Even a Texas judge has no time for Alex Jones' or his Russian handler's BS in Sandy Hook defamation case

 

There is another court case going on that you might have heard about, the defamation case against Infowars host Alex Jones for insinuating that the 2012 massacre at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Newton, Connecticut was a “hoax” and a “false flag” event staged by the “government” and aided by parents who willingly allowed their children to pose as “victims”  for the purpose of drumming-up support for anti-gun laws. There is a fairly complete overview of the hoax theories, all of them debunked, here: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sandy-hook-exposed/.

Many of these conspiracies center around the shooter, Adam Lanza, and whether he was just a patsy who couldn’t possibly have been sufficiently armed to kill 20 children running about and six adult faculty. There were other “suspects,” but these were proven to be innocent bystanders caught up in the law enforcement sweep until Lanza was arrested. But Jones went far beyond that, and has been engaged in conspiratorial thinking from the beginning. Although initially he appeared ready to admit that the massacre actually did occur (but fearing it being used to enact gun laws), it didn’t take long for Jones to give “credence” to every crackpot conspiracy theory.

The reason for that is for all far-right extremists like Jones, his first concern was not about the dead, but about defending the Second Amendment, although for a (very) brief time it was so incomprehensibly heinous that anyone would target innocent six-year-olds that even the likes of Jones could be temporarily discombobulated, and Sandy Hook represented the gravest threat yet to the “right” bear arms indiscriminately.  But in time psychopaths like Jones will chase down any feather blowing in a hurricane-force wind that could possibly put the tiniest hint of “doubt” in whether Sandy Hook was a “real” event, instead being a “staged” event, or worse yet, not having happened at all.

In 2014, Infowars latched onto the conspiracy theory that according to the FBI, there were no reported deaths from the “alleged” massacre and this was “proof” that it was a “hoax.”  But this was a deliberate misreading of how numbers were tabulated, and the deaths at Sandy Hook were recorded by the Connecticut state police data base as was the usual procedure.  From there Jones continued to post articles and videos claiming the massacre was a hoax, and particularly blamed parents for telling lies about their children being dead, and even providing “evidence” that the deceased victims were in fact alive and well, which of course would upset parents still grieving over their loss.

On his radio show in 2015, Jones told a caller who was thanking him for exposing the “facts” that

Yeah, so, Sandy Hook is a synthetic completely fake with actors, in my view, manufactured. I couldn’t believe it at first. I knew they had actors there, clearly, but I thought they killed some real kids. And it just shows how bold they are, that they clearly used actors. I mean they even ended up using photos of kids killed in mass shootings here in a fake mass shooting in Turkey -- so yeah, or Pakistan. The sky is now the limit. I appreciate your call.

Jones also disseminated a horrific personal attack directed at one parent composed by another psychopath named Wolfgang Halbin “suggesting” that if anyone had “died” at the school, that it was the parents who were responsible for “killing” their own children by sending them to a school that allegedly was environmentally “unsafe”—which is odd given that the far-right generally does not give credence to environmental issues and global warming.

In the past year, two separate judges have passed down default guilty judgments against Jones, bypassing a jury trial, claiming that despite being given years to produce documents and ignoring every attempt—by court order or by financial coercion—to do so, they had no choice but assume he was acting as he did because he was indeed guilty, as if that wasn’t obvious to anyone with eyes and ears already. Jones was calling this an illegal witch hunt, and that he was engaging in his right of freedom of speech; but as with Amber Heard, “freedom of speech” doesn’t necessarily mean the “freedom to lie” and defame.

At the present time, the trial in a Texas court is being conducted to determine not Jones' guilt, but the damages he must pay to two of the parents of the dead. The defense played a lengthy video clip in which Jones says "Don't think the globalists who hijacked our country wouldn't stage something like this. Don't ever think this couldn't be staged” but in a later clip, probably in response to anger at this claim, he allowed that someone might have been killed, but still suggesting that it couldn’t be “denied” that it was deliberately staged for effect. But the attorney for the plaintiffs showed that Jones quickly gave credence to every crackpot conspiracy from the likes of  Halbig, who was also accused of engaging in identify theft of the personal information of targeted parents and unlawfully distributing that information in an effort to discredit and defame those parents.

