this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
172 points (97.3% liked)

Politics

356 readers
16 users here now

For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.

Rule 1: Posts have the following requirements:
▪️ Post articles about the US only

▪️ Title must match the article headline

▪️ Recent (Past 30 Days)

▪️ No Screenshots/links to other social media sites or link shorteners

Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. One or two small paragraphs are okay.

Rule 3: Articles based on opinion (unless clearly marked and from a serious publication-No Fox News or equal), misinformation or propaganda will be removed.

Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.

Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

USAfacts.org

The Alt-Right Playbook

Media owners, CEOs and/or board members

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

“We’re all going to an evidentiary hearing and I’m going to figure out exactly what happened,” the judge, Christopher Lopez, said in an emergency hearing on Thursday afternoon. “No one should feel comfortable with the results of this auction.”

Oh bullshit.

all 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 61 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Guardian's slow on the news. This was known yesterday.

There were only two bidders, the Onion and a backup bidder. The judge is looking into how the bidding process was run, because the Onion won with a lower bid than the back up bidder.

The Onion’s offer was seen as a better deal because some of the related Sandy Hook families agreed to forgo a portion of the sale proceeds to help pay off Jones’s other creditors.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 36 points 1 month ago

Both article explains that. They used a “credit” given by the Sandy Hooks survivors so that their money from this sale would go to Alex’s other debts first. So it was less money but allocated more beneficially for jones.

[–] Crackhappy@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

That is interesting.

[–] superfes@lemmy.world 57 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm comfortable with The Onion owning infowars.

[–] Timecircleline@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 month ago

The quality and integrity of the journalism will only improve.

[–] nao@sh.itjust.works 52 points 1 month ago (3 children)

“No one should feel comfortable with the results of this auction.”

What did he mean by that?

[–] whydudothatdrcrane@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 month ago

The way I read it: The judge sees InfoWars as a beacon of hope and truth, and Onion as an anarchist, absurdist fake news site. To him it is like giving away the Federal Reserve to Friedrich Engels as a gift. It just feels wrong. Endlessly funny.

[–] remotelove@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 month ago

There are going to be a ton of people getting upset now that their source of fake boner pills is getting disrupted.

If there is anything that could trigger a bloody uprising and revolution, it's that.

[–] Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

How do feelings even enter into this? They judge is nuts

[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 34 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Are there laws in the US or courts just act based on how they feel?

[–] CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.cafe 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

The claim I'm hearing is that the rules of the auction were changed at the last minute; it went from a regular auction to an anonymous "sealed bid" auction, where bids had to be placed the week prior. The sealed bids were put before the judge, and there were higher bids than Onion (a laughable $200K), but the people running the auction choose The Onion as the winning bid, anyway. The higher bids were by conservative groups, to buy InfoWars & keep it running. The Onion was chosen to assume ownership for purposes of humiliation & brand destruction, even though they only bid $200K.

This court case is a reaction to people running an auction based on how they feel, allegedly. Liquidation auction efforts, logically, should pursue the option that pays out the most money.

[–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Liquidation auction efforts, logically, should pursue the option that pays out the most money.

To whom?

The money is going to Jones's victims. The victims seem fine getting less money if it means InfoWars goes to someone who will destroy the brand rather than some conservatives who will pump money into it to further destroy their lives.

Typical American "justice". Only first world country where the death penalty is in vigor because "this is what the victims would want", but when a plaintiff looks like they might actually get a small moral win against fascists suddenly the Law is a dispassionate machine.

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

To whom?

All the creditors, as an entire body.

The victims seem fine getting less money

To be clear, it's only some of the victims that have said they're fine with less money. The trustee has a responsibility to make sure that the creditor body as a whole gets the most money. If some subset of creditors (the families willing to reduce their claims if the Onion buys the assets) are willing to reduce their claims as part of the bid, great, they should add that money to the pile and consider it as part of the bid.

But the families that do agree to take less money can't force the other families to take less money. It has to be voluntary for everyone.

And it sounds like the Jones-affiliated bidder is complaining about the auction procedures. If they followed the already-approved procedures perfectly, there's not much to talk about there. But if they changed the procedures at the last minute, or if the actual auction followed procedures that weren't described in the approved procedures (such as accepting creditors' reduction of their claims as part of the bid, or not allowing "topping bids" after the sealed bids were submitted), then it's normal to hold a hearing to make a decision on whether the auction followed the right procedures.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

Where exactly are you hearing all this? Sources please.

But the trustee who oversaw the auction said he followed the judge’s rules laid out in a September order, which made the overbidding round optional.

The exact bid amount offered by the Onion for InfoWars remains unknown, but it has been reported it was lower than First United American’s bid of $3.5m. The Onion’s offer was seen as a better deal because some of the related Sandy Hook families agreed to forgo a portion of the sale proceeds to help pay off Jones’s other creditors.

It was reported on Thursday that the Onion’s purchase of InfoWars received support from families of Sandy Hook shooting victims, to whom Jones owes $1.4bn in defamation judgments after he falsely claimed the 2012 school massacre was a hoax.

[–] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 25 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The dishonorable judge Griftopher Lopez

[–] kamenlady@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

He seems to be pretty uncomfortable with the results of this auction himself.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

How about you review my fuckin' nuts, your honor.

[–] cultsuperstar@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

I knew it was too good to be true.