Knowledge Fight - #737: Reflections on a Verdict Part 2

Episode Date: October 16, 2022

Today, Dan and Jordan sit down with author and journalist Elizabeth Williamson (Sandy Hook: An American Tragedy and the Battle for Truth) to continue to discuss the verdict in the CT trial, and hear from Elizabeth what it was like to be there in the courtroom.

I'm sick of them posing as if they're the good guys saying we are the bad guys knowledge fight. Dan and George knowledge fight. Need money. Andy and Kansas. Andy and Kansas. Andy and Kansas. Andy and Kansas. Andy and Kansas. Andy and Kansas. Andy and Kansas. Andy and Kansas. Andy and Kansas. Andy and Kansas. You're on the air. Thanks for holding us. Hello Alex and Mr. Penn College. I'm a huge fan and love your work. Knowledge fight.

No, no, no, no, no, knowledgefight.com. I love you. Hey everybody. Welcome back to Knowledge Friend. I'm Dan. I'm Jordan. Workable dudes like to sit around, worship at the altar of Sleen and talk a little bit about Alex Jones. Oh, indeed we are Dan. Jordan.

Jordan. Jordan. Quick question for you. What's up? What's your bright spot today, buddy? My bright spot today is that we remembered to do an intro. That is true. Before you left.

That's supposed to last time. Boy, I felt, I couldn't say words and now I can't hear it. Your intros, when you're by yourself, have a tendency to flounder as time goes on. Get a little heavy. You have a good head of steam as you start and then they start to go a little bit off the rails. It's kind of a wily coyote-ish. There's a bit of that. You don't know when you've run off the cliff. You keep going.

It's kind of amazing. And there's an existential question in the middle of why am I doing this? There is that. Anyway. When you fall, you hold up a sign that says, why am I doing this? So, I'm glad that we remember to do that today. Indeed. What about you?

My bright spot, Dan, it may seem trivial, but it is the parking spot that I got today. There is, so on the street, there is- Don't dox me. I wasn't going to. There is one spot, one that is free. There's no parking meters. It is in between- Don't dox me, man.

You can't park in those places, but there's one perfect spot completely free, right? Always filled, but then every now and again, this is the second time in like three years I've gotten this spot and it brightens your day, man, free parking. That is fantastic. I now have more work to do because I'm going to have to bleep a couple things. It's not specific enough to geo-locate me, but at the same time, I'm still uncomfortable with landmarks. Fair enough.

But as far as parking goes, that could be anywhere in the city. Exactly. It's a real minus. People have a real tough time with it, and I'm glad you landed. It's a little bit like standing in the four corners, you know, where you're like, oh, I'm in any state that I want to be right now, where you're like, this is the freest parking in the entire block. Yeah.

Back when I lived in Uptown, that was the worst because I guess we already doxxed my old place. I lived on Ainsley and that street is so thin and there's people parking on both sides of the street and there's never a spot. It was just so awful. I'd have, anytime anybody came over, they was just like, they would learn, they're like, oh, I have to park a ways away or drive around in a loop for half an hour to find someone leaving.

That was awful. Anybody living near Belmont and Lakeshore is like, you're going to, you might as well park on Addison, my man. Funny story. That was around where I lived before. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah.

A lot of people who would come over would just be tough stuff that you'd learn. Take the fucking red line. Take the red line. Yeah. Yeah. Luckily for us, you also lived in Uptown when I lived in Uptown, so you could just walk over it, which was pretty convenient. Beautiful.

So Jordan, today we have an interview to enjoy, continuing our Sneaky Snake weekend series. The sneaks have snuck again. We have a little conversation with Elizabeth Williamson. She dropped by. Our good friend Elizabeth. Yeah. The trial has concluded, and so we thought, in addition to checking in with the legal end with our friend Mark, why not talk to our friend Liz about what it was like in the

room as she had spent the entire time there for the trial. I think really she, beyond like the judge and the lawyers and the jury, I think Elizabeth has been in there the most. Well, the families. Well, I mean, yes, I'm in the professional capacity. People who weren't part of the trial. Exactly. Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, Sebastian Murdock was down there, but he left after a week or so. Yeah. I mean, even Mark left after a week. Mark had places to be. True. Vegas. Yeah, baby.

So I hope you folks do enjoy, and we'll be back Monday with a non-Sneaky episode. Indeed we will. But hey. Enjoy. Until then. No. No. That's not how we do this.

Exactly. Boy. Hey, folks, we are back again. It's true. Casue's back. Back. Is this how we start things now? This weekend feels empty without me.

That M&M song is 20 years old. Yeah. I know. Sometimes I really think about how many things are 20 years old now, and it's a, it's a real bummer. Yeah. Yeah. We are here having another little sneaky snake this weekend, and we are excited to be joined

by from the, from the New York Times, from Sandy Hook, The Battle for Truth. Yes. An American tragedy. Yes. You got the, you got the, yeah. Also person whose name I remembered fucked up last time. Ladies and gentlemen, Elizabeth Williamson, thank you so much for joining us. It's Erica Williamson.

Damn it. Oh, every time, Dan. I am, I'm used to not being able to get anything. Yeah. That is okay. How are you? I am fine. How are you guys?

I'm a little tired, a little exhausted. It's, I'm sure you're feeling fairly similarly, so I should. Yeah, I am actually, but I'm, I'm happy even though you didn't ask me what's my bright spot. My bright spot is that I'm in Wisconsin at my brother's house. I think a lot of people's bright spot involves with Wisconsin, people who love cheese. Sure. Yes. Booze.

Risk air. Sure. Lots of all colors. Milwaukee's in Wisconsin. That's true. They have that spotted cow. Is that the name of the beer that everyone likes? Yes.

Yes. We've got a refrigerator full of that. My brother wanted a case of it in a bet. Yeah. What was the bet? Right now. Now. Okay.

Was it Alex Jones is going to lose $900 million? Ding, ding, ding. That's a good bet. That's a good bet. Yeah. Especially if it ropes you in some spotted cow. Yeah. That's right.

And I, it's, I'm thinking it's probably a little early for it, but never know. It's creamy. Right. I mean, it has sort of a cream thing to, I'm not trying to argue that it's a morning beer. I have to. I was going to say, are we, are we easing into day drinking this early? It's an excellent breakfast beer.

So you, I got to imagine are exhausted because you've been in Connecticut for the trial the entire time. Right. You, you, it was almost five weeks of, of that. Yeah. I did go home on the weekends, but yeah, I was there for the whole thing. And I wouldn't have been anywhere else because it was really quite something. Yeah.

Yeah. I just, I, I guess that's got to help. I mean, being able to go home on the weekends probably keeps a little bit of sanity, but us being down in Texas for just like two weeks was, it felt like an endurance trial. Yeah. It was excruciating. I, and this trial in particular was, there were so many really moving difficult stories from these family members.