We have been told that Jones is on his seventh legal team, and he is really scraping the bottom of ethical barrel; here his latest defense attorney is flipping the bird at the plaintiff’s attorney:

 

Probably the most interesting testimony (if it can be called that) came from an alleged “producer” of Infowars, Daria Karpova, who seemed to know very little, but was more than willing to offer an “opinion.” Here the judge, Maya Guerra Gamble, angrily tells her to answer the questions put to her instead of going off on tangents, and does not accept Karpova’s “apology” for being ill-prepared to answer questions when she was given four months to prepare herself to answer them:

 

Here is some of Karpova’s unhelpful testimony: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKb-ySKkN5Q. Although she admitted using Halbig as a “credible” source of information was a mistake, she managed to make things worse by hypocritically claiming that Jones could actually have been the Sandy Hook victims greatest “champion” if he hadn’t been lied about, but the plaintiff’s attorney pointed out the nonsense of this claim because Jones invited criticism from the start by giving an air of “legitimacy” to the monstrous hoax claims.

It is interesting to note that Karpova is Russian, and over on Reddit I found that commentators noted that Infowars has a pro-Russia and pro-Putin slant, and that Karpova has appeared on Jones’ show as a “Russia expert” and that she has served as a Russian interpreter for Jones when he exchanges thoughts with Kremlin propagandists. Why should we find this “interesting”? More evidence that the far-right has more in common with Russian authoritarian impulses—and even more “interestingly” is a willing conduit for Russian attempts to encourage divisiveness and undermine democracy in this country.

Russia can't "help" being what it is--but we can

 

In the war in Ukraine, competing “intelligence reports” are all over the map about who is “winning” it, although a cursory look at the current map would suggest that Russia is having the best of it. Rocket and missile attacks have resumed in the Kyiv region, and some have reportedly been fired from Belarus, which no longer pretends to be a “neutral” party. There are reports that Ukraine is attempting a counteroffensive of its own in the south, but we are still talking about a country with only a fraction of the manpower of its attacker. In any event, it is really quite a sad set of circumstances in that part of the world; but then again it isn’t really that surprising, given the two competing “systems” involved—one where the government has to answer to the people, and the other where the people have to answer to the government.

Outside of threats from Vladimir Putin and  his stooges to take out the east and west coasts, we have been fairly fortunate to live in a “peaceful” country free from outside interference—except, of course, cyber-attacks from Russia and China. This certainly isn’t Afghanistan, where “rule” under the current version of the Taliban is just as bad as you thought it could be.  In fact most of what we call “Western” countries have maintained the peace within their own borders because they have stable democratic systems and a free press,

Of course there are the occasional “hiccups” where instability can occur when one element of the press (in this country Fox News) disseminates false conspiracies in support of “politicians” with authoritarian tendencies. The last time “the West” saw a major conflagration was when one country within its sphere, Germany, fell into that trap. Most people in Germany still wanted to live a peaceful life and have a good time, and if that meant looking the other way at what the regime was doing to dissenters and Jews, well that was fine as long as they personally were left alone. Of course that wasn’t enough for its “leader,” who had very personal visions beyond the “normal” and expected the people to share his vision of their “destiny”—because if they did not, it was prison or death.

It’s the same for the Russian “average citizen.” They have not been “threatened” by an outside enemy, only from within by a man with delusions of grandeur. Putin seems to share characteristics with both Hitler and Stalin; as with the former who saw the Germans after World War I as a "master race" crushed by inferior peoples, Putin perceives loss of "respect" for Russians in the world order, and Russia can only regain its "rightful place" as a "superpower" by brute force. As to the latter, Putin desires to lord over a party apparatus that sees its own people as the "enemy" that needs to be beaten into cowering submission. 

