and it's only available to comcast business internet customers. so boost your bottom line by switching today. comcast business. powering possibilities. ™

as we come on the air, new details coming in about the ninth and maybe last january 6th hearing, now less than 24 hours away.

what new evidence the committee is planning to share. who they'll hear from, who we won't, and how the committee might use all of those eternal messages that they have their own -- internal messages that they have their own hands on. a member of the far right militia group oath keepers is on the stand as we speak, what he told the jurors about the massive stockpile of weapons the group was stashing at a virginia hotel on january 6th. how the abortion controversy is changing the play for the race for senate or not. and spoiler, more not. we're live on the campaign trail. i'm hallie jackson in washington. good to be with you. with me is nbc news capitol hill correspondent ali vitali and former attorney and former cia official chuck rosenberg. let's start with what we know what we think is the last hearing and we have to caveat a little bit. first, all members are expected to lead parts of the hearing. this is different than the other

hearings where one committee member reported the whole thing, one or two of them, for example, and we also know that there won't be any live witnesses. that's different from the most previous hearings and it doesn't mean new material, and new evidence from the roger stone documentary, for example, from surveillance video from in and around the capitol and parts of the interview with ginni thomas if there is a transcription, et cetera, and all of the documents from the secret service. we will show you that and what it looks like in graphic form in just a second. ali, what is the theme? each of the hearings has had a theme. is the theme the idea of a closing argument and if so, how is that different than from what we saw in hearing number eight? >> i think this can be viewed in some ways as the closing argument from the january 6th committee. after a summer full of hearings where each committee member led a new hearing that fleshed out a new spoke of this idea of what happened and what led to january 6th. at the engd end of the day, each

of those new topics led to the same place which is to the role of former president donald trump, what he knew, what those around him were telling him and ultimately what happened on january 6th. part of the story that they're going to end up telling tomorrow though, is further fleshed out by the fact that there are a million communications that were provided by the secret service to the committee and it doesn't include the key text messages that were lost and cannot be recreated but it does include other things like microsoft teams messages and other correspondence around january 6th andment days and weeks leading up to it. that does allow the committee to paint a picture of what the secret service knew that could shed a little bit more light on what was happening inside the administration, and who were protecting the former president at the time, at a time the committee has said they want as much information as they can get from secret service in large part because of some of the allegations brought up by people like cassidy hutchinson around what might have happened inside the presidential suv, on the day of january 6th itself.

but look, this is sort of the last time that we're going to hear from the committee, in an investigative mode. but we do expect that after election day, sometime toward the end of the year, they will release their final report and certainly this is the indelible image that will be left before election day as the bipartisan committee tries to draw a contrast between what the former president is still saying on the campaign trail about the election and how that led to january 6th and the ongoing threat that it still poses. >> stand by for a second. chuck, one of the pieces of this, and ali alluded to, this the idea of the secret service text messages and the committee has its hand, according to our reporting, on a ton of documents, a million plus document, right, but it's not what the panel really wants to see. at the time of the subpoena, the committee tweeted the deletion of text messages to january 6th might have been a violation of the federal records act. is it your sense that somebody at the secret service could potentially be facing legal trouble here? >> hypothetically, hallie, yes,

the fact that -- >> how about in the real world, chuck? >> in the real world, in the world in which we try and live, i don't think so. my guess is that when something bad happens, look for the most logical explanation, and so it would be rather remarkable to me if the united states secret service, a federal law enforcement agency, intentionally was deleting texts and emails in order to undermine or obstruct or thwart an ongoing investigation. it is not out of the realm and to surprise me, it was preplanned, careless, spotless, nobody in the position of leadership anticipated the need for this stuff, which is kind of remarkable but it doesn't make it a crime. >> ali, one of the things that we're looking at as it relates to this hearing is the timing of it, right? i talked to members of the committee, you have, and the consistent message has been we are trying not to be political here, that this is not partisan work and it is not deniable that