I just, I feel like, I feel like I would collapse. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the families were the ones I really was thinking of because, you know, once in a while, you know, the group would be larger or smaller, but I would say for the most part, the families attended just about every day of the trial and you could really see the toll that it was taking on them. I mean, there were some family members that, you know, every time their child's name, for

example, was mentioned in court, they, you know, they would be very emotional about that. And, and then hearing each other's stories. I mean, they, you know, sometimes there were spouses who, you know, they, they didn't know that what the other one had gone through, you know, they didn't, they hadn't heard that exact story told in that exact way, or they hadn't heard, you know, another relative story themselves. So, you know, you could really see, you know, how much just grief and, you know, and how, how what a revelation some of this was even to them.

And, and they were really there for each other. I mean, they, they all sat together. They all console each other. They all kind of, you know, spent time together. And that was, yeah, that is a really, really interesting thing that I hadn't thought of. And I imagine most people hadn't thought of because, you know, despite our desire to kind of view everybody individually in this case, obviously there is still that element of they're all sitting there with a shared event in their lives.

So you just kind of don't realize that, of course, they wouldn't have just sat down in a group and gone through each individual story to each other. Well, and if you have, even if you're married to somebody or maybe, maybe you're divorced or whatever, but a partner, sometimes in the aftermath of it, like a really terrible grief, sometimes you don't want to relive it, but yeah, or even overburden the other. Oh, totally. Be strong for them. Not, you know, maybe some of the intricacies of what you were going through early come up.

They say a number of them spoke about how they tried to shield the other parent, for example, from what they were hearing or what they were seeing or the attacks that were, you know, coming at them. I'm sure you guys noticed that. Yeah, how could you not? Yeah, yeah. And then the other thing, and I noticed this when I was writing my book, memories are faulty, particularly when people have gone through a big trauma.

They, they, you know, can't remember everything. And this has been, you know, just about a decade. So, you know, I think them working on those recollections and, and then replaying them. You know, there were things that I think they, that some people in the room hadn't, you know, hadn't really remembered, although they may have known it at the time. Right. Yeah. Yeah, you block out a bit.

That's, yeah, the brain will create that safety measure. Much, much like trying to protect your partner. Yeah, exactly. To protect you from. Yeah, yeah, yeah, no, it's really true. So we, we came to the end of the trial last week on Wednesday. I guess the verdict was read on Wednesday. But the actual end of the, the arguments was the week, the end of the week prior.

Right. And so one of the things that I was wondering was how did things feel as time went on and the jury was deliberating? Yeah, so they had a number of questions. And so every time they'd ask a question, you'd try to game, you know, what does that mean? You know, one point they asked to hear the testimony again of William Sherlock, who's White Mary Sherlock was a school psychologist who died at Sandy Hook. And there was this, you know, thought in the room, well, OK, let's think.

His name appears on the bottom of the jury verdict form. So does that mean they're nearing the end? Oh, right. You try and, you know, figure it all out and kind of game through it. To see, well, what does that mean? And one question in particular that the jury asked was this thing where they said, what does it mean? There's this kind of archaic language in the law in these sorts of cases.

And it's what does it, you know, the instructions of the jury is try to put the plaintiff back into the position when you, you know, levy these damages, try to put them back into the position they were before the harm occurred. And, you know, that works for things like, you know, a broken contract. So, you know, you can say, well, here's the income you would have had if that person hadn't broken illegally broken the contract or, you know, a personal injury. You know, you're paying for hospitalization and maybe special care and things like that. But when it comes to defamation and, you know, reputational damage and things like that

and reputational damage to someone who has lost someone in this way, how do you ever get them back to where they started? You know, that's it becomes almost a philosophical question. So, yeah, it's a, you know, it was just, you know, everyone was thinking, what are they thinking when they're asking that question? Are they thinking, you know, no amount of money? Are they thinking any amount of money? You know, how, how, how are they grappling with that?

So, so that was kind of the thing. You know, everybody was wondering, you know, what, what are they, you know, what's going on inside that room where only the six member panel is meeting? Yeah, I remember the one question that stuck with me from them is the one where they asked why was the, why was Lafferty the first name? And obviously it was just, you know, that was the first name. And then at all meant rather than writing out every single name, right? But everybody, everybody went, oh, I know they, they must be thinking that

if the name is first, maybe there was more injury to them. You know, everybody had to have had that same thought, right? Well, I also, I had another takeaway from it and that was, boy, does this show, they are not Googling anything. Yes, exactly. They are sticking to the judge's instructions if they're asking this. Yep, not even the definition of at all. Yeah. No, they were very thorough.

They, they were extremely diligent. You got the sense that, you know, as the judge was noting during the trial, they were showing up early every day. They were taking notes. I mean, they were, they were really into this and, and, you know, they were very engaged and I noticed a lot. You know, there, there would be different testimony and, you know, you, they would be, you know, wiping their tears away, you know,

kind of crying a little bit, kind of when Jones testified, you know, a lot of frowns and a lot of shaking of their heads. And that, you know, was really interesting because after that, Norm Pados told me he thought Jones did well in his testimony. And I was thinking, define well. He's, he's going to pay well. I think I just said, yeah, I just said, that's surprising. You think he did well. That's surprising.

Well, yeah, it could have been $1.2 billion, you know, I think he took 300 million off. You know, it's relative. It's relative. I think when you're someone like Norm, you have to play by pro wrestling rules where you don't break kayfabe, like even backstage, you're still in character. You know, there's still a like doing pretty well out there. Yeah. Yeah. When he goes home and it's all it's just him and his wife.

He takes the he takes the wig off. He doesn't actually have a ponytail. He's completely bald. You know, he removes the makeup. I mean, it's it's tough, but he's the he's the only one who gets to see the real him. Yeah. Yeah. He definitely has his shtick down. I mean, when I first started researching via what was happening here for the book, I went to see him at his offices in New Haven.

And it's in, you know, his offices are in an old Victorian house. And he has in what had been the dining room, just the walls are lined with books. And he said his wife has an antiquarian bookstore. And he and he said, wait, wait, you mentioned the antiquarian bookstore on the last episode, do we talk? You didn't mention it was there was one. Yeah, it was Norm's wife. No, no, make no mistake.

Let's start anything here. OK, different books started. Yep. No, her antiquarian bookstore is someplace else. I think it's in an old barn somewhere. I just I can't believe that there are two antiquarian bookstores that are coming up. Yes, it's amazing. So that's amazing. Yeah. Yeah. Well, it gets weirder because he said.

So he shows me these two very or no, three very interesting antique books and and he said, and look at this one. And when, you know, and it was and one of them, as I recall, was like one of those flip books, you know, where you get a moving picture when you flip the pages. Yeah. And not the same type of antique books that I was thinking of. Right. I'm thinking more like, oh, this is a first edition Robinson Crusoe. Not like this this book is from the 70s.

That was a first edition of no, they were all they were very, very old. No, they were. But but so, you know, three. And it was kind of like, let me dig out some really interesting finds for you. So he comes up with these three books and and, you know, from his opening arguments, Norm prides himself on how well read he is. I think he he cited, you know, the great philosophers and. All the way down to Shoshana Zuboff in his opening remarks. So and he he was talking about her book

as well when, you know, not only during his opening remarks, but, you know, back in 2019, when I first visited with him. But anyway, so he shows me these three books and I thought, oh, that's really interesting. And then a couple of months go by and I read a profile of him in Connecticut magazine and the reporter comes in and he says, oh, let me show you my library. Look at these three interesting books. And three books. Oh, that that's got to be a little bit disappointing.