These delusions are the main explanations for why a country like Russia ruled by someone like Putin is perceived the way it is. After all, when was the last time Russia’s “sovereignty” or people threatened by anyone since World War II, save for the odd terrorist attack that all countries in the West have encountered and still managed to carry on as before? The break-up of the Soviet Union in the 1990s was of its own accord; it wasn’t “forced” by pressure from the West or NATO.

Few in the West really wants anything to do with Russia if they can help it. Yet ignoring or avoiding “antagonizing” Russia—or more correctly its paranoid leaders—only makes the Russians more paranoid. Now we have this mess in Ukraine that nobody in the West wanted; of course the West felt compelled to respond when Ukraine, because of the fear of what adventures Putin had planned  after the annexation of the Crimea, tried to find greater “security” by making feelers for incorporation into Western Europe’s sphere.

Naturally this antagonized Putin, who it seems had other ideas, mainly to re-incorporate Ukraine into Russia’s sphere either as a proxy state or back into a Russian province. It is clear by looking at the map that Putin’s long-term plan (or short-term, depending how his military does) is to absorb all of Ukraine. Russia’s foreign minister, Lavrov, continues to be all over the map with his threats, changing from claiming that Russia wasn’t intending on “regime change” in Ukraine to now saying they are. It is clear that Putin is not satisfied with a couple of eastern “provinces” or even just Ukraine’s southern coast; he wants all of Ukraine. We know that.

So what we are seeing is why there can be no actual “peace” when an allegedly “European” country whose people want the “perks” of democratic societies, but don’t want to do the work, choosing instead to live under an authoritarian regime that has a powerless, rubber-stamp “legislature” and lacks a free press—and they have chosen to allow this to happen. Ukrainians for their part seem to want to be more “like us,” but Putin can’t allow that because it might set a “bad” example for Russians who see the example of Belarus as a “country” that confirms that East Slavs are not by nature people who like “conflict” between opposing parties, and prefer to do as they are told and not make any waves that might get them imprisoned or shot.

Ukraine thus cannot be allowed to become a “stable democracy” more like the West than the East. Russia’s war crimes in Ukraine are thus not just a “message” for Ukrainians, but for Russians or people in the client states who have ideas about “self-rule” and the possibility for a better life.

The truth is that there are lessons we can all learn from this. An authoritarian regime without a free press, and with citizenry caught up in the rhetoric of nationalism and “culture wars” represents a warning to those who fall under the spell of personality cults that promise “stability” at the cost not just of the freedom to speak the truth in an effort avoid unnecessary violent action both within and without, but ultimately the freedom to act as well. We already have seen a neo-Trumpist, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, sign one law outlawing mass protests that was subsequently delayed in its implementation by a court order, and another law which bans anti-hate instruction in schools for being "anti-white."

The destruction of democratic processes and a free press allowed a psychotic authoritarian like Putin to act unimpeded; this country came close to seeing an insurrection that would have allowed a psychotic authoritarian—Donald Trump—to undermine the democratic process, with the help of a political party with the mindset of a single-party system, and a news network that acts as its official propaganda organ. Contrary to what its perpetrators believed, if the January 6 insurrectionists had been “successful” they would have taken this country a step toward where Russia is today. What they call “freedom” today is tomorrow’s servitude.

If the January 6 insurrectionists heard an “order” to riot, then there had to be someone who gave the "order," one way or the other

There is that famous line in the film A Few Good Men when Jack Nicholson’s Col. Jessup tells Tom Cruise’s JAG lawyer “You can’t handle the truth!” Whatever passes for the truth these days seems hard for many people to handle; here we see Sen. Josh Hawley running for his life from it:

 

In the matter of the January 6 insurrection investigation, there has been plenty of evidence introduced that Donald Trump and others instigated and encouraged the activities of the insurrectionists, and that Trump sat mesmerized by the scene in a private room for three hours watching it unfold on television and refused to do anything to try to stop it. This indicates that he not only approved what was happening, but he hoped that they would do something thing like this; it massaged his ego to see that the power of his cult of personality drive people to such extremes. There is no doubt in my mind that the insurrectionists were in their minds doing the bidding of Trump. Did Trump give an actual “order”? Does it matter that if he gave one or not?

