Connect with us

Politics

Sandy Hook Parents Tie Years of Threats and Vitriol to Alex Jones

Published

on

Sandy Hook Parents Tie Years of Threats and Vitriol to Alex Jones

WATERBURY, Conn. — For practically a decade, Robbie and Alissa Parker stayed mum in regards to the injury Alex Jones’s lies about their daughter Emilie’s demise at Sandy Hook Elementary had achieved to their household.

This week they ended their silence in a Connecticut courtroom, delivering a wrenching and indignant rebuke to Mr. Jones, who for years on his Infowars present and web site replayed Mr. Parker’s televised tribute to his daughter the night time after her demise within the 2012 capturing, calling him an “actor” and his presentation about Emilie “disgusting.”

“I’d been taught that you simply don’t have interaction with a bully,” Mr. Parker instructed a jury on Thursday. However he determined to sue Mr. Jones for defamation as a result of “I already felt like I failed Emilie when she was alive as a result of I despatched her to highschool.” By not combating again towards the false theories, “I used to be beginning to really feel like I used to be failing her in her demise.”

Mr. Parker is a key witness within the Connecticut damages case, which households of eight Sandy Hook victims and an F.B.I. agent implicated within the conspiracy theories gained by default. The jury will resolve how a lot Mr. Jones and Infowars should pay in damages.

Mr. Jones aired video of Mr. Parker’s remarks on the night time after his daughter’s homicide, labeling him a liar in assaults that continued for years. In so doing Mr. Jones made Mr. Parker the face of his bogus claims that the Dec. 14, 2012, mass capturing that killed 20 first graders and 6 educators at Sandy Hook Elementary College in Newtown, Conn., was staged by the federal government as a pretext for gun management, and the households have been complicit within the plot.

Advertisement

Mr. Parker had not identified he was the primary Sandy Hook relative to talk publicly when he agreed to fulfill what he thought could be one reporter in entrance of his church in Newtown. Confronted with a sea of cameras and reporters, he gave a brief, nervous giggle earlier than launching into an emotional memory of Emilie as a giant sister, proficient artist and empathetic 6-year-old who drew footage and playing cards for folks she sensed have been upset. Mr. Jones seized on that giggle to assault Mr. Parker as an actor, in a number of broadcasts over time, excerpts from which have been aired for the jury.

On Wednesday, Alissa Parker testified that the vicious feedback and threats from believers within the hoax on a memorial Fb web page honoring Emilie so terrified her that she couldn’t keep in mind a lot of her daughter’s funeral. Mr. Parker testified that 5 minutes earlier than the companies, he discovered Mrs. Parker hiding in a coat closet, afraid to attend the funeral.

Grief needs to be “sacred,” Mr. Parker stated Thursday, however he stated Mr. Jones and his followers had stolen that from him.

Advertisement

Mr. Parker’s testimony was his first alternative to handle Mr. Jones with what he has endured. The Infowars fabulist was not in courtroom on Thursday; he has skipped a lot of the trial aside from someday of testimony final week, when he loudly declared he was “achieved” apologizing for defaming the eight victims’ households along with his lies in regards to the 2012 capturing and their struggling.

In testimony on Wednesday and Thursday, Mr. and Mrs. Parker demonstrated to the jury how Mr. Jones’s phrases — and the digital siege that adopted — terrified them, disrupted Emilie’s funeral and ignited on-line abuse, demise threats and a confrontation on the road with a person who verbally attacked Mr. Parker, adopted him for blocks and requested him how a lot he had earned from the federal government for mendacity in regards to the capturing.

Mr. Parker instructed the jury on Thursday that he may inform with out watching Infowars when Mr. Jones had talked about him on his present as a result of threats to his household surged. However the relations didn’t struggle again till this lawsuit, Mr. Parker stated, as a result of they have been afraid that partaking with the conspiracy theorists would ratchet up the assaults.

