – The official timeline is physically impossible.

        I don’t know what happened in Sandy Hook and unless you can show me some crime scene and forensics reports complete with pictures, neither do you.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Once again you make empty assertions, with zero evidence or citation for back up.

          Put me point out one detail of the Sandy Hook investigation.

          The Connecticut State police assigned a trooper to liaison with each victims’ family and keep them appraised of the situation as the investigation progressed.

          In order for the conspiracy theories of a false flag operation to be true, it would require these 26 Connecticut state troopers to be secret Obama socialist supporters, working with crisis actors to fool America.

          Ivan, do you really think that there are 26 State troopers in Connecticut who would betray their patriotism and oath in order to facilitate Obama and George Soros’ Conspiracy?

          Sergei, why don’t you step away from your desk, walk back out through security and out into the fresh air of Red Square and breathe deeply, maybe a walk in Gorky Park will help you gain a little perspective on life in America.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Ok asshole. Show me the forensics reports. Complete with pictures and autopsies. I’ll wait.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          I am not the one asserting that this is a conspiracy.

          You are making a claim that it was a hoax, perpetrated by the government.

          The burden of proof is upon the individual who makes the claim.

          What proof do you have, other than your empty assertions?Put up or shut up.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          I don’t have to prove anything to say that no proof of the official story has been released to the public and that there are inconsistencies to the story. That’s the beauty of defeating an argument. I don’t have to prove shit. I just have to point out that you have no primary source evidence to prove shit.

  16. avatar LocalHero says:

    None of this changes the fact that nobody died and nobody was injured in the farce (drill gone-live) popularly known as Sandy Hook.

    That being said, Alex Jones and Fetzer are just part of the play as they are both top-tier gatekeepers whose own lies help to bolster the “kids died” fairy tale and this verdict is nothing but an attempt to keep that part of the narrative alive. It’s all BS.

    1. avatar LocalHero says:

      And, for the frauds that perpetrated SH, apparently no amount of money is enough to assuage the pain of losing a nonexistent child so this won’t be the last of these “trials” that are just as fake as Hook itself.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        If your comment wasn’t so tragically uninformed, it would be funny. But unfortunately, you have been duped.

        If you believe Sandy Hook was all a hoax and no one died, what evidence do you base your opinion on?

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Insert cricket sound sample here:

  17. avatar pwrserge says:

    Typical leftist “argument”. People say things we don’t like so that gives us a right to rob them, kidnap them if they refuse to be robbed, and kill them if they refuse to be kidnapped. Here’s an idea commies… if you don’t like what other people are saying, sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up, because you’re not entitled to an opinion. Opinions are for people.

  18. avatar Mike says:

    Conspiracy theorists. What a way to disrespect/dishonor the victims.

  19. avatar 22winmag says:

    Alex Jones is mouthpiece for billionaire Mercers, Rosenwalds, Wexners, Epsteins, and so on.

    They are all behind Trump-scam and the beating gun rights continue to take.

    Now Alex is playing the role of idiot-bad guy to keep the Sandy Hook Hoax going.

    I’m still waiting on the Sandy Hoax aftermath photos and autopsy photos!

    The whole lawsuit including depositions are a sham.

    $450,000 is just a number on a piece of paper in a court filing.

    Even if paid, that’s a bargain for this level of publicity to maintain the hoax.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email