Yeah. Yeah. You know, he's got a stick. You know, he's he's sort of the, you know, he always says the same thing. You know, hey, I'm in a kind of class. I'm a, you know, name your age. Now he's I think 67, but at the time it was I'm a 64 year old with a ponytail. I'm a 65 year old with a ponytail. I'm a 67 year old with a ponytail. I'm I'm an iconic class. I like, you know, offbeat clients.

Yeah, there's there's the there's the analog of that in the comedy world, which is the the comic who has to come out wearing the same shirt because they have a joke about the shirt. You know, they have to every show they do. They have to do the same shirt joke. And it gets so sad. Yeah, it gets so sad. Oh, Norm. He's got the same book joke.

Yep. So I mean, what three books are what what three books does he think is going to impress everybody? And why? Yeah, I mean, Alex Jones is the great reset. Great reset. Going back to the great reset. Lyndon LaRouche. Clash Bob's The Great Reset. All three books titled The Great Reset.

The Star Wars trilogy, his podcast, where he interviews Alex Jones. No, no, absolutely not. Oh, my. Was that new? No, it's I want to say it's probably a year old. I knew the norm did some broadcasting, but I I've heard him on Alex's show a number of times and I've not found him to be a compelling figure. Yeah, the the upshot of it is, wow, Alex,

here I am, Norm, incredibly well read, Norm. Very familiar with the great philosophers. And how did I miss you? It is just really amazing. It's like you are one of the, you know, the you are one of the greats when it comes to prophecy. Oh, boy. And then Alex quotes a comic book.

Yeah. As as Uncle Benjamin used to say, with great Alex comes great Alex ability. So I think you call that client management. That's true. I guess you spend babysitting any time around Alex. You realize a little bit of flattery probably like is how you get anything done. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. What do you want to order for pizza?

I don't know. I mean, you look great today. Let's go with pepperoni and cheese. Like, OK, fine, man. No, what it's it's what it's really a choice. No, it's so smart. Yeah. So I I'm particularly interested in as those questions were coming in and like as the deliberation went on, what was the what was the flavor of tension in the courtroom?

As best as you can describe it. Like because I know that for us from far away, there was a bit of confusion. A bit of like, is it going to be today? Even on Wednesday, it was like the end of the day. Wednesday. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think by the end of Wednesday, especially after they heard William Sherlock's testimony again,

and then they they took a recess, they went back to deliberate, then there was lunch. And then they came out and they said, can we have a new copy of the verdict form because we wrote the wrong number on a line? And I was sitting in the back row with Dan Reed, the documentarian who's been recording this trial and others. And we both looked at each other, you know, eyebrows raised. Does it mean they're almost at the end, you know? Or does it mean, you know, they're still kind of making their way and no one knew.

But I was starting to by the end of the day on Wednesday, really kind of lose hope that they were going to arrive at a verdict that week. I don't know why. I just felt like they were, you know, I started like it wasn't Wednesday. It was going to be next Wednesday or maybe never go over the weekend. Yeah. I just felt like, oh, and then, you know, speaking of norm, he started to say, I've got another, you know, I've got another gig, basically. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's a stand up.

Yeah. Like I need to, you know, I need to postpone this a little bit because I have to go be in New York City and I I can't monitor this case. And I don't trust anyone else to monitor this case or these deliberations. So I can't be in two places at once. Norm got booked to do a check spot at the stand. Just norm got a terrible stand up gig. Yeah. It's it's funny. It's funny. I remember whenever he broke into the conversation with the judge

and just all of a sudden was like, hey, listen, I can't be here until two on Thursday. That's as good as I can do. And everybody just went, what are we? What just happened? What are you doing? I yeah, I think I think my jaw literally dropped when he said that. I thought, wow, everyone was taken aback. I'm booked to be on Rogan. Exactly. It was it was like a double book.

Sorry about this one. It really was odd. And and the judge tried to look at him and said, Gacy. Yeah. Why don't we just cross that bridge when we get to it? Norm. So yeah, that she didn't call him, Norm. She's very formal. She she. Yeah, that would have been against a quorum. But yeah.

So that so then we were thinking by the end of the day on Wednesday, now we're looking at a really truncated day on Thursday. Sure. And then what's going to happen? Then we're at Friday. So and then you were also thinking about there were all these other things going on, you know, you had a lot of news that was starting to pile up at the end of the week, like the January 6th hearing on Thursday night. And I was just starting to think about, you know,

are you going to be in Connecticut for the rest of your life like a Twilight Zone situation? You know, you can't escape the restaurants. You're William Shatner like it's a whole thing. I get you. Yeah, I was sort of Groundhog Day in that in the hotel where which was just walking distance from the courtroom where pretty much everybody was staying. So yeah. So anyway, so they surprised us in the end, you know, they they

when they asked for a new verdict form, it was because they really were at the very end and they they were writing everything in. So what was what was your feel when the first number was read? I I was like, you know, that is a lot. Because I noticed a couple people were were speculating on Twitter. They were saying, OK, Price is right rules. You let's all guess what's the verdict going to be.

Can't go over, you know, and so people people were saying, you know, three three fifty three twenty five. And I was thinking that sounds ambitious. But given the number of plaintiffs, I don't know, maybe. Yeah, right. When Robbie Parker got 120 and you still had 14 plaintiffs to go, you were thinking, wow, this is going to be historic. And I have to imagine that was palpable.

Yeah, the room that feeling after Robbie's verdict. It was absolutely silent in the room. And, you know, I mean, it it wasn't it was just sort of stunning how quiet it was. And, you know, people were just listening to the numbers. And all you could hear were, you know, people like myself typing these numbers in and, you know, trying to keep track of them. And then I was typing in and in New York, they were adding

and re-adding just to make sure everything was accurate. And, you know, you started to see these sort of exclamations of, whoa. And, oh, my God, the the moments, the moments I think they showed the judgment they immediately cut to Robbie. And it was it was you saw him put his head in his hands like very slowly and just keep it there. And it was very much like I could feel and see that thought of of fucking we did it. You know, like it was it was such a feeling of I mean, I imagine

you could have reached out and held victory in the air. Like it was that kind of intensity there. Yeah, yeah, it was really incredible. It was. Yeah, I think nobody knew what to say. It was just I mean. I just looked over at this. Probably again, it was like Holy smokes, you know. But which came out like a different word.

But anyway, yeah, it was. It really was. It was really jaw dropping. It was incredible. So and not to not to dwell on any like shot and Freud or anything. But how was how was Norm feeling? Could you could you get a sense of his vibe as this was I did look over. Oh, of course you did.