Now, the January 6 insurrection would simply have been unimaginable if there was not someone or someones in power who “told” the insurrectionists that what they were doing was not only “proper” but “legal.” I mean, didn’t both Trump and Richard Nixon tell us that if the president “does it”—whatever “it” happens to be—then it is not “illegal”? If the president tells a mob that he spent months inciting with election fraud conspiracies and itching for a fight to go the Capitol and do what is “necessary” to change the election result, what kind of people do you really expect to respond to this call? People who are willing to respond lawlessly and violently if they are given the impression that it is an “order.” Another person will tell us that the Constitution gives such people the right to act violently to overturn an election, and we’ll get to that individual shortly.

It is easy enough to see someone like Trump responding vicariously to the violence he was watching on television. That he refused to do anything about it immediately (and apparently the feeling was not “unanimous” among Trump’s inner circle about the need to intervene in the violence), says as much. But then there is that “gray” area where people want to quibble about what “advising” or promoting an action means, or how an “order” is done. But quibbling allows one to believe that the persons involved in the actual act of insurrection are merely crazed fanatics who cannot be controlled.

On the other hand, we have seen in the aftermath of the insurrection the people involved in it being “defended” for merely being the “victims” of a liberal “witch hunt,” which would also imply that those who promoted the wild conspiracies that instigated the violence didn’t do anything “wrong” either. That would include people like Hawley and Marjorie Taylor Greene. Thus it is no “surprise” to learn that two judges in Georgia have now ruled that Greene should not be disqualified for running for office merely for aiding and abetting the January 6 insurrection with election fraud conspiracies, which she repeated during her disqualification hearing in May; she didn’t technically “order” anyone to do it, and this is just another example of the cowardice to do what is needed to preserve democracy in this country: "The evidence in this matter is insufficient to establish that Rep. Greene ... 'engaged in insurrection or rebellion' under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution." Why “insufficient”? Because under oath Greene didn’t “recall” or “remember” anything of what she did leading up to and during the insurrection. Her violent rhetoric leading up to the insurrection had absolutely nothing to do with the violence that occurred that day.

It is thus easy to get away with inflaming people to violent action and deny that was ever their “intention.” What were people like Trump and Greene expecting these people to do but put “pressure” on Mike Pence and “yellow” Republicans in Congress? How do you think the insurrectionists defined “pressure”? On a far-right conservative outlet called Real America’s Voice, Greene all but explicitly endorsed the violence, proclaiming that BLM protests were much “worse” than the Jan. 6 “riot”—her word. She went on “And if you think about what our Declaration of Independence says, it says to overthrow tyrants.” How do you overthrow “tyrants”? If the law isn’t on your side, then how to do it? By “rioting”? And what is “rioting” if not a violent act? The intention of this violent act of rioting was an insurrection to the overthrow of the election, right?

Today, Greene is defending herself from being labeled a Nazi: "I am being attacked by the godless left because I said I'm a proud Christian Nationalist,” which of course is just a way to conceal what she really means, that she is a white nationalist. Back in the day, after the war most former Nazis involved in war crimes and crimes against humanity fell back on the claim that they were only “obeying orders,” and it is interesting to note that many January 6 insurrectionists defend their actions by insinuating that they were only acting on what they believed to be “orders.” But whose’ “orders”? I mean somebody had to be giving these people the idea that what they were doing was as “legal” as it was “necessary.” And who was that? It had to be somebody.