we are sitting out four weeks from election day. how much is that coming into the thought process related to the message of what we're going to see tomorrow? >> the hearing was supposed to happen two weeks ago, but they postponed it because of the hurricane in florida. at the same time, when we've asked them even about the calendar month of october, the idea that maybe these hearings shouldn't be happening so close to election day, chairman thompson and others have sort of balked at that notion, that this makes it political, simply because of where it falls in the calendar, but they have continuously said, that they are a committee that is doing the work that is required, they're trying to get the answers that they need to ultimately write their final report. and look, november and election day, it is an important milestone on the calendar, but for this committee, the milestone that really matters is the last day of this calendar year, because they are beholden to whatever the results of the midterm elections, are especially if republicans end up taking control of the house,

this committee is no more, and so they are working expeditiously to try to put a final report out before the end of the year that showcases all of their work in transparent fashion, sharing as much with the public as they possibly can. but doing so while also doing the kinds of hearings and other public accountability things that they think are part of their investigative work. so trying to work on that final report, trying to still actively do investigative work, we know that they spent much of the month of august and some in september doing that as well and also presenting it to the public in near realtime. >> there will be a dangling thread that said, ali, even after potentially the end of the year if things continue to move the way they're moving which is five sitting members of congress who were subpoenaed by this committee but who did not cooperate. and i wonder from a legal perspective here, what happens if the committee just potentially left those subpoenas fall by the wayside, and we've seen contempt of congress referrals against other witnesses and obviously these are sitting members of congress. how do you see that playing out, chuck? >> unfortunately, the committee

doesn't really have the enforcement powers that you would see, for instance at the department of justice, so the committee could try to cajole members and put political pressure on members and complain about members not being responsive but in the end they lack the enforcement mechanisms and that's why you saw, when there were referrals to the department of justice for contempt, for those, you know, folks likes steve bannon who refused to cooperate, it was the department of justice that brought that forward, not the congress, obviously. so really, they lacked the enforcement mechanism, they have the power of persuasion, we'll see whether or not that is sufficient. >> cluck rosenberg, our legal analyst here, ali vitali our commercial correspondent, who we will see a lot of torium. thank you both. tomorrow by the way our live special coverage of the hearing joined by katy tur and andrea mitchell starting at noon eastern ones had nbc. here in washington, an oath keeper and national guard,

facing seditious conspiracy charges particular comes as the prosecution is sharing more tempt messages from those group chats from the oath keepers. one of those messages from the leader of this group, stewart rhodes says unless donald trump remained in office, they would have to wage a quote revolution slash civil war against the traitors. another from an oath keeper who is already pled guilty to seditious conspiracy, wondering what it would take to get, and i'm quoting here, every patriot marching around the capitol armed just to show our government how powerless they are. bring in justice report ryan riley outside of court. the oath keeper on the stand today, tell us more about what we're learn forecast the testimony. >> that's right, i think, you know, it was sort of a mixed witness obviously for the government because he was not someone who was able to say that hey, there was this plan to storm the capitol ahead of time. essentially he traveled with one of the other defendants here from florida, and they went up, he dumped his gun at this quick

reaction force location at a hotel, in suburban virginia, and said that it was the most guns that he had ever seen in a room since his days in the military and that there was a lot of weapons there. and he ended up going to the trump speech in the morning, had a v.i.p. pass there, went through secret service, and security, where they had to leave some of their helmets and whatnot outside. he was about 20 feet, he said, from the former president that day, and during his speech, he was very excited to see the president himself, and they eventually made their way to the capitol, and they left the speech a little early because they were escorting one of the v.i.p.s, although they did not know exactly who they were escorting, just describing this woman in general terms without giving her name. they brought, eventually went to the capitol. he ended up on the grounds of the u.s. capitol that day. and what separated him from the rest of the group is that he said he thought it was a bad idea to actually enter the u.s. capitol. and he had to go to the bathroom, he ended up finding a porta potties at the key time when a number of these other oath keepers actually entered into the capitol that day.