Yeah, he was staring straight ahead. He did not look at the lawyers. He did not turn around, you know, I mean, and then one of the things he was doing in the courtroom prior to that was he was kind of like making nice to people in the room, you know, at one point, you know, Robbie Parker during one of the recesses was leaving the room and and Norm was following him out the door and kind of like patted him on the back. And another point, Pat Lodra, who attended many days of the trial,

she was the former first selectman in Newtown when the shooting occurred with the equivalent of mayor and. You know, went up to her and said, oh, nothing personal kind of thing. Yeah, it's all in the game. Yeah, and that is very much Norm's vibe, especially in the courtroom. He was just like, I'm a gladiator in here. I'm fighting for my client. And then at the end of it, he's like, hey, man, it's it's fun to be in the

in the pit with you, right? Yeah, let's go have a beer. And you're like, no, you're a monster, dude. I don't know what to tell you. Well, in a case like this, it's really hard to sort of break character like that. You know, it just I'm not sure that that is something that people were buying. I mean, I won't speak for Pat Lodra or anyone like that. But well, like I think everybody obviously deserves a defense, even if you're an awful person.

And I don't think it makes you any less reputable of a lawyer if you take those cases. But I also don't think that you need to at multiple points during the case suggest that these grieving families are exaggerating their pain. Yeah, I think that there might be another way to go about defending Alex that doesn't involve something that distasteful. It really does require like, I mean, if you are in a vacuum trying to think up defense strategies, I can understand why this would go up on the whiteboard, you know. But once it's up there, you should be like, and this is an inhuman thing to do now

that we should not do, we can scratch this one off. But when you're brainstorming, you're like, oh, this could happen. You know, this is a strategy session or something like that. But when you behave the way Norm did and right now, you know, it's not that they defended Alex that was the reason they were bad. It's the way they did it that was so disrespectful. Well, but here's where, you know, as you guys know, better than anybody. This is where, you know, you have to consider who's the client.

And as Reynald told me during the trial in Austin, Alex calls all the shots. Because I said, will he be testifying? And he said, it's up to Alex. And then he goes, everything is up to Alex. And so what they were putting on was like twice that Alex wanted. Yeah. So, you know, in a normal client relationship, you would you would as as you guys were just saying, you know, you'd say, no, let's cross that one off. We're not going to be accusing the families of anything.

You know, that's what got us into this mess. And that's how we're going to end up paying a billion dollars. Yeah. But, you know, he person after person in these trials has testified. Alex calls all the shots. Alex runs the show. The show runs on Alex. There would be no info wars if not for Alex. Alex makes all the decisions.

Alex said to do that. Alex checked on this. Alex wanted that. So that, that was the defense that he wanted. And so he got the judgment that that kind of defense produces. Mm hmm. Yeah. Yep.

And not effective. No. No. Not effective. Oh, not effective. I think what's fascinating about it and tell and say, I'm done apologizing to families that were still weeping because they had just watched Robbie's entire tribute to his daughter the night after the shooting on video.

You know, to, to sort of say, to not sort of say, to literally say, I'm done apologizing is, you know, not strategic, put it that way. No. And, and saying the courtroom is a struggle session. It just doesn't play very well. Yeah. And, and Norm echoed that comment, which surprised me. Yeah. So, you know, audience of one, you know, a lot of the things he said in the courtroom,

I felt like, OK, he knows Alex is watching the live feed. He's performing for the audience of one. Well, I mean, he just apparently lost his radio show. So he might be coming on Info Wars roster. He's got after the war room, there's the norm room. That's the way it's going to go. Yeah. He and Robert Barnes could do a show together. They absolutely hate each other.

So well, they couldn't do a show together because neither of them has the. Charisma. Yeah. So I feel like since we have you here, there are two things that come up that the audience probably has questions about the first is the judge's shoes. Oh, yes. There are some questions that the people have about that. Right. OK. Are there.

I don't know. Are there are there are there questions about the judge's shoes? The judge, you're tweeting about the judge's shoes. I was. Elizabeth, you were tweeting about the judge's shoes. What was going on with the judge's shoes? I confess. What was going on with the judge's shoes? This is not an inquisition.

OK, it's true. I tweeted about her shoes. Yes. No, she she has a great collection of shoes. And I think, you know, as a couple of people pointed out when you're wearing, you know, long flowing black judges robes, there's not a lot to. I mean, Ruth Bader Ginsburg distinguished herself by wearing those lace collars that made you know, that became so iconic. And I think Judge Bellis, you know, kind of did that by wearing a lot of really

interesting shoes. So you got to give your own personality a little bit when you have something uniform, so much like a black robe. Right. Right. Yeah, I have something for you. Shouldn't that at some point, though, penetrate your mind to how stupid the fucking robe is? If you're like, ah, see, I'm getting around the whole respectful judge

thing by wearing flashy shoes, then just wear a fucking. What are we doing? This is one of your longstanding things about uniform. I hate uniform so. Oh, I see. And judge. So arbitrarily, bullshit. I go, oh, you can't wear shorts, but I wear a big move. Fuck off. I hate it.

I think that my problem with it is they go halfway because like in like, you know, the Commonwealth countries, let's say you got to wear the wig, man. Exactly. You got to wear the wig. If you're going to wear it, if you're going to wear the robe, then you got to wear the wig. Otherwise, you're fake. Yeah. Otherwise, you're faking it. Yeah. Well, I feel like I regret bringing up the shoes.

Honestly, well, I'm very intense enough. So her shoes were always really interesting. You know, usually they're usually primarily black, but they were kind of high heels. And, you know, one point, black and white, sort of, you know, what what the you might call spectator pumps and some really interesting, you know, really nice looking shoes. I was just noticing.

I'm kind of I am a shoe person. I was noticing that. And then on verdict day, it was almost as if she knew because she was wearing these zebra striped shoes with a red bow and a vivid red heel. Do not. Do not suggest that she may already have known in advance. You are. It was signaling via shoes.

Please do not do that in our world. Speaking of it, I know you're right. You're right. Of course, didn't know anything about the verdict, but but it was it just happened to be the most plamboyant shoe day. Can. Can the judge see Twitter? Like they the judge can like Google.

Yeah, that's legal for them to know things. So she probably knew that you had an interest in her shoes. She had to. Maybe that might have been for you. Yeah, it might have been for your benefit. We are talking about a lot of audiences of one today. That feels like an honor. Your honor, it's an honor. Your honor, your shoes are honorable.

Yeah. Thank you for honoring me with these shoes. These shoes are righteous. And then I guess the the second thing, and I apologize if this is bringing up something that's that's a sore subject. But there was a little bit of controversy with a tweet that you put out. Yes. About form. And I feel like if I didn't bring this up, it would feel like I was not bringing it up on purpose.

Like you're protecting me. Right. And I feel like, you know, it's it's a pretty simple explanation. And I guess do you want to like lay out what happened from your perspective? Sure. Absolutely. So on the day after Alex Jones testified, I, you know, Norm got up and he was his testimony was supposed to continue the next day. So Norm would have, you know, had a chance to examine, you know, his own client, his the defendant, and he declined.

And he said, so we will assume, given what we said earlier about Alex calling all the shots, so Alex didn't want to testify a second day. Can't fault him. So so Norm said, I think, you know, it's probably best instead. I am. And also, I think strategically, there are some lawyers who are commenting on Twitter who are more knowledgeable, you know, on the on the legal strategy. And and they were saying it's favorable to his client if Norm would decline to do the cross like that and instead call his own client as the defense witness.