We know who those “somebodies” are, don’t we? Unlike in 1974 with the release of conclusive evidence from the Oval Office tapes that Nixon was directing the Watergate cover up, when Republicans with any sense of ethics and the law knew that it was over and Nixon had to go, it is entirely about partisan politics. In the divisive hyper-partisan environment that Republicans deliberately stoked over the past several decades, only 20 in all of the Senate and House thought that Trump bore any responsible for the insurrection. After all, he didn’t say “I order you to engage in a violent insurrection”—he just said “You know what I want you to do, so just do it with my blessings.”

Despite what some people are arguing, there really isn’t any real difference in the meaning of those two appeals, just as it didn’t matter if King Henry II gave a direct “order” to those knights to kill Thomas Becket or not; they knew that is what he wanted done at that moment. In many ways, the people who gave the “order” are much worse than those who obeyed it, and yet they are the ones who expect to get away with their crimes, unless the January 6 committee findings actually lead to criminal charges. The Wall Street Journal among other conservative newspapers are now editorializing that Trump is unfit to run for president again, but it may take an orange jumpsuit to insure that doesn’t happen again.

 

By deceiving the public--and continuing to do so--on the Depp case, the mainstream media and Heard diehards only stirred-up a hornet's nest that keeps on looking for falsehoods to sting

 

This past Sunday Fox News viewers must have been wondering what planet they living on if they happened to be watching Rep. Liz Cheney’s interview on Fox News Sunday. For them, Fox News is their “mainstream” media, and anything outside of confirmation of their own bigoted beliefs are social media trolls who are blinded by the cult of Trump. Oh wait, I think I got something mixed up there.

You simply can’t trust the mainstream media if it deliberately withholds information to allow you to make informed decisions. Now, it is true that Fox News is more guilty of this than others, but the so-called “liberal media” also has a habit of withholding information that undermines certain social positions. Black voices are well-represented on CNN, so it is not "kosher" to talk about the fact that blacks commit crimes at three times their percentage of the population, so it isn’t discussed at all. But in regard to gender politics, anything that disturbs the activist/victim narrative must be countered at all costs, even to the cost of the truth.

Now, has the mainstream media told you anything about the $27 million lawsuit filed against Johnny Depp by a certain Kristine Ledford back in April, and was dismissed as “frivolous” by a judge a week ago? If there was anything that harmed Depp’s case the MSM certainly would have mentioned it; that it wasn’t mentioned at all was because it was more likely to have harmed Heard’s case. Reading Ledford’s court filing  makes it clear that this case takes dementia to a whole new level; you can find it here if you are in the mood for satire:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.850562/gov.uscourts.cacd.850562.1.0.pdf

I viewed one YouTuber, a black woman who is also a gender activist, torture herself into somehow gleaning something useful out of the insane ramblings while posting images of Depp as if he was actually “guilty” of something. She “discerned” that this woman’s few moments of "clarity"--I didn't see any--suggested she was a sexual violence survivor, but I felt compelled to point out that this woman was simply channeling the MSM’s pro-Heard propaganda into some fantastical belief that Depp—and numerous other named individuals like Tom Cruise and Elton John—had “defamed” her for some imaginary reason. She probably "settled" on Depp to take advantage of the defamation trial. 

What was alleged to be "coherent" in Ledford's brief was something about a masseuse “business” in Oregon (it’s not clear what her connection to it is) being busted as a prostitution racket (thus "defaming" her), which you have to perform some twisted "logic" to see as “evidence” that she was a victim of sexual violence. Some of us may think that this stretching of reality and logic by gender activists can be dismissed by sensible people, but the “reality” is the fact this is the kind of tortured methodology used to maintain the need to “believe all women” at any costs by the mainstream media and gender activists in questionable cases.

There are the occasional lonely voices in the "mainstream media": Judith Newman wrote in Los Angeles Magazine  “Imagine if the lesson the media gleaned from this trial were reframed to resemble how it’s been understood across social media? Far from the bitter end to the victims’ rights movement, the verdict actually marks a powerful moment of inclusion for all abuse victims and survivors.” 

