Watch Alex Jones perform a buffoon act as judge defines the word "hearsay" for him

Originally published at: Watch Alex Jones perform a buffoon act as judge defines the word "hearsay" for him | Boing Boing


This is Tucker Carlson’s default look too. They so desperately want people to believe the ordinary concepts, say “human decency”, are somehow incomprehensible nonsense. I’d like to call them some appropriate epithet but it would take an Ent ranting to really do it justice.


I hope the jury hands him his sack-of-yogurt ass on a platter.


not a whole lot of context… but him saying “when I read X” is not hearsay is it? I mean he did read something he’s allowed tor relate that as a first hand experience, no?

Alex Jones is a sack of shit but there’s not enough context in this video to know what’s going on. Is he being examined by his counsel? or cross examined?

1 Like

Remind me, has he faked a heart attack or other illness yet? That’s the standard scumbag move to avoid consequences in court.


I think the idea here was they wanted him to give his reaction to the actual event and not his reaction to ‘hearsay’ surrounding the event.


I think the look on his face means “Shit, how am I gonna defend myself if I can’t use hearsay???”


and a rotten potato at that.

I have words, but I am forbidden from using them in 36 states, the entirety of the EU, 46 additional countries, and the Vatican. Something about Waking the Elder Ones from their dark, deep sleep. (I also lack the tentacles and the ink sacs.)


A key part of the definition of hearsay is that the statement is offered for “the truth of the matter asserted.”

So you can testify about things that other people said or wrote as long as you aren’t trying to show the jury that what they said or wrote is true. If witness A testifies that “B said C’s husband is ugly and then C punched B in the face,” it’s admissible to prove that C did in fact punch B in the face (and to show a possible motive), but it’s not admissible to prove that C’s husband is in fact ugly.

From the clip it sounds like he was reading a newspaper article about someone buying a lot of advertisements.

So if Jones was talking about the article to show that he actually knows how to read, it’s NOT hearsay.
If Jones was talking about the article to show that someone did in fact buy a lot of advertisements, it IS hearsay and can’t be used.

I found this twitter thread that sort-of explains the context. It’s still hard to understand exactly what he was trying to say, but I think it had to do with the media and the Democrats ganging up on him, and the “ad buy” was offered as an example of the conspiracy against him.


Attempting to declare bankruptcy. He’s already been found at fault in this situation and this phase is for determining damages. Second time this year he’s attempted to shield himself with Chapter 11.


It looks like they got a young Sam Waterson to be the attorney

1 Like

EDIT: Already boinged.


I first read “Judge defines the word heresy” instead of “…heresay”. Oh, well, tomorrow’s another day and the trial is not over yet.


@micah’s explanation was excellent, and I just want to add a couple of things. People get understandably confused about hearsay in trials because the legal definition of what is and isn’t hearsay is different than the common usage definition. For example, most people would probably say that video from a security camera isn’t hearsay. However, in a court of law, it can be because it’s not direct testimony. Our legal system values direct testimony over almost everything else. In other words, the court wants testimony in the nature of “I did xxx, I said yyy, I felt like zzz” instead of “ I had a conversation with Joe, and Joe said….” That last one gets an immediate objection. If you want to admit as evidence what Joe said, you have to get Joe on the stand to say that.

In this case, you can’t say during testimony “I read an article in the paper, and it said …. “ because that’s not substantively any different than saying “Joe said….” If what’s in the article in the paper is relevant to the case, you need to introduce that article as evidence. The court can’t just take Alex Jones’s word for what it said. What it seems like they were trying to do here was get Jones to talk about how the article made him feel, which is admissible.


What if e.g. Joe is now dead, and understanding Joe’s thinking might affect the outcome? Or Joe is the defendant and is now denying what they said then?

Or “Joe said it was his house, which was why I was holding the ladder as I climbed in…”


Hernia. It got him out of a few days of this.


I’m not a criminal lawyer and certainly not one who practises in the US so take with large pile of salt:

If Fred is saying Joe said something where the relevant issue is “Did Joe say x”, then Fred giving evidence that Joe said x is not hearsay. He is giving direct evidence that Joe spoke to him and said x.

If you are trying to prove that x is true, then it is hearsay.

In the UK at least, the mere fact that something is hearsay doesn’t mean it is not potentially relevant evidence. It just needs to be clear that it is hearsay and should therefore be considered differently to direct evidence. In particular it should be borne in mind that there is no opportunity to challenge it as there would be with direct evidence.

So for example if the issue were did Joe believe that he had good legal grounds for doing something but Joe is now dead or otherwise unable to give evidence, then Fred saying that Joe told him he had good grounds would almost certainly be relevant evidence even though it is hearsay. You’d just have to mark it as such.


I didn’t get into it, but there are exceptions that allow hearsay to be admitted. One of those can be death. However, you still can’t just let a witness report what that person said. What you can admit if a witness dies before trial is a statement from a deposition. Not always…it’s complicated, but that can often be done. Also, if a witness can’t testify, but it’s discovered that the reason they can’t is because of something one of the parties in the lawsuit did (scared them off, bribed them, etc), then statements they made can be admitted. There’s other exceptions like excited utterances (I heard Kyle shout “Oh my God, they killed Kenny!” immediately after I heard the gunshot) and a bunch of other things. Hearsay is maybe the most complicated of the rules of evidence.


Hearsay? Or circumstantial evidence?

There are exceptions too…dying declarations are admissible, even if they are given through hearsay. Statements give under oath are generally admissible, even if they are not given in court