and he described a moment where he, one of the other, one of the defendants on the, who was on trial, apparently, had talked about perhaps standing in between harry dunn, one of the capitol police officers who we of course heard a lot from, and this oath keeper talked about being in between harry dunn and some of the other rioters and that's something we will hear a lot more from the defense. that's essentially what they're going to say. they're going to say look, we didn't engage in any violence here and while there was a lot of violent rhetoric coming from stewart rhodes, they didn't engage in violence that day even though they entered the u.s. capitol in the military formation in the stack, as they refer to it, while wearing a lot of gear, and indeed members of the oath keepers did commit violence, at least once there was a shoving incident, with another defendant who was already pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy. essentially this defendant was saying he wasn't in the know about any pre-planning for any plans to actually go into the u.s. capitol that day, but only did talk about this quick

reaction force, qrf, he dropped off his ak before coming into dy january 6th. >> thank you. coming up here on the show, president biden heading out west to boost democrats and declare a new national monument this hour. but he is also facing a big challenge on his plan to forgive student loan debt. both stories coming up. plus, making a big push to help ukraine's air defense as russian strikes keep up. our team is live on the ground. and first new details from the latest fed meeting just in the last hour. as to how they decide how to control prices without causing a recession. that and a check of the markets when we come back. the markets when we come back. ♪ what will you do? will you make something better? create something new? our dell technologies advisors can provide you with the tools and expertise you need to bring out the innovator in you. wait, i don't do tai chi. i don't do most of the things

you see in medicare health insurance commercials. cut! all the ads look the same because the insurance companies all see us the same. humana is different. they get to know you and listen to what you need. they have all-in-one humana medicare advantage plans with medical and prescription drug coverage. most plans include vision, hearing and dental for as low as a $0 monthly plan premium in many areas. humana has a large network, and they offer ppo options for even more flexibility. members saved an average of $9600 a year on prescription drugs. most plans include a yearly allowance for over-the-counter items. you can get tier 1 prescriptions with no co-pays or deductibles. call humana now to speak to a licensed sales agent. they'll treat you like a real person whether you actually go speed walking, or not. better care begins with listening. humana, a more human way to healthcare. it's the subway series menu! 12 irresistible subs... like #11 subway club.

piled with turkey, ham and roast beef. this sub isn't slowing down any time soon. i'll give it a run for its money. my money's on the sub. it's subway's biggest refresh yet. my asthma felt anything but normal. ♪ ♪ it was time for a nunormal with nucala. nucala is a once-monthly add-on treatment for severe eosinophilic asthma that can mean less oral steroids. not for sudden breathing problems. allergic reactions can occur. get help right away for swelling of face, mouth, tongue, or trouble breathing. infections that can cause shingles have occurred. don't stop steroids unless told by your doctor. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. may cause headache, injection site reactions, back pain, and fatigue. ask your asthma specialist about a nunormal with nucala. we desperately need

more affordable housing, but san francisco takes longer than anywhere to issue new housing permits. proposition d is the only measure that speeds up construction of affordable new homes by removing bureaucratic roadblocks. while prop e makes it nearly impossible to build more housing. and the supervisors who sponsored e know it. join me, habitat for humanity and the carpenters union in rejecting prop e and supporting prop d to build more affordable housing so many people are overweight now, and asking themselves, and supporting prop d "why can't i lose weight?" for most, the reason is insulin resistance, and they don't even know they have it. conventional starvation diets don't address insulin resistance. that's why they don't work. now there's release from golo. it naturally helps reverse insulin resistance, stops sugar cravings, and releases stubborn fat

all while controlling stress and emotional eating. at last, a diet pill that actually works. go to golo.com to get yours. 40 minutes out from the closing bell on wall street, with the markets up just a little bit, as investors, you can see the dow fairly flat looking at a couple of pieces of information released today. the fed just before we came on the air, minutes from the most recent meeting, why does that