So he reserved the right to do that. They made a deal with the family's lawyers where they would have the right to cross if he if Norm called him and he came back. And so Norm said, he's not going to testify today. He's going to come back next week and I will call him as a witness. And this is agreeable to the family's lawyers. And then they will have another crack at him, basically. And he and what he said was that'll lower the temperature in the room.

You know, I think it will be better. So I interpreted that and having seen the juror's reactions to Jones's testimony the day prior, I interpreted that as, you know, Norm says he's his client has damaged himself so much that you might want to give the jury a break, something to that effect. Which I think is if that's a reading of lower the temperature. Yeah. Yeah.

What was the temperature? Hi. Yeah. Who raised the temperature? It wasn't the jury temperature, you know, that sort of says things didn't go so well yesterday. Let's calm down and I'll bring it back next week. But what my error was, I said that he said that, you know, the way I worded the tweet, I if it were my interpretation, that would have been one thing that would have been fine, right?

But but I said something to the effect of he says, you know. So I think it's after the recess. It's right on that cusp, though, because you didn't use quotation marks. So, you know, no, it wasn't like a direct quoting of him. But yeah, the word said was in there, which says or, you know, is saying or something like that. So that makes it sound like, you know, that was what he told the judge when he did not. So after the recess, he came back.

It was clear that, you know, Jones had seen this, called it to his attention or someone at Info Wars, but maybe Jones. And so he came back and he was just really angry. And he was saying, I don't know why, you know, Elizabeth Williamson of the New York Times is covering this. She's written a book about this. And, you know, she shouldn't be in the courtroom. And she how anyone could have interpreted what I said as he's damaged

and the judge cut him off. And she was like, we're not doing this here. That's not what this trial is about. You know, I've already told you, you know, stop talking over me, something like that. And and so he tried again and she stopped him. And then that was that. And I thought, oh, if he's calling me out for something, I better see what the problem is, you know.

So I followed him out of the courtroom. And when we got in the hallway, I turned on my recorder on my phone because I wanted to hear what he had to say. And he was like, I'm not talking to you. And I said, well, are you talking? So you just wanted to say that in front of the, you know, so my alternative to think if you have a problem with something I've written, I want to hear you out.

Or are you just saying that for the judge and for the cameras? And he was like, he went into this big thing. So we got into the elevator. He had all of his files and his briefcase was really stuffed full of paper. And that was that was a joke notebook. Yeah, the whole thing exploded in the elevator. And the papers and files and I said, do you need a hand? And he was like, not from you.

And, you know, he was he was basically telling me like boy. Yeah, he was like, you shouldn't be here. You shouldn't be covering this. I said, well, I think I know a lot about this case. And and he and then he kind of, you know, I was like, what is the problem? And he finally did, you know, I'm following him out onto the street. He finally got to the point where he said, the problem is you said that I said that he damaged himself.

And I said, I didn't say that. And he said, no, you did go back and look. I said, I will go back and look. And if if I did say that, I will correct it because that's just responsible. And and he said, I would appreciate it. And then he said because people are thinking that I think the upshot was people are thinking that I told you that,

you know, and and that I'm in bed with the New York Times, meaning like I'm embedded with, you know, the paper in other words, like conspiring. Yeah, that he yeah. So so there's, you know, you can imagine Jones, you know, seeing this or someone in on his in staff, seeing this and saying, is Norm Patis talking to the New York Times and telling them that? See, that was what I got weird because it's not like Alex to be paranoid. Yeah, that would be a not thing for him to do.

Usually he's pretty chill. Very young character. I I assume that Norm did not immediately immediately get struck by an irony bolt, right? Like no God struck him down for his whining about somebody slightly misquoting him. Maybe if you look at it the wrong way, like he does realize what he's in court for, right? Yeah, I mean, but my job as a reporter was just if I mischaracterized,

you know, or if I if I said he said that and he did not, then it's my job to repeat to correct that. So I respect that. However, I also think I also think if you just said turn about his fair play, he might have been like, ah, to Shay, and then you guys could have just moved on, you know? Well, yeah, but then I wouldn't have been doing my job. So I just said, you know, if it's wrong, I'll correct it.

I'll go back and look at it. So I went back and looked at it and I did say says so I fixed it. I took it down and then I provided an explanation. And of course, that became material for info wars. And, you know, a reporter lied after, you know, she lied and was caught in a lie. And, you know, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Tell them that they can try and come after you for a billion dollars. Good luck.

It's always really unfortunate that, you know, the real world plays by, you know, the semi to fully responsible rules where this is something that you obviously feel the obligation to and the professional responsibility to make a clarification and correction. And then for people like Alex and his fans, this becomes proof of like some kind of an intentional lie. And it's just I mean, I saw some of the responses to your clarification tweet. And it was not good.

Yeah, you were you were kind of hosed to the moment that tweet came out. It wouldn't have mattered what you whether you took it down or apologized or explained it or whatever it was going to be on the show. You know, like the moment the tweet happened, you were you were there. You know, so your clarification is really for the audience of, I guess, your employer more than it is for norm. They don't care. And for your soul. Yeah, your soul is probably pretty important.

Yeah, I mean, we are, you know, this is a trial about truth and reality. And so, you know, it's always helpful to he was closely to those as you can. So, you know, because he did not say that, I thought, OK, fair. I'm going to change it. So, yeah, so that I knew, you know, of course, this would be material for them that, you know, this would be a chance for them to, you know, take a whack and, you know, that's what they do. So unfortunate that this is like the angle they take on in fours,

not that you flushed half a doughnut. Yeah. You know, like this is right. This is what Alex should be yelling about. I think that doughnut went under the radar. Don't you? Yeah, I think so. I think you lucked out on that. The thing, too, is like, you know, we have for you, this is probably like as chaotic or as much drama as there is surrounding

the case. Yeah. And you compare that to Alex's performance on the stand or falling asleep, norm saying that the families are exaggerating their grief. Yeah, I think the balance here is pretty clear. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, and the that was the other thing in that conversation, you know, writing down the elevator and all that, you know, talking to Norm. He said, you said I fell asleep as if that was some big scoop.

I said, I just said you fell asleep. And and he said, I was not sleeping. He said, I was I was saying I was signaling that we had spent enough time on Gilligan's Island. That was when Chris Matty, the the attorney for the families, was questioning the Brittany Paz, the Infowars Corporate Representative. And and he said he was sending a signal that we had spent too much time. I said, you know, Norm, you were sleeping.

It was on video and and he was insisting that it wasn't. And he told me to get my head out of my own, you know, yeah. So it was it was an elaborate signal. It was very subtle and yet complicated if that was what he was trying to signal. But I respect people who take unconventional messaging approach. Yeah. Yeah. Well, he was already reprimanded for not standing up when he approached the judge or asked the judge a question.

So he figured if I'm going to stay down, I might as well lay down. Sure. You know what I'm saying? Some of the objections that he would make from his seat, it was almost like he it was like you picture someone like on a chaise long with a cigarette, you know, like. Objection, you're on there. Objection. Come on. It's making love. She was like, get on your feet. Yeah, that was that was an objection when that was she should have loaned him

a pair of shoes that would have gotten him up when that was kind of like where things were like right at the beginning that like you need to stand up if you're going to speak to the court. Yeah, I was like, this is going to be this is going to be an interesting stretch of time. Yeah, I think one of the one of the things I noticed was that Norm spoke progressively less as the weeks went on. Sure. You could you could really kind of. Yeah, you could really kind of measure it.