But no, “It’s time to believe all women” exclaimed Vogue. The MeToo movement has had a corrupting influence since it totally dispenses with evidence, due process and purposely excludes men (unless they were victimized by another man). For accused men it is guilty until you are dead, and you are still guilty. But the Depp case proved that it doesn't have to be that way. Evan Rachel Wood and Moira Donegan are currently being sued for slander, and MeToo mavens like Alyssa Milano and Rose McGowan are engaged in ridiculous feuding among themselves.

With the Depp case over for at least for another few months before the appeal paperwork is finalized, Col. Kurtz has moved on to the case of a musician named Marilyn Manson, another man who has apparently been “cancelled” by a “sinister” cabal of MeToo fanatics energized by Heard’s attack on Depp; here she discusses her view about the accusations against Manson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-Me6ChXmA8, led by his former fiancé, the aforementioned Wood. This would seem to be more proof that the MeToo movement has had a corrupting influence on society, since it totally dispenses with evidence and due process (that “believe all women” is the mantra), and many suspect much if it is motivated by simple revenge and vindictiveness.

Col. Kurtz (not sure what her real name is) talks here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfXmy_jgAFA about reading the most recent filing by Manson who is accusing Wood of conspiring with her ex-female lover (didn’t Heard have a couple of those too?) to concoct a fake FBI letter, pass it around to Manson’s former relationships, and persuade them to join her “crusade” to “cancel” him. Of course Manson is one of those “shock rockers” who paints himself up like Alice Cooper and a typical “punk” musician, so he’s an easy target. Wood was “friends” with Heard, so we can surmise where she got the idea to take personal revenge on Manson for whatever reason, probably to make her feel “important.” However, Wood doesn’t pretend to be an “activist” like Heard, who was clearly heavily intoxicated for her get-out-the-vote “speech” in 2018, and was escorted off the stage by the event promoter after making a few drunken sailor remarks:

 

Col Kurtz allows Heard some faint praise by noting that unlike Wood, she didn’t personally try to recruit any of Depp’s former relationships (outside of Ellen Barkin, who only testified that Depp was “controlling” to her, not abusive), although she did hire a private detective to uncover rumors of abuse; he failed to find any evidence of such, although he did find a great deal of evidence of Heard’s family and friends abusing his good nature and open pocketbook. On the other hand, Wood and her co-conspirator and ex-lover, Illma Gore, went about “basically constructing a MeToo style hoax that led to his (Manson's) cancellation.”

The “hoax” includes the fabrication of a letter from an FBI agent which claimed that Wood's life was in "danger," and it was used both against Manson to convince others that he must be an abuser, so they must support Wood’s suddenly “remembered” allegations with their own “suppressed” memories--but also against another of her ex-fiancés, a Dr. Jamie Gill, using it as an excuse to prevent him from seeing his child in their custody dispute. Like Heard never believing that Kate Moss and many others would not testify to contradict her lies, Wood apparently believed in this “believe all women” world that no one would investigate the self-serving fraud she engaged in to hurt others and raise her "profile" at the same time.

Like other (bi-sexual) women who think fathers (and men generally) are unnecessary “distractions,” Col. Kurtz tells us that Wood (taking after Heard again), is begging “just to be left alone in her latest Instagram messages” but “this sort of cowering in the corner to just leave me alone” is just like “people like you who always say that after you've taken a (fucking) blow torch to other people's lives"--meaning Manson's and the father of her child.

Wood apparently made her own high-priced attorney look like a fool trying to confirm the validity of the faked FBI letter she or her co-conspirator concocted, and other faked evidence against Manson included stock photos from Pinterest showing alleged “love bites” that were quickly called out and removed from an accuser’s Instagram. Wood also claimed that messages that appeared on her account from people who were denying they said Manson was an abuser came from Manson supporters who hacked into her account. Col Kurtz observes that having destroyed Manson’s life, his accusers are acting “like the crazy girls in The Crucible dancing around having a ball. It's not funny in that sense but it is funny in the sense that to a degree Evan Rachel Wood and Illma Gore and a number of these others they are the gang that couldn't shoot straight.”

