I don’t need to scrutinize Sandy Hook very much to know that anyone claiming that people who were killed were not killed.
Facts. Juries determine facts. Did Jones claim something untrue, knowing it was untrue, to the injury of someone.
yes= guilty, no=innocent. Opinions about Jones, infowars, conspiracies and such are not the point of a trial.
Maybe you can post the video of Jones saying Sandy Hook never happened, or was a fake. That claim keeps coming up, but there is not video of it. I find that rather odd.
All I have ever seen is discussions about odd things, like a parent laughing before he steps up to the microphone. And I also saw discussions with someone who claimed some of the people in the crowd were at other mass shooting events. Maybe they were or weren’t, but he anomalies and oddities cannot even be discussed?
That is where the 1st amendment comes in and yes, it is part of the trial. The trial that *never happened* because the democrat judges demanded he produce something that does not exist.
“Juries determine facts.”
No, they don’t. They make decisions based upon whatever evidence, absence of evidence, or narratives the judge allows them to hear.
Plenty of jury verdicts have been overturned on appeal because the jury based a verdict on biased information.
The Alex Jones verdict is likely going to be tossed on appeal and, oddly, it’s when the case hits the appellate court that we’re more likely to see a fair hearing of the anomalies and stipulated (agreed upon) facts in the case.
That’s assuming the appellate court doesn’t toss the case entirely.