That first week he did as much as he could do the second week. He pulled back and by the third week, he was like, I'm not going to cross examine anybody. I'm just going to say go for it, you know. Yeah, yeah, I I I was a little surprised at that because some of his, you know, messaging to the media in, you know, the years leading up to the trial was sort of, well, these families think that they'll they'll, you know, that they won't be examined themselves. Well, they will be.

And, you know, he had a lot of well, we know he had a lot of their personal records and health records and things like that. And the reason we know that is, of course, they were wrongly transmitted to the attorneys in Texas. And, you know, he had to come up for a hearing on that because that shouldn't have been done. So, you know, but once the families were on the stand and testifying as to what they'd been through, he had very little to say. He he didn't, you know, Robbie Parker and what Robbie is endured in this case

or over the years from Alex Jones, where he played that, you know, opening a few seconds of Robbie Parker's press conference the night after his daughter, Emily, was killed at Sandy Hook. Over and over and over again for years. So Robbie was really at the center of this case. And Alyssa Parker, Emily's mom also testified. And she's not a plaintiff, but the two of them just portrayed, you know, just painted this nightmare of, you know,

torment and death threats and people knowing where they lived and a man confronting Robbie, you know, four years after the shooting on the street in Seattle and all of these things. And Norm did have, did not have a single question for either one of them, which was really pretty surprising. But then again, this is testimony so powerful that you wonder really what is there to say. You can only kind of make it worse for yourself, I think. I think that his crossing that he did do with a couple of the plaintiffs

was just about like, you have a charity suspicious. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I think that there was a there was a couple attempts at that with some of the first few folks. And then I think it's just like this isn't defective. No, maybe like, let's just not even do anything. I think they I think Norm really tried at the beginning to hammer that like, oh, these guys are just going out for money.

The lawyers are ambulance chasers. And then it's the stories. Yeah, you know, subtly trying to inject politics. And that was against the rules. The judge had said, you cannot talk about electoral politics. You can't talk about political figures. You can't discuss Jones's finances because we remember in in in Austin in August, you know, he tried to say wrongly that he was bankrupt

and that two million would be more than he could, you know, just about all or more than he could handle in terms of a verdict. You know, so on and so on. So all of that was sort of off the table. But, you know, lawyers try to, you know, get around that and to in defend, you know, in presenting their cases. And so, you know, a couple of times in mentioning some of the family's charities, you know, he was talking about, well, isn't basically isn't this about gun violence?

Isn't this about gun control and isn't this about politics? You know, that didn't you? Well, he mentioned this when the Wheeler's testified because Francine Wheeler about can't remember how long after the shooting, a month or two after the shooting, delivered President Obama's radio address on a Saturday. And this was when the families were pushing for expanded background checks. And that legislation wound up failing.

But as part of that effort, she delivered the radio address and Norm brought that up. So it's a way to get both guns and politics, you know, back into the jury's minds. And I think the calculus there may have been that there would have been some people on the jury who might have been sympathetic to that argument that, OK, so this was there was a political aspect here or something like that. But I think as these stories mounted and as, you know, just the sort of horror of what some of these people had endured became more and more apparent.

I think, you know, Norm wisely decided that this wouldn't be worth it. That, you know, trying to say, oh, well, you voted for Hillary Clinton is not going to cut it when you have jurors weeping at the idea that, you know, people who had just lost their loved ones were getting death threats, rape threats, people threatening to dig up their murdered children. And, you know, talking about defiling their graves, you know, saying, oh, wasn't this all about gun control? Just sort of hails as an argument.

Yeah. Yeah. And I think that, you know, whatever you can inject into that is kind of useless once the understanding of the damage being the like sort of making it so you can't properly grieve and reopening wounds over and over and over and over and over again. The notion of, you know, political ideas while distracting. Right. Probably not that helpful. Yeah. No. Yeah. It was just it was just too powerful and too awful, you know, that just to hear that day after day.

What, you know, what these poor people had gone through. And and the kind of like just, you know, the jury was watching them in the courtroom day after day, you know, just stoic and pulled together and consoling each other. And it was extremely powerful. And I think that's another reason that Alex Jones didn't return to the courtroom because we saw what happened when Scarlett Lewis, through an accident of timing, wound up, you know, confronting him. And for 90 minutes addressing the answer to every question directly

at Alex Jones and asking him, you know, why are you doing this? And truth is so important to our society. Truth is the bedrock on which our democracy rests. You say you're concerned about the country and you're spreading things like this, what what's wrong with you, basically. And I think at all costs, I mean, having watched him literally sweat through his shirt while she was talking to him. I think the idea of sitting in front of 15 plaintiffs,

just I don't think he can do it. I really don't. I think he was afraid. I mean, we've talked about this a bit. I can't blame him. Yeah, no, absolutely. Like, if you look at it from his perspective, if there's a choice to not have to do that, it would seem like it would be like almost like like psyche crushing.

It is. It is a little bit like if Alex is directing the defense strategy inexplicably by himself and somehow at the same time recognizes that him being on the stand is a bad thing for him. Yeah, he doesn't realize that those two are essentially the same thing. They're essentially the same problem. Him being on the stand would be him defending himself in the exact same way as him creating this defense running the defenses. Exactly. Yeah.

Every part of this is bad for him, but he didn't get that somehow. Yeah. So there was something I wanted to ask you guys about because you are Alex Jones experts. I do not own any spectator pumps. Zero. I'll talk about that later. But so I really wanted to. So one of the things that Chris Matty, one of the lawyers for the families mentioned was and I just found myself actually even in the moment.

It's like, I wonder what Dan and Jordan would think about this. He was saying that one of the reasons that he thinks Jones didn't testify more is that it's really important to him to be on the outside, calling this all a sham because he thinks that the more time he would have spent in the courtroom. And I don't want to I don't want to misstate what his message. But I think this was, you know, pretty close to what he was saying. Any as close as he got to this, if he got close to this process,

that it would sort of expose him as this guy who's just a huckster and selling products and doing it, you know, on the backs of these people and lying about this and having to acknowledge that he had been lying about this for years, that that would damage him with his audience. And I and I said to Chris at the time. I don't know because his audience seems to sort of accommodate a lot of what he says or changes in, you know, changes in his story or whatever.

Yeah, I'm closer to your side, for sure. I think I think that. The audience is trapped, I think, for the most part, and they can rationalize quite a bit that that that happens. And, you know, all it takes if Alex has a bad day is to say it was a good day and have Barnes come on and they can talk for an hour about how everything is unfair. And if only he could defend himself and if only he could say the name

Trump and Hillary, then everything would be fine. Right. Like, I think that I think that what Matty is saying makes sense. And to to the outside world, I think he would be exposed as a as a liar and a con man and all this. But that that audience, they have so many opportunities to realize this outside of a courtroom. I have said there's no bottom far too many times for me to pull back on that now. You know, like there is no bottom, no matter what he does.