matter? because it gives some insight into how far the fed may go to try to fight inflation. and as we talk about inflation, it's coming ahead of the key inflation report tomorrow and on the heels of a different one, the producer price index, rising 0.4% in september, up -- .04%. and it measures how much businesses were paid for their goods and services. it is kind of like a base level, what you pay, later on and as you can see, inflation is still way up there, even with the interest rate hikes. let me bring in nbc news business and data reporter brian cheung holg it -- following it all for us. >> and the interest rates will ratchet up, the interest rate for businesses and households to operate in this economy, to continue to go up and that the case before the inflation data today and before the critical read on inflation tomorrower, the consumer price index, and the difference between the reports, the data you showed, is

essentially the amount of wholesalers get when they sell their goods to the intermediaries, like the retailers that ultimately we all slop at, but ultimately the prices that we pay at the actual cash register is measured in that separate cpi report that we will get tomorrow morning. look, even if the numbers on a year over year basis are coming down compared to the months of say august or july, they're still well above where they were pre-pandemic. you don't have to look at the data. americans are feeling that every time they open up their wallets. that's why the fed says it is going to have to continue to ratchet those borrowing costs up through the end of this year, to make sure they can take some steam out of this economy, whether or not they succeed in doing that is a question that remains unanswered. >> brian cheung, live for us, thank you very much. it is a key piece of information to watch. and appreciate you joining us to bring it to us. thanks. coming up here on the show, we're taking a look at what is happening in ukraine and also looking at president biden, set to declare a national monument any minute in colorado. in the next couple of minutes. and also, democrats before the midterms. a live report straight ahead.

and new fallout for georgia's republican senate nominee, as he continues to deny he paid for an abortion before, his anti-abortion candidate, running on that platform. a team on the ground running on the ground in georgia. unning on the grndou in georgia. hi, susan. honey. yeah. i respect that. but that cough looks pretty bad. try this robitussin honey. the real honey you love, plus the powerful cough relief you need. mind if i root through your trash? robitussin. the only brand with real honeyand elderberry. ♪ what will you do? will you make something better? create something new? our dell technologies advisors can provide you with the tools and expertise you need to bring out the innovator in you. people remember ads the tools and expertise you need with young people having a good time.

so to help you remember that liberty mutual customizes your home insurance, here's a pool party. ♪ good times. insurance! ♪ only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ discomfort back there? instead of using aloe, or baby wipes, or powders, try the cooling, soothing relief or preparation h. because your derriere deserves expert care. preparation h. get comfortable with it. >> tech: at safelite, we take care of vehicles with the latest technology. we can replace your windshield ...and recalibrate your safety system. >> customer: and they recycled my old glass. >> tech: don't wait. schedule today. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ prop 27 sends 90% of profits from online sports betting

to out-of-state corporations in places like new york and boston. no wonder it's so popular... out there. yeah! i can't believe those idiots are going to fall for this. 90%! hey mark, did you know california is sending us all their money? suckers. -those idiots! [ laughter ] imagine that, a whole state made up of suckers. vote no on 27. it's a terrible deal for california. we win. you lose. cotton candy. pink lemonade. bubble gum. when tobacco companies sell candy flavored products, they know exactly what they're doing because four out of five kids who use tobacco start with a flavored product. and once they're hooked, they can be addicted for life. this election: we can stop big tobacco's dirty trick. voting yes on prop 31 will end the sale of candy flavored tobacco products. saving kids from nicotine addiction. vote yes on 31.

it's the subway series menu! 12 irresistible subs... like #6 the boss. pepperoni kicks it off. with meatballs smothered in rich marinara. don't forget the fresh mozzarella. don't you forget who the real boss is around here. it's subway's biggest refresh yet. doesn't your family deserve the best? eggland's best eggs. classic, cage free, and organic. a courtroom in connecticut you're looking at live, a judge now seated in the trial of alex