Late final 12 months, Mr. Jones misplaced 4 separate defamation lawsuits filed by the households of 10 Sandy Hook victims. The households’ sweeping victory set in movement three trials for juries to resolve how a lot Mr. Jones ought to pay the households in compensatory and punitive damages.

Within the first trial earlier this summer season, a jury in Austin, Texas, awarded Scarlett Lewis and Neil Heslin, mother and father of Jesse Lewis, who died at Sandy Hook, practically $50 million, although that complete could also be revised as a result of Texas legislation caps verdicts at far much less.

Advertisement

The Connecticut trial is the second of the three, with testimony scheduled to conclude late subsequent week. Connecticut legislation permits for a probably ruinous monetary verdict towards Mr. Jones, who was discovered to have violated a state legislation prohibiting the usage of lies to promote merchandise.

Mr. Jones has reaped greater than $50 million in revenues yearly in recent times by promoting weight loss plan dietary supplements, gun paraphernalia and survivalist gear on his broadcasts.

In excerpts from a videotaped deposition proven to the jury after Mr. Parker’s testimony on Thursday, David Jones, Mr. Jones’s father and the Infowars worker who acquired him into the dietary supplements enterprise, testified that Mr. Jones’s broadcasts used “puffery” to capitalize on viewers’ fears and promote merchandise.

“Our prospects are so loyal to us,” David Jones stated, “that if we are saying one thing is sweet and good for you, they’re going to purchase it, and purchase a number of it.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

Judge rules illegal immigrants have gun rights protected by 2nd Amendment

Published

on

Judge rules illegal immigrants have gun rights protected by 2nd Amendment

Join Fox News for access to this content

Plus special access to select articles and other premium content with your account – free of charge.

Please enter a valid email address.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. To access the content, check your email and follow the instructions provided.

Having trouble? Click here.

A federal judge in Illinois has found that the Constitution protects the gun rights of noncitizens who enter the United States illegally.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman on Friday ruled that a federal prohibition on illegal immigrants owning firearms is unconstitutional as applied to defendant Heriberto Carbajal-Flores. The court found that while the federal ban is “facially constitutional,” there is no historical tradition of firearm regulation that permits the government to deprive a noncitizen who has never been convicted of a violent crime from exercising his Second Amendment rights.

Advertisement

“The noncitizen possession statute … violates the Second Amendment as applied to Carbajal-Flores,” the judge wrote. “Thus, the Court grants Carbajal-Flores’ motion to dismiss.”

Coleman, a President Obama appointee, cited the landmark Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which established a new standard to determine whether a law violates the Second Amendment. Since Bruen, a multitude of federal and state gun control measures have been challenged in courts with mixed results. 

DELAWARE BILL REQUIRING GUN BUYERS TO BE FINGERPRINTED, TRAINED, SET TO BECOME LAW

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (iStock)

In this case, U.S. v. Carbajal-Flores, the court considered whether people who enter the country illegally can be banned from owning firearms.

Advertisement

Carbajal-Flores is an illegal immigrant who, on June 1, 2020, was found to be in possession of a handgun in the Little Village neighborhood of Chicago. He was subsequently charged with violating a federal law that prohibits any noncitizen who is not legally authorized to be in the U.S. from “possess[ing] in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.” 

In an April 2022 decision, Coleman denied Carbajal-Flores’ first motion to dismiss his indictment, finding that the ban was constitutional. However, Carbajal-Flores asked the court to reconsider that ruling following the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen and appellate decisions in the Third and Seventh Circuit that considered whether people convicted of non-violent crimes can be prohibited from possessing firearms. 