Well, like when he did, when he was testifying, he was talking about his Bitcoin thing. And Matty said, you're going to use this in a commercial. And then Alex did use it in a commercial. Right. And the audience, like, probably using Matty's voice victory. Yeah, they were like, this is the smartest dude that's ever lived. Yeah, I don't think you can get much more like trying to profit off the trial. Yeah. Or when Alex was in front of the courthouse,

he had his book in his hand like when he was interviewing with like local news outlets. Like, yeah, now he's flown back to Connecticut, doesn't testify. Instead does these press conferences where he's clearly trying to put product placement for his book on the local news. And it's like if the audience can't see through a lot of that stuff, I don't know what hope there is for anything or as he's like walking away and he's going in for wars, you know, giving and I won't do it here. Giving the URL.

Yeah, I would I mean, I would say if Chris had just said, you know, the more time he's in the court, the less time he's selling, I think that would make more sense to me than anything else. Right. When he's in the court, he's not moving product. Well, he might be moving some, but it'll be less effective. It'll be less effective if Owen is pointing out, hey, look, there's Alex in the courtroom. Boy, it sounds bad. Yeah. Oh, no, no, it sounds good.

Yeah. Oh, no, no, no, no, that sounds good for sure. And here's Barnes to talk about it. Um, yeah. So yeah. So it sounds like, yeah, that that was a sort of debunking argument that, you know, something that Lenny Posner, who really began this whole effort to call Alex Jones to account, you know, learned early on that debunking doesn't really work. And so the idea of like exposing

Oh, Alex Jones will be exposed as, you know, a person who lies and sells products on the back of tragedy, et cetera. It's sort of, in a way, reminded me of, you know, how difficult it is to talk someone out of a conspiracy theory that they have already fully embraced that, you know, his audience is, as you said, Dan, you know, captive. They they they're in. So they have their choices to accommodate, but to repudiate him. I think I don't know what that would take.

Well, and I think that so many of the people, obviously, we've heard much more explicit stories about this as it relates to QAnon. But like a lot of the people in the audience are financially in the hole because of Alex, not maybe not like in debt, but they've spent a lot of money. They're committed in that way. It would feel dumb if they realize, oh, I've been scammed for all this. Yeah. Or they've alienated family members, loved ones. Isolated themselves and insulated in a bubble of people who are

the amenable to Alex Jones conspiracies and parading and reinforcing it back and back to them. Yeah, there's a lot of investment, emotional and financial that they've taken on to to believe this stuff. And I think that Alex always talks about the the Nigerian email scam. Yes. Because I think he got tricked by it. That he definitely didn't get tricked by multiple times. But he says he has met multiple friends who have fallen for it. And like you fall for the first email and then you fall for the second

because you don't want to admit that the first was a fraud. Yeah. And I think that there's some dynamic of that with his audience. And I don't know. I don't know if a courtroom is going to penetrate that. Yeah, because that's the reality world and that's not where they are living. It can be super effective, though, in helping people not fall into Alex's sphere, though, that could be an effect you'd have. It could have like a ironically vaccination effect. Yeah. Well, I mean, it's a little bit like no matter how many times I prove

the earth is more than 10,000 years old, I'm not going to convince a lot of people, you know, one. Yeah. So before we before we wrap up, I wanted to ask about the feelings and like how things sit. I mean, obviously, I don't want to be I don't want to ask you like what did the families say or any share? But this process is over, but it's also not over. Yeah. You know, and that that's got to feel like cathartic.

But at the same time, there's still a road to travel. There's still the looming notion of appeals. There's still, you know, I mean, I don't think an appeal is going to work. But if there is an appeal, there may be another trial that might have to retry. How like, do you do you have any sense of the feeling of like? I don't even know what I'm trying to you. You won you won Gettysburg, but the Civil War is not over yet. You know, like, how are you feeling about that process moving forward?

Yeah. So without, you know, betraying any individual confidences, I think just. And, you know, and I, you know, I don't like to speak for the families as a group, because that's just not right. Sure. Yeah. But what I yeah, what I from what I gathered, first of all, a gigantic exhale in the room, you know, just a sense of. Wow. You know, we we kind of took back our story. You know, we we we were able to tell the world what happened.

We were able to explain by explaining what happened. We were able to explain the dangers here of this sort of culture of disinformation and lies for profit. And, you know, and explain that this is a phenomenon that's not confined to Alex Jones and has really in the decades since Sandy Hook occurred again and again. And, you know, he himself, and this was a point I made in the story I wrote about the verdict, you know, he has been a part of most of the highest profile viral lies over the decades since Sandy Hook, you know, whether you're

talking about Petergate or, you know, coronavirus myths and anti-vax stuff. And, you know, the great replacement theory that drove the violence in Charlottesville and certainly the 2020 election conspiracy theories that led to the violence at the Capitol on January 6th. So, you know, I think that their sense was by speaking about what happened to them and how this all got started and how long it's lasted. They were speaking to that and, you know, and really trying to help, you know, claiming, you know, not only claiming their, you know, their story and saying,

you know, this is that as Robbie put it, you know, in the press conference afterward, you know, he found his voice. He was silent about this for so long because he didn't want the abuse to get worse. He was really worried about the safety of his family. And, you know, he finally got to a point when he saw that, you know, Parkland parents were receiving the same kind of abuse and that just horrible statistic that today nearly 20 percent of Americans believe that every high profile mass shooting is a plot by the government and it's fake.

You know, they were able to sort of say, hey, this is something really serious that is not only impacting us. This is not a one off. This we were the, you know, a foundational story in what is now a phenomenon. And the fact that they were able to raise that, I think, was was really satisfying to them and and we owe them our gratitude for that because as you could see from watching the proceedings, it did not come easily for them to, you know, it was extremely painful for them to to, you know,

raise that alarm and and, you know, and relay and and recall what had happened. Yeah. So yeah. So I think in that sense, you know, and again, sticking with what Robbie was saying afterward, you know, that they stood, they sat there. They went through it. They told the truth and everybody on that stand. And this is these are Robbie's words, not mine. Everybody on that stand told the truth, except for one person.

And, you know, and I think that that too. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. OK. Yeah. I think about her. I think what's what I find correct Robbie Parker. But yeah, what I find what I find so interesting about this is that it is, you know, like when Mark Bankston and we talked a couple of days ago and we were all talking about how

we were worried about how the judgment would go. We were worried what the the verdict was going to be, whether or not it was going to send a message or whatever. But by doing this, the trial itself to me kind of reinforces just how bad Alex is without allowing Alex to poison people's minds with all of the other shit, with all the politics and the emotional bullshit, all the things that can get them angry and distract them. Without that, there is no misinformation, a reasonable group of people.

And, you know, there were Republicans on the jury. The reasonable group of people will look at that shit and go, that is a monster. It is only by Alex Jones's ability to inject those things that we get to where Alex Jones is in trial. You know what I'm saying? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It was kind of like, hey, this is how bad it can get. Yeah. And the other thing, too, that I mean, that I was thinking about while you were discussing this, Liz, is that like for each one of these parents,

like there are a hundred, a thousand stories that we haven't heard of people who were hurt by these these misinformation things. You know, whether it's somebody who lost a loved one because they refused to get vaccinated or wasn't careful at all with covid. Yeah. You know, there's there's so many stories that end up going never heard. Yeah. And it's great that that this allows that story to be told in a large setting where it's, you know, people will hear it. Yeah. And that judgment, that judgment is so huge.