jones, the defamation case against him, we understand that a verdict has been reached. keep in mind that this is not whether alex jones lize about calling sandy hook's, describing it as a conspiracy theory, it has been determined that he did. the question now is how much jones should pay families of victims and others who say that they have had severe emotional damage, there are liabilities involved, et cetera, from the lies that alex jones and noted conspiracy theorist put forward. and i want to bring that forward with paul right now, and we are waiting and listening and monitoring what is happening inside this courtroom. our legal analyst, paul, talk about what is at stake and what we should be looking for. >> we should -- >> paul, i'm not sure if you can hear me. i went to you as to what is at stake and what we should be looking for as we look at what the number of the settlement could be. >> it is really unto the jury, in this case mr. jones

defaulted, he doesn't respond to the part of the trial that's about whether he's liable, so he's basically conceded liability, so at this point, the jury has to decide a number. and he has not been sympathetic to the defendant in any sense, and so i'm expecting a fairly substantial number. >> we remember that it was just about a month and a half ago, back in august, that jones went through something similar, a similar trial, he was ordered to pay $50 million in damages to one of the victims because of the lawsuit and it was basically damages for the pain and suffering he put them through, 45 million in punitive damages and 4 million in compensatory damages and a way to say he ended up having to pay a lot of money for this. and one of the things central to the arguments in that case and this one is the argument that jones and info wars profited or sought to profit off the lies that jones promulgated as it relates to sandsy hook.

>> when you look at the number of hits that these videos and other venues, where this misinformation was there, the number of hits that they got, it's sickening. so it's not just that one person was telling lies that insulted people who have been victims of a massacre under family members, it is that these lies were disseminated worldwide, and that they had an impact. so when we think about punitive damages, parts of it is to punish the people who did this. and part of it is to send a message to other people that if you do this, there will be severe consequences, and the other trial, there may be limits on the punitive damages, and the way this case is, it is not limits, it's what the jury thinks is appropriate. >> i want to bring in my colleague ben collins who covers much of the topic at nbc news, and if you're with us, folks are standing in the courtroom, that is because the judge has sent the jury back now with what

we're being told are minor instructions basically. it sounds like some of the sheets were not properly initialed. there will be a bit of a delay here. and we want to note though there is a unanimous verdict from the jury that in maybe the last eight minutes or so and the jurors have been deliberating more than 18 hours in a case that started early october. and there could be a large award with multiple lawsuits consolidated and the families and the fbi agent who responded to the shooting. >> this could be a much larger award than austin and the case in austin, he was awarded as you said, between 45 and $49 million. the two families that were represented there, they were awarded that money. but not all of that may get to them eventually, because of a cap on what they can receive, as part of damages here. so this could be a lot more. i wouldn't be surprised.

it is also, you know, it's not -- this isn't a backyard, it's school, and a pretty completely dynamic than austin texas and alex jones's backyard and even there he brutally lost the case in a way that he had to consistently say over and over again, he was complaining this week that people thought that info wars was over with, that they had been bankrupted by that case and he is using that as a way to fund raise, that's how he used the first trial. the second trial is a little bit quieter. but this could do serious damage to a company that was built on disseminating lies for profit. >> jones has been characteristically feisty, as it relates to this trial and to the others against him, he called this one, i believe, a fraud, there have been some heated moments in the courtroom as well. >> look, he would constantly say, and he was warned several

times by the judge, to keep it together, basically, but he would still go afterwards back to his show and rant against the judge and say it is all, it's all basically a game and he has no chance in this thing and rant against the system. that's his game plan here, is that whatever he loses in these seats, he is hoping he can make back up by saying that he's been censored, that he's been, you know, ruthlessly taken down by the cabal or something. that's the point of info wars as it is. but now that there are these judgments that we can point to and we need to make $50 million back, which he does make, by the way, you can, it's very easy for him to try to make these this back instead of actually trying to win this fight in court. >> we'll come back to you in just a second but paul, let me ask you on the topic that we're on, as it relates to how the jury is going to be deciding the damages that jones will have to pay. what do they need to look at and

