>>> JUDGMENT DAY IS HITTING ALEX JONES HARD. I'VE TOLD YOU WE ARE COVERING THIS CASE BECAUSE IT MATTERS FOR ACCOUNTABILITY AND WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THESE FAMILIES IN SANDY HOOK, BUT IT ALSO MATTERS FOR DRAWING LINES TO DETER IN OUR POLITICS. THAT'S NOT ALL. THIS HIT A WHOLE OTHER LEVEL. IN THE DEFAMATION OF MR. JONES, THERE WAS A BOMBSHELL TWIST IN COURT. LET'S GET INTO IT. JONES WAS TAKING THE STAND IN HIS OWN DEFENSE. HE IS UP THERE, TRYING TO BACK UP THE CLAIMS HE HAS MADE WHICH INCLUDE THE IDEA THAT HE WASN'T REALLY LYING THAT HE NEVER HAD ANY EMAILS ABOUT THIS, AND SO ON. AND THEN, AND I'M TELLING YOU, YOU DON'T SEE ANYTHING LIKE THIS, THE REVELATION FROM THE LAWYERS FOR THE SANDY HOOK PARENTS SUING HIM HAVE GOT THE GOODS THAT PROVE HE IS A LIAR AND MAY BE A CRIMINAL AND THEY GOT IT FROM ALEX JONES OWN INCOMPETENT LAWYERS. THOSE LAWYERS ACCIDENTALLY SENT ALEX JONES INCRIMINATING TAX AND EMAILS. THE EMAILS HE SAID HE DIDN'T HAVE TO THE OTHER SIDE. TAKE A LOOK. >> MR. JONES. DID YOU KNOW THAT 12 DAYS AGO -- 12 DAYS AGO, YOUR ATTORNEYS MESSED UP AND SENT ME AN ENTIRE DIGITAL COPY OF YOUR ENTIRE CELL PHONE WITH EVERY TEXT MESSAGE YOU SENT TO THE PAST TWO YEARS AND THAT IS HOW I KNOW YOU LIED TO ME WHEN YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T HAVE TEXT MESSAGES ABOUT SANDY HOOK. DID YOU KNOW THAT? >> I TOLD YOU THE TRUTH. I GAVE THEM MY PHONE AND -- >> MR. JONES. YOU NEED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. >> ANSWER THE QUESTION. THE JUDGE HAS REPEATEDLY TRIED TO TAKE CONTROL THERE WHERE HE HAS GONE OFF THE RAILS. JONES STAMMERING. PUSHING BACK. OBVIOUSLY CAUGHT. AND THEN THIS HAPPENED. >> YOU WERE ASKED, DO YOU HAVE -- ON YOUR PHONE AND YOU SAID, NO, CORRECT? YOU SAID THAT UNDER OATH. >> I WAS MISTAKEN. >> YOU KNOW PERJURY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE BEFORE WE GO INTO IT. YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS? >> YES I DO. I TOLD YOU, I GAVE, IN MY TESTIMONY, I GAVE MY PHONE TO THE LAWYERS OR WHATEVER. YOU'VE GOT MY PHONE, BUT WE DIDN'T GIVE IT TO YOU. >> THIS IS AS SERIOUS AS A HEART ATTACK. THAT WARNING ABOUT PERJURY IS REAL. JONES IS BEING SUED FOR DEFAMATION AND NOW HE HAS BEEN CAUGHT LYING ON THE STAND AND HE HASN'T EVEN REACHED THE PUNISHMENT PHASE OF HOW MUCH HE WOULD HAVE TO PAY. IT COULD GET WORSE. THE CELL PHONE DATA BEING DISCUSSED HERE IS NOW ALL IN THE HANDS OF THE OTHER SIDE. JONES IS DOING HIS USUAL DEFLECTION. HE HAS TRIED TO SAY THAT ALL OF THIS IS A MISUNDERSTANDING OR JUST ENTERTAINMENT AND HE HAS USED