you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 51 points 2 years ago (13 children)

So Alex Jones is transferring Infowars to his pals so he can continue running the show under them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    He is trying to. I don't think he will succeed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Pretty sure this is the first step to that succeeding, so I wouldn't be so sure.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    This is the first step to failing twice.

    FUAC might get another chance to bid, but so will the Onion. And the Onion will outbid FUAC, because they have up to $965 million available if necessary.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    The Onion is buying it to kill it. They won't want to recklessly spend a good chunk of their valued worth just to cut off the head of a hydra. Even if it's better for the family's true intentions of silencing Jones.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    The Sandy Hook families have agreed to reduce the amount they are owed in the settlement in order to make up the difference between The Onion and the highest bidder. This allows other creditors to end up getting paid more despite The Onion's bid being less because the families are taking less of a cut.

    So it's not The Onion paying more money, it's the families taking less, and the families aren't doing this for the money.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Please explain why you don't think he will succeed. This seems like exactly what the fascists would do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    The Sandy Hook plaintiffs are owed $975 million. They are supporting the Onion's bid by pledging as much of that as necessary to beat the opposing bid (remember, they have rights to most of the auction proceeds).

    An analogy: you put something on eBay, and then decide you want to keep the item for yourself. You can easily outbid anyone else, because in the end you are (mostly) paying yourself. The only question is how much eBay's tiny cut will be.

    Well, Sandy Hook plaintiffs are basically putting Infowars on eBay but determined to win the auction. The winner of the auction is a foregone conclusion, so the only question is what small cut some other folks are going to get.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Then the question is, why weren’t they just given full contol of the infowars business in the first place if that’s what they really wanted?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago*

    Because there remains an unanswered question: what small cut some other folks are going to get.

    The only way to answer that is with an auction. Just like in the above analogy, the only way to determine your eBay fees is to actually have an eBay auction.

    And they did have an auction, but the presiding judge didn't like the auction rules. They can change the rules and thus change the cut, but the winners won't change.

  • source
  • parent