CONGRESS POISED TO ROLL BACK ‘VETERAN GUN BAN,’ WITH RELUCTANT BIDEN BACKING

U.S. District Judge Sharon J. Coleman presents award to attorney Paula E. Litt

U.S. District Judge Sharon J. Coleman, left, presents an award for Excellence in Pro Bono and Public Interest Service to attorney Paula E. Litt, on May 1, 2019. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division)

Upon review, Coleman concluded that Carbajal-Flores’ illegally present status was not sufficient to deny him Second Amendment rights. The judge said the “plain text” of the Constitution “presumptively protects firearms possession by undocumented persons.” 

“Carbajal-Flores has never been convicted of a felony, a violent crime, or a crime involving the use of a weapon. Even in the present case, Carbajal-Flores contends that he received and used the handgun solely for self-protection and protection of property during a time of documented civil unrest in the Spring of 2020,” the judge wrote. “Additionally, Pretrial Service has confirmed that Carbajal-Flores has consistently adhered to and fulfilled all the stipulated conditions of his release, is gainfully employed, and has no new arrests or outstanding warrants.”

Advertisement

The court determined that because there is insufficient evidence to suggest Carbajal-Flores is a danger to society, there is no historical analogue that would permit the federal government to deny him his gun rights. 

NRA SLAMS BIDEN’S SOTU SPEECH AS ATTACK ON ‘THE VERY FABRIC OF AMERICAN FREEDOM’

Gun store customer

A federal judge in Illinois has ruled that the Second Amendment protects the gun rights of illegal immigrants. (Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“The Court finds that Carbajal-Flores’ criminal record, containing no improper use of a weapon, as well as the non-violent circumstances of his arrest do not support a finding that he poses a risk to public safety such that he cannot be trusted to use a weapon responsibly and should be deprived of his Second Amendment right to bear arms in self-defense,” Judge Coleman wrote. “Thus, this Court finds that, as applied to Carbajal-Flores, Section 922(g)(5) is unconstitutional.”

The ruling has divided gun rights activists, with some arguing that noncitizens should not have rights protected by the Constitution.

Erich Pratt, senior vice president of Gun Owners of America (GOA), told Fox News Digital his group “has historically recognized the dangers unchecked illegal immigration presents, chiefly of which is a serious potential to swing the balance of power into the hands of anti-gun politicians.” 

Advertisement

Pratt reiterated GOA does not support amnesty for illegal immigrants. 

“In this underlying ruling, the Second Amendment community undoubtedly has mixed feelings, because while illegal aliens are most certainly not part of ‘the People,’ everyone has a God-given right to defend themselves against violent acts like rape and murder,” he said. 

“Of course, the courts wouldn’t have to decide this question if Joe Biden and the Democratic Party would simply secure our borders.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Trump sues ABC News and George Stephanopoulos for defamation

Published

on

Trump sues ABC News and George Stephanopoulos for defamation

Former President Trump is suing TV journalist George Stephanopoulos and ABC News for defamation for saying he raped advice columnist E. Jean Carroll.

On a March 10 edition of “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” the anchor said Trump was “liable for rape” during his interview with Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.). Stephanopoulos was pressing Mace, a rape victim herself, on how she could rationalize supporting Trump’s 2024 presidential candidacy.

Trump’s lawsuit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Miami, said the jury in the Carroll case found him liable for sexual abuse — not rape — and that Stephanopoulos defamed the presumptive Republican presidential nominee by using the term.

A jury ruled in January that Trump must pay Carroll $83.3 million in damages after finding Trump liable for defamation, the second case related to a 1996 incident that occurred when the two met in a New York department store.

In May, jurors rejected Carroll’s allegation that she was raped but found Trump responsible for the lesser charge of sexual abuse, along with defamation, and awarded Carroll $5 million in damages. Trump, who denied that the incident occurred, repeatedly mocked Carroll over her claims.

Advertisement

Trump’s suit cites how Stephanopoulos himself reported that Trump was not liable for rape when he reported on the verdict of the previous Carroll case on May 10.

The suit also noted that the headline on an ABC News online story on the Mace interview first used the word “rape” and was later changed to “sexual abuse.”

Trump’s suit is asking for unspecified damages.