Anyways, if Manson’s defamation case actually goes to trial that will be a year or two away, as will the libel case against Moira Donegan. Meanwhile, Heard friend and whacked-out feminist Eve Barlow posted this shamelessly fake, photo-shopped image of Camille Vasquez and Dr. Curry partying together as if she believes there is a sucker born every minute (they're all Heard supporters, apparently)...

 

...while wacked-out feminist law professor from Stanford University, Michele Dauber, is still making ridiculous comments about Depp on her Twitter page, which we discover courtesy of Frank Valchiria  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFXoJd9X30A. Dauber engages in “age-shaming” and suggesting pedophilia from scenes of Depp embracing young fans during his European tour with Jeff Beck. Frank is Italian and he says this is normal behavior, and observes that Depp’s fans want this and he's just playing along to show his appreciation for their support. Frank noted that Dauber was going berserk over a video of a little French girl wearing a Captain Jack outfit…

 

…and it must be sending Heard into fits to see this sort of thing when her only “friends” these days are those considered “loyal” enough to be in her all-female posse (Whitney’s hiding back there somewhere), here at the UK trial where they knew they just had to show up to win because the judge’s son worked for The Sun, which was being sued and thus he was biased from the start against Depp’s case:

 

 

What a fun group. Meanwhile, the mainstream media continues to make desperate efforts to keep Heard propped up to save their own “credibility.” Over at Popcorned Planet, Andy Signore revealed audio from a call with NBC’s alleged “tech” journalist named Kat Tenbarge, which on the surface seemed civil and sensible, although Tenbarge didn’t give away her own views, which were heard an NBC’s recent so-called 27-minute “documentary” that was simply a hit piece slamming social media for its largely pro-Depp slant. Signore calmly and reasonably laid out the facts about why people did not trust the mainstream media to disseminate the facts. These views did not make the final “cut,” and Tenbarge either twisted his words or ignored them altogether, putting her own self-serving “spin” on why people were supporting Depp.

Another YouTuber under attack by Heard supporters, who calls himself the “Umbrella Guy,” revealed that he was contacted by a person connected to a production company concerning input into a two-part documentary on the Depp trial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FTKtCKZAls. He declined, recognizing it was another hit piece by Warner Brothers on their Discovery+ channel to counter the perception that its pro-Heard stance is hurting business and its stock prices—and the potential of losing hundreds of millions of dollars if there is a mass boycott of Aquaman 2. Variety’s latest story is headlined “With a 2023 Slate Hobbled by Controversial Stars, Warner Bros. and DC Stick to 2022 Titles in Muted Comic-Con Appearance.” Of course they are referring to Heard and Ezra Miller from The Flash. Variety notes that Warner Brothers can’t figure out “How to promote their escapist superhero franchises when their stars are embroiled in toxic scandals that overwhelm all other conversation about them.”

The absurdity of all of this is that, regardless of how social media viewed the Depp case, this was decided by a jury that listened to six weeks worth of testimony and evidence, and the mainstream media still refuses to understand that Depp fought against all odds for the truth as he saw it, which was that Heard was the abuser in their relationship; she was the only former partner who accused him of abuse (even the snarky Barkin only accused him of being “controlling”), so what was it about Heard that was different? Can we say that unlike his other relationships, Heard was bi-sexual? I mean, that does have something to do with her attitude toward men, doesn’t it? She certainly acted like the “butch” partner in that assault case at Sea-Tac Airport in 2009.

The star of Shazam, Zachary Levi, said recently about the Depp trial “There’s a part of me that just wishes nobody would care about any of that drama as it unfolds. Because it’s not pertinent to anybody’s life, really, or making the world a better place.” The problem with that attitude is that if nobody was paying attention to the case no one would be the any “wiser” about Heard and her crimes against the truth--and the world would be a worse place for it.