HIS PLATFORM TO REPEATEDLY, WILLFULLY, AND INTENTIONALLY BY AND HURT PEOPLE AND HE KNOWS THAT WHAT HE LIED ABOUT -- WHAT HE CLAIMED WAS SOME SORT OF FALSE FLAG HOAX -- HE ALWAYS KNEW IT WAS REAL. >> IT'S 100% REAL AND THE MEDIA STILL RAN WITH LIES THAT I WAS SAYING. IT WASN'T REAL GREAT IT'S INCREDIBLE. THEY WON'T LET ME TAKE IT BACK OR THEY JUST WANT TO KEEP ME IN THE POSITION OF BEING THE SANDY HOOK MAN. I REALLY DO WANT TO TRY TO CHANGE THINGS AND HOPEFULLY BE A MORE POSITIVE FORCE WHEN IT COMES TO ISSUES. >> THIS IS WHAT THE START OF ACCOUNTABILITY MIGHT LOOK LIKE. I TOLD YOU WE'VE BEEN COVERING THIS STORY LONG BEFORE TODAY'S TWIST. ANYONE INTERESTED WOULD COVER THIS. THIS IS TRULY WILD. I WANT TO BRING IN WILL SUMMER, A DAILY BEAST REPORTER WHO HAS BEEN FOLLOWING ALL OF THIS AND THE AUTHOR OF TRUST THE PLAN, A BOOK ABOUT THE RELATED ISSUE OF Q ANON, CONSPIRACIES THAT COULD UNHINGE OUR ABILITY TO FUNCTION AS A FACT-BASED DEMOCRACY. THANKS FOR JOINING ME. WE WILL GO BIG PICTURE. LET'S START WITH WHAT HAPPENED TODAY. HOW BAD WAS THIS FOR MR. JONES ON A SCALE OF ONE TO 10? >> REALLY BAD. I WOULD SAY 10, MAYBE 11 OR 12. THESE ARE THE KINDS OF SCENES YOU DO NOT SEE IN COURTROOMS. IT'S LIKE A LAW AND ORDER MOMENT. ESSENTIALLY, HE'S ALREADY LOST THE CASE AT THE JUDGE'S ORDER BECAUSE HE HAS REPEATEDLY BROKEN THE COURTROOM PROCEDURES. NOW, HE IS FINDING HIMSELF -- IT'S UP TO THE JURY TO DECIDE HOW MUCH THE DAMAGES ARE GOING TO BE. HERE THEY ARE DECIDING, IS THIS A CREDIBLE GUY? DO WE BELIEVE HE IS APOLOGY APOLOGIZING OR IS HE JUST TRYING TO GET OUT OF THIS? HE IS SHOWN ON THE STANDS TO BE A LIAR. THE LAWYER SAYS, YOUR INCOMPETENT ATTORNEYS HAVE SHARED ALL THESE EMAILS WITH ME. AS SOMEONE WHO WAS WATCHING IT MYSELF, I AM ASTOUNDED AND I'M SURE THE JURORS WERE AS WELL. >> IT WAS A COMPLETE SHOCK? >> ABSOLUTELY. I DON'T THINK ANYONE SAW THIS COMING. MARK BANKSTON, THE LEAD LAWYER, HAS TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE CASE. HE'S BEEN PURSUING THIS FOR YEARS BUT HAD NOT TIPPED HIS HAND ON THIS. HE'S ONLY BEEN ABLE TO ACCESS THESE EMAILS AND TEXT MESSAGES FOR ABOUT A DAY BECAUSE WHEN THE LAWYERS AND INADVERTENTLY SHARED WITH HIM, HE SAID, HEY, YOU SHARED THIS WITH ME, DO YOU WANT TO CLAIM THIS IS PRIVILEGED? THEY ONLY HAVE 10 DAYS TO DO THAT. THAT DEADLINE RAN OUT YESTERDAY OR ROUGHLY SOAP HIS LAWYERS ALMOST SCREWED UP AGAIN BY NOT TRYING TO RETRACT THOSE EMAILS AND TEXT MESSAGES. IT SEEMS LIKE POTENTIALLY THERE IS MORE TO COME. ROLLING STONE IS REPORTING THAT THE JANUARY 6 COMMITTEE WANTS TO SEE THESE MESSAGES. IT'S