what are the criteria that they need to be assessing here? >> the first is actual damages and when we think of the family members of these vicious lies, in terms of health care, in terms of mental health care, in terms of additional security, so that is just compensating the victims for what mr. jones did to them. and the punitive damages again are about sending a message to other people and to mr. jones about the depravity here, in trying to measure in dollars that depravity such that anybody else who is thinking about spreading lies, like this, can't hide behind the first amendment, that might have been a tactic that mr. jones presented at trial, but of course, he chose to ignore the first part of this proceeding, and that's why he's got to answer up now, not in terms of whether he's liable but

just in terms of how much money he's got to pay. >> i want to bring in danny cevallos, another one of our legal analysts with us now. the jury has been deliberating for something like 17 hours here. are you reading anything into that? >> yes, i am. i think the ultimate debate, we never know for sure, because we're not in the jury room, unless they tell us, we won't know, is how to value these damages. the key in any personal injury case is putting up on the board evidence of your damages. now, in a typical motor vehicle accident, for example, you put up on the board, okay, the plaintiff was in the hospital for this long, they racked up this much am hospital bills, they had a broken femur and that was several months in rehab, and you can put some degree of tangible value on that harm. there's none of that here. in other words, yes, to an extent, punitive damages are kind of fashioned from whole cloth, but in this case, the actual damages are subject to

plenty of debate. so i imagine when they got in that room, there was probably a lot of disparity between hey, what is the value of the amount of pain that jones caused these families. now, that may have been a debate between a million and a billion, or there may have been a debate about the fact that, well, hey, jones didn't actually commit the underlying crime, but he caused pain with his words, how do we value that. it's challenging for a jury who hasn't done this before to put a dollar amount on these kinds of damages. it would be hard for any of us. i imagine if you just polled everybody in the room right now, everybody watching, you would get wildly divergent views and again those differences might be between 10 million and 100 million, and it might be a lot of money, but there might be a lot of debate about what the exact number is. and that's because this is different from your typical injury case. you don't have medical bills and all kinds of other things to put up there on the board to show the jury the harm.

>> ben, one of the key things here has been the raw and emotional testimony that we have heard from some of these victims' families here, describing death threats, for years, that they had faced because of what jones had said, threats of rape, confrontations outside their homes because people believe what jones had to say, this has gotten intense and emotional again and again since this trial began several weeks ago. >> people have had to move all around the country in some cases just to escape this double victimization. this is the double whammy that happens in america right now, to families who are victims of mass shootings. not only does that happen to you, you lose a family member, you lose someone close to you in life, and the worst conceivable way, and then it's worse after that, from every day forward, by people trying to, you know, stop you out of your home and say you don't really exist and not really part of american society, and somehow a plant or something like that.

and by the way, i want to make this very clear, alex jones has doubled down and called sandy hook synthetic as hell as recently stopped playing the legal game because he didn't think he can win anymore. he is not trying in any way to absolve himself. he's just trying to raise money. because he doesn't, he really truly believes that he's being railroaded by the justice system. >> what is actually, ben, considered a number that could harm jones financially? in other words what might actually hurt in the wallet for him? >> sure, so because of that leaked cell phone that he had, we know there are some days he made 800,000 dollars a day through info wars so you extrapolate that at $3 million a year, that is a lot of money and that was a few years ago, 2018, before he reached the peak popularity, out in a couple of years ago, 2020 or so, so i don't know the exact number, but you know, $5 million or whatever might wind up coming out of the texas suit is not it, he is

absolutely fine after that. >> i want to note, you're seeing folks rising in the courtroom there, it is because we understand the judge is beginning to bring the jury back out, after sending them back in, once a verdict had been reached with some minor instructions there. paul and danny, as we wait for this, we actually may want to listen in here for just a second. let's do that and see what she is saying and come back out if we have to. >> unless counsel wants me to. do you want me to poll one more time. i don't think it's necessary. just bear with me, all right? >> so she's going through the stuff one more time and we will get back in as she begins to speak. and as you were watching the

proceedings, danny, i'll start you with, what would be, in your view, in a-reasonable figure for the jury to have come up with given the evidence presented at the trial and defense that jones team has tried to put forward. >> it is impossible to forecast or really settle on a reasonable number. to put on this kind of pain. i mean you're not even talking about a loss of work, or actual physical pain in the form of say a torn rotator cuff or something like that. when it comes to this kind of emotional harm, a lot of folks may not have a way to base it, or to put a value on it. so i expect that's why we've been waiting for several days for this verdict, because i think there's going to be a lot of arguing in that jury room about what that kind of agony is worth, putting a dollar value on it. >> let's listen here to the judge. >> rule number one, compensatory damages.

