That's not why the judge ruled the case in default. The plaintiffs lawyers were looking for emails and text messages that never existed. Again, every lawyer I listened to (and a few that hated Jones) absolutely said that this was highly unusual for a judge to rule on default. How can any judge just assume some evidence exists if the evidence isn't turned over? Does anyone understand the precedence this makes? That means someone could sue me, ask me for evidence/discovery that doesn't exist, and a judge just rules in a plaintiffs favor. It was also obvious from the jump the judge was not impartialWhen I tell you who Elizabeth Williamson is, your first response will be some iteration of the genetic fallacy. You'll complain about the source, and her employer, and her left-leaning ideology (which is evident in this book). Nevertheless, I'll share:
Williamson is an investigative reporter for the New York Times. Her liberal bias is generally directed at Trump (who praised Alex Jones during his 2016 presidential run), but her analysis of the Sandy Hook event and Jones's role in perpetuating falsehoods is on-point.
Jones's team failed to provide evidence that the Sandy Hook massacre was a false flag event or a hoax. In the absence of any evidence, the judge was forced to rule in favor of the plaintiffs, who actually produced evidence that Noah Pozner was a real human being who was actually shot in the head in his classroom - something that Jones had insisted online for years was untrue. As a result of Jones's inane insistence that Sandy Hook was a hoax, victims' families were doxxed and forced to move repeatedly over the course of years for fear of their lives.
He did a lot more than that. He repeatedly put people's lives in jeopardy to enrich himself. Jones deserved just what he got from the outcome of the trials.
Jones should have gone to jury trial. If he has no defense, then the jury would have ruled. He doesn't need evidence of a false flag event. All a defense lawyer has to prove is that what he said or showed was not up to the standards of libel and defamation of the parents of Sandy Hook. They can also make the argument that since he never mentioned anyone's name explicitly, then libel or defamation never occurred.Keep in mind that CNN or FOX news gets afforded much more flexibility than Jones because they are so called "news outlets" will Sullivan V NYT. Was Jones a media outlet (info wars) or was Jones acting as a private individual. This is what a jury should have decided.
As far as the journalist, Matt Taibbi is as liberal as they come and I trust his reporting.
I also trust the videos and recordings the plaintiffs played. If we are talking "private individual" then he's guilty. If we are talking "news" that is a different benchmatk.
He has admitted many times he was wrong and trusted the wrong people. That's all the plaintiffs really has to play since he's publicly admitted it. When was the last time a news organization has done that? Even with CNN v Sandman, CNN never really apologized.