You know, when you talk about setting a precedent, the largest judgment in American history by a factor of 10, that's that's a 56 game hitting streak level of you're not going to break that record for a long, long time. Yeah. Yeah. It's it really is it sort of like launched it over the, you know, over the wire as as, hey, pay attention. You know, this is really a big deal. And and yeah. And, you know, you're so right. I mean, the fact that that politics

is it's not about politics as we've seen, you know, there have been people whose lives have been destroyed by online disinformation and just abuse. You know, so many of them and, you know, they're on all, you know, they're across the political spectrum and for reasons that, you know, have everything and nothing to do with politics. And I think, you know, the families are saying like this, this is a phenomenon. This is something that's happening. This guy is one of the worst, if not the worst actors in this arena,

but it's a big arena. Yeah. Yes, it is. Yeah. And I think he probably is disputably the biggest during the, you know, especially the years right after the shooting and if you need any evidence that their argument that it's getting worse is true. Yeah. There are so many more and it's now debatable whether Alex is the worst. Yeah. No, I mean, I think maybe the bigger the biggest probably thing

that Alex is really responsible for is without him demonstrating the popularity. I don't think Tucker could go as far mask off white nationalists as he is right now. You know, yeah, Alex has pushed it. So a bigger platform than him can engage in his behavior. And it's absolutely. Yeah, it's some, yeah, it's a sort of frog boil, isn't it? Well, we learned recently that actually that metaphor is not true. Oh, I know, I know.

But then also that's lazy of me. He's instrumental in the creation of like the oath keepers. He's his fingerprints are on the proud boys. Yeah, like there's just so much. It is. It is silly how how much of an epicenter of bullshit that's infected everything he is. It's crazy. Yeah. What it's really interesting. We've talked about this, I know before, but.

The idea that when he was getting his start, there was that sense of he's just a clown. He's a goofball. He's very theatrical. He's fun to watch. But at the same time, he always had those ties to these sort of far right extremists like Stuart Rhodes from the oath keepers. And, you know, I mean, his first the first demonstration of how persuasive he could be was when he raised $90,000 to rebuild the branch Davidian church after the Waco siege.

So, you know, he was a hero and John Ronson has been wonderful. By the way, John Ronson listens to your show a lot. We talked to him. Yeah, he's been on the show. And he I just I was on a podcast with him a week ago and he was saying, I, you know, those guys really have a wonderful understanding. And, you know, we were talking about how John Ronson, you know, traveled with Jones back in the early mid 90s out West. And he's revered among people who have been in armed standoffs

with the federal government for years. So, yeah. And all of that sort of blew under the radar. It was just too fringy, you know? And and now we see, you know, it's not anymore. And and just the damage that it can be done and that can be done. And you wonder, like, what would have happened? I don't know. What do you guys think?

What would have happened if people had taken Jones more seriously at the very beginning? I don't think anything because I think people would be quite quite rightly or let me not rightly, I'm sorry. They would have been marginalized. The voices that are like, take this seriously, you know, in the same way that was it in like 2009, there were people within intelligence agencies that were like, you don't worry about some of these patriot groups that are popping up. And their warnings and I don't remember the guy's name, damn it.

But there was a guy who didn't interview about how like all this stuff that's happening now, you could see the kernels of it. I wrote a report about this and it was ignored. Yeah, I think that like German by any chance. I'm not sure the FBI. It might be. We talked about it a while back. So it's not fresh in my memory. But yeah, these these kinds of things would probably be the same.

Like I think the people would be like, yeah, all right, sure. It's you you're you're saying that this tiny fringe thing is dangerous, please. I think I think the problem with what you're describing is that it's not really an answerable question. If people could have taken him seriously back then, is a more interesting question, because I think the answer is no. I think that what he did was find an exploit in our society that was there. You know, he found a way to to monetize it in and and exploit it better

than I think a lot of people. But the fact that it happened is evidence of why it happened. And that's because it was there. It wasn't like he invented some brand new thing that that brought everybody to something. It was that there's a crack and he just hammered away at it until he got his own space. Yeah. Yeah. I think he benefited. Yeah. I think he benefited, too, from being in the conspiracy space. And so like most of the criticism of him, I notice this is one of the motivating

factors behind like taking this show more seriously. I noticed that most of the criticism about him was like he secretly works for Israel. Yeah. You know, like he works for shadowy Jewish cabals. Yeah. The conspiracy like the criticisms of him were conspiracies themselves. Right. And I think because of that sort of or a boros of nonsense, I think he benefited from that because there is no real power to that critique. Yeah. If you can always point to other people criticising you for being a secret agent for Israel, then you can distract

from any legitimate criticism and just combine those two together. Oh, he says I'm a liar. That guy says I work for Israel. See, all these people are lying about me. That kind of thing. I think that's so interesting because when I called people, this was years ago when I first started working on this for the book, I called people who had, you know, been associated with him in those early days. And a shocking number of them were like, you know, he used to be more anti-Semitic than he is now.

And I'm really mad about that. Hmm. Yeah. It was just like, what? You know, out of all the possible critiques, that's not that I didn't see that one coming. No, no. And I also think he's plenty anti-Semitic. Yeah, I would say. Yeah, I was like, oh, my God, you know, what? What he used to speak against Israel more. That is probably true. I think he is, but now Netanyahu is a fascist.

So he's kind of still a fan of Israel. So it's very complicated and confusing. I don't even know really if I know his positions. Well, Liz, this has been a lot of fun. So well, fun, maybe, you know, relative to it was fun talking to you. But also this conversation and this this topic is is challenging. I think what he'd like to say is thank you very much for joining us. That is that is part of it.

Well, thank you for having me. I love talking with you guys, as you know. And before we before we part ways, I should say, you are in Wisconsin now because you're at a book festival and you will be appearing at various book festivals over the next till the end of November ish. Is that correct? Yeah, until Thanksgiving, more or less. Yeah. And people can find your dates like on on Twitter.

Yeah, you should tell people through our show where you'll be and then they'll come. I'm sure I know that a lot of our audience has spoken so highly and loved your book. Absolutely. The ability to come see you speak about it. I think they would would take it would gobble that up. Absolutely. And I would love to see them there. They'll probably bring you gifts. That's that is a weird thing that will happen.

Not necessarily. It's odd, but it might happen. You'll get you'll get a bunch of like like ceramic half doughnuts. Yeah, handmade, handmade everything. Yeah, but yeah, people can find that at NYT, Liz, you have your dates up there coming to town near you, maybe. I hope so. I someone just said, why don't you come to Cleveland?

And I was like, I would love to come to Cleveland. Because that's my thing. Hello, Cleveland. Oh, I hear that city rocks. Oh, boy. Yeah. Well, Liz, thank you again. It's been a delight and I'm sure we will talk again soon.

OK, sounds great, guys. Thank you so much for having me on. Andy in Kansas, you're on the air. Thanks for holding. So, Alex, I'm a first time caller. I'm a huge fan. I love your work. I love you.