both numbers, section two, the damage, that is assessed with each plaintiff on the lines below. to plaintiff, robbie parker, a, defamation/slander charge, past and future, $60 million. b emotional distress damages, past and future, $60 million. total fair just and reasonable damages, to plaintiff, robert parker, and against alex jones in a and b, totaling $120 million. initialed by juror number one. to plaintiff david wheeler, a, defamation, slash slander damages in the future, $25 million. b, emotional distress damages, past and future, $30 million. total, fair just damages, to plaintiff david wheeler and against alex jones, add line a

and line b, $55 million. to plaintiff francine wheeler, dev mation slander, $24 million, b, emotional distress damages past and future, $30 million. four just and reasonable damages to plaintiff francine wheeler and against alex jones, add line a and line b, total $54 million. to plaintiff jacqueline, defer mation/slander damages past and future. $10 million. b, emotional distress damages past and future $18,800,000. total fair just and reasonable damages, jacqueline and against alex jones, add line a, and line

b, 28 million, 800,000 dollars. >> to plaintiff mark, defer mation/slander damages, past and future, $25 million. b, emotional distress damages, past and future, 32 million,600,000 dollars. total fair just and reasonable damages, to plaintiff mark and against alex jones and free speech systems, add line a and line b, $57,600,000, initialed by juror number one. to plaintiff nicole, a, defamation/slander damages, past and future, $32 million. b, emotional distress damages, past and future, $41,600,000. total, fair, just and reasonable damages to plaintiffs nicole, against alex jones and free speech systems, add line a, and

line b, $73,600,000. initialed by juror number one. to plaintiff ian, defamation/slander damages past and future. $38 million. b, emotional distress damages, past and future, $43,600,000. total reasonable damages, against alex jones add line a and line b, $81,600,000. initialed by juror number one. to plaintiff jennifer, a, defamation/slander damages, past and future, $21 million. b, emotional distress damages, past and future, $31 million. total fair just and reasonable damages for jennifer against alex jones and free speech systems, add line a and line b,

$52 million. initialed by juror number one. to plaintiff donna soto, a, deaf nase/slander damages, past and future, $18 million. b, emotional distress damages past and future, $30 million. total fair just and reasonable damages, to plaintiff done fla soto against alex jones and free speech systems, add line a and line b, $48 million. initialed by juror number one. to plaintiff carly soto, a, defamation/slander damages, past and future, $30 million, b, emotional distress damages, past and future, $36 million, total fair just and reasonable damages to plaintiff carly soto, and against alex jones and free speech system, add line a and line b, $66 million. initialed by juror number one.

to plaintiff carlos matthew soto, a, defamation/slander damages, past and future, $18,600,000, b, emotional distress damages, past and future, $39 million, total fair just and reasonable damages to plaintiff carlos matthew soto and against alex jones and free speech systems, add line and line b, 57,600,000. the defamation and slander damages fast and future, $30 million. b, emotional distress damages, past and future, $38 million,800,000. total fair just and reasonable damages, for plaintiff jillian soto marino and against alex jones and free speech systems, add line a and line b, $68,800,000, initialed by juror

number one. to plaintiff william alderberg, defamation slash slander damages, past and future, $45 million. b, emotional distress damages, past and future, $45 million. total fair just and reasonable damages to plaintiff william aldenberg against alex jones and free speech systems add line a and line b $90 million, initialed by juror number one. to plaintiff erica lafferty, a, defamation/slander damages past and future $18 million. b, emotional distress damages past and future, $58 million. total fair just and reasonable damages to plaintiff erica and against alex jones, $76 million, initialed by juror number one. >> to plaintiff william sherlat,