ABC News has not issued a comment on the matter.

The tense “This Week” interview was widely shared on social media. Mace took umbrage at Stephanopoulos’ question, claiming he was “rape-shaming” her by bringing up her own experience as a victim, which she has publicly discussed.

Advertisement

Trump has previously sued media outlets, including the New York Times and CNN, with no success.

Trump sued the Times over its investigation of his finances, which led to the recent New York civil court ruling that has him on the hook for $454 million. The suit was dismissed in March and Trump had to reimburse the Times legal cost.

In 2022, Trump sued CNN for $475 million claiming the news network was waging a campaign against him by booking guests critical of his policies and speeches. The case was dismissed in 2023.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Mark Milley and former CENTCOM commander to face grilling in Congress over Biden's Afghanistan withdrawal

Published

on

Mark Milley and former CENTCOM commander to face grilling in Congress over Biden's Afghanistan withdrawal

Join Fox News for access to this content

Plus special access to select articles and other premium content with your account – free of charge.

Please enter a valid email address.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. To access the content, check your email and follow the instructions provided.

Having trouble? Click here.

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, will testify before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday for the first time since retiring, potentially freeing him to offer new details about the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Joining Milley will be retired Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, who served as United States Central Command (CENTCOM) commander during the 2021 withdrawal. The pair have appeared before Congress to discuss failings in the operation before, but Republicans say they may have been more tight-lipped then because they were still serving under President Biden.

Advertisement

Both Milley and McKenzie testified in 2021 that they had advised Biden to maintain a small U.S. force in Afghanistan, rather than committing to a full U.S. withdrawal. Milley himself has described the operation as a “strategic failure,” saying he has “lots of regrets.”

“It didn’t end the way I wanted it. That didn’t end the way any of us wanted it,” he told ABC News in September. “In the broader sense, the war was lost.”

OBAMA LIED TO AMERICANS ABOUT WITHDRAWAL FROM AFGHANISTAN: BOOK

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, left, will testify before the House Foreign Affairs Committee for the first time since retiring on Tuesday, potentially freeing him to offer new details about the botched U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. (ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

The Tuesday afternoon hearing comes after months of Republican investigations into Biden’s handling of the withdrawal. Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas., has repeatedly demanded the State Department turn over documents relating to the operation.

Advertisement

BIDEN’S BOTCHED AFGHANISTAN WITHDRAWAL HAUNTS 2024 ELECTION AS BOOK CLAIMS ‘13 AMERICANS NEVER HAD TO DIE’

Secretary of State Antony Blinken has so far refused to offer interview notes relating to the Afghanistan after action report, which blamed senior officials for failing to prepare for all outcomes in the operation.

General McKenzie Afghanistan Pentagon

Retired Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, former commander of the United States Central Command, listens during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the conclusion of military operations in Afghanistan. (Sarahbeth Maney/The New York Times via AP, Pool)

Despite the deaths of 13 U.S. servicemembers and the abandoning of tens of thousands of Afghan allies to Taliban rule, Biden strongly believes behind closed doors that he made the right decisions during the operation, according to an upcoming book.

THINK THE US EXIT FROM AFGHANISTAN WAS BAD? LOOK WHAT’S BREWING IN THE PACIFIC

Following the withdrawal, “no one offered to resign, in large part because the president didn’t believe anyone had made a mistake. Ending the war was always going to be messy,” author Alexander Ward writes in the book, “The Internationalists: The Fight to Restore Foreign Policy After Trump.”

Advertisement
President Joe Biden

Despite the deaths of 13 U.S. servicemembers and the abandoning of tens of thousands of Afghan allies to Taliban rule, President Biden strongly believes behind closed doors that he made the right decisions during the operation, according to an upcoming book. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Biden allegedly told his top aides, including White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan, that they had done their best given the situation and vowed to stand by them.

Fox News’ Nikolas Lanum contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Trending