POTENTIALLY A TREASURE TROVE OFFERING LIMBS INTO THE RIGHT WING MEDIA. >> EXACTLY. HOW THIS IS DONE FOR PROFIT. THERE IS A WIDE AND BROAD FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION FOR ALL KINDS OF VIEWS, BUT THERE IS NOT FREE SPEECH OR A RIGHT TO KNOWINGLY DEFAME AND WHEN YOU DO IT REPEATEDLY FOR PROFIT -- THAT IS WHEN YOU, WITH MALICIOUS INTENT, TRY TO SELL SOMETHING. IN THIS CASE, HE WAS SELLING A LIE THAT THE FAMED, ACCORDING TO THE COURT, THESE GRIEVING FAMILIES. YOU COULDN'T COME UP WITH A SICKER KIND OF APPROACH. YOU ARE NOT IN FIRST AMENDMENT LAND ANYMORE. NOW THEY ARE JUST DECIDING ON THE COST. THEN YOU HAVE WHAT YOU RAISED. I WANT VIEWERS TO UNDERSTAND THIS. THE WAY THIS CASE GOES DOWN MIGHT SET A PRECEDENT THAT DOES DISSUADE OTHERS OR MAKE THEM THINK TWICE ABOUT HOW THEY PROFIT OFF LIES. HE'S IN TROUBLE FOR THE MISCONDUCT ALLEGED REGARDING THE CASE AND THE LARGER IDEA OF WHETHER HE CAN PERJURE HIMSELF AND BREAK ALL THESE LAWS. TAKE A LOOK. >> IS IT YOUR STANCE THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO PUNISHMENT FOR BREAKING THE LAW AS LONG AS IT'S DONE ONLY ON RARE OCCASIONS? >> THIS IS SIMPLE, BUT THERE IS A LAW OF RIGHT AND WRONG AND WE HAVE A MASSIVE PRICE FOR THE MISTAKES WE'VE MADE. >> OKAY. MR. JONES. >> JUST READ ME THE LIST. >> YES, SIR. >> NO, I DON'T THINK, EVEN THE PEOPLE WHO DO STUFF ON ACCIDENT, I THINK THEY ARE STILL SOMEWHAT CULPABLE. BUT I DID NOT DO THIS CONSCIOUSLY. >> MR. JONES, THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION. >> NOT IMPRESSING THE JUDGE. HE MAY BE HURTING HIMSELF THAT WAY WHEN IT COMES TO JUDGMENT DAY. FINAL QUESTION. IF HE LOSES BAD, DOES THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE THAT'S WHAT THE FAMILIES CALL JUSTICE -- DETER OTHERS FROM PROFITING OFF LIES? >> I REALLY THINK THIS IS A PRECEDENT-SETTING CASE. REALLY, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'VE SEEN ONE OF THESE CASES MAKE IT ALL THE WAY TO A TRIAL. NONE OF THEM HAS GOTTEN THIS FAR. I THINK, POTENTIALLY, THE DEFENSES IS ASKING FOR $150 MILLION IN THIS CASE. IT'S UNCLEAR WHETHER THEY WILL GET THAT, BUT YOU ARE LOOKING AT A MASSIVE JUDGMENT THAT COULD DESTROY INFO WARS. THEY ARE CONSTANTLY MOVING IN AND OUT OF BANKRUPT THE TO AVOID IT. THIS COULD DEMONSTRATE TO OTHER PEOPLE, PUSHING HOAXES AND FAKE NEWS AND PROFITING OFF OF IT IN THE WAY THAT INFO WARS HAS, THAT THEY MIGHT WANT TO AVOID THAT. >> I AM OUT OF TIME, WILL, BUT DID YOU PICK A BEAT ON PURPOSE WHERE YOU WOULD SPEND SO MUCH TIME WATCHING INFO WARS AND STUDYING QANON? NO JUDGMENT. >> I HAVE A HI