a, defamation/slander damages, past and future, $90 million. b, emotional distress damages, past and future, $27 million. total fair just and reasonable damages to plaintiff william sherlat and against alex jones and free speech systems, add line a and line b, $36 million. initialed by juror number one. number two, award of attorney's fees and costs. instructions, check yes or no. check yes to judgment attorney amount due to the plaintiff for the reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and an award the plaintiff, the plaintiff, check no, the judge will award one dollar to plaintiffs for their attorney's fees and costs, we the jury find that the standard charge for the accepted attorney's fees and costs have been met. yes is checked. reasonable attorney's fees and costs duly awarded by the judge at a later date. initialed by juror number one.

the last page is the foreperson juror number one signature in 10/12/22, initialed by juror number one. >> the verdict may be accepted and recorded. >> ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please listen to your verdict as has been accepted and recorded. verdict, we the jury have reached our verdict as to damages in this case, we award damages to this plaintiff against alex jones and free speech systems, number one, compensatory damages, instructions, fill in local numbers to plaintiff and fees. damages assessment for each plaintiff on the lines below. to plaintiff robert parker, a, defamation/slander damages, past and future, $60 million, b, emotional distress damages, past and future, $60 million.

total fair just and reasonable damages to plaintiff robert parker against alex jones and free speech systems, add line a and line b, $120 million. initialed by juror number one. to plaintiff jay wheeler, a, defamation/slander damages past and future, $25 million. b, emotional distress damages, past and future, $30 million. total fair just and reasonable damages to plaintiff david wheeler and against alex jones and free speech systems, add line a and line b, $55 million. initialed by juror number one. to plaintiff francine wheeler, a defamation/slander damages, past and future, $24 million. b, emotional distress damages, past and future, $30 million. total for fair just and reasonable damages to plaintiff wheeler against alex jones and free speech systems, add line a

and line b, $54 million. initialed by juror number one. to plaintiff jacqueline, defamation/slander damages, past and future, $10 million. emotional distress damages past and future, $18,800,000. total fair just and reasonable damages, plaintiff jacqueline, against alex jones and free speech systems, add line a and line b, $28,800,000. initialed by juror number one. to plaintiff mark barger, a, defamation/slander damages past and future. $25 million. b, emotional distress damages, past and future,fully 32,600,000. total fair just and reasonable damages, for plaintiff mark, and against alex jones and free speech systems, add line a and line b, $57 million,600,000. initialed by juror number one.

to plaintiff nicole hockey, defamation/slander damages, past and future,fully 32 million. emotional and distress damages past and future, 41 million,600,000 dollars. total fair just and reasonable damages, to plaintiff nicole hockey and against alex jones and free speech systems, add line a and line b, $73,600,000. initialed by juror number one. to plaintiff, a, defamation/slander damages, past and future, $38 million. b, emotional distress damages, past and future, $43,600,000. total fair just and reasonable damages to the plaintiff ian hockey against alex jones and free speech system, add line a and line b, $81,600,000, initialed by juror number one. to plaintiff jennifer, a,

defamation/slander damages past and future,fully 21 million. b, multiple distress damages, past and future,fully 31 million. total, fair just and reasonable damages, to plaintiff jennifer, against alex jones and the free speech systems, add line a and line b, $52 million. initialed by juror number one. to plaintiff done fla soto, a, defamation slash slander damages past and future, $18 million. b, emotional distress damages, past and future, $30 million. total fair and just and reasonable damages to plaintiff donna soto against alex jones and free speech systems, add line a and line b, $48 to playoff parise, a, defamation/slander damage past and future, $30 million, b, emotional distress damages past

and future, $36 million. total, fair, just and reasonable damages to behalf carly parise and against alex jones and free speech systems, add line a and line b, $66 million, initialed by juror number one. to playoff carlos matthew silva, a, defamation/slappeder damages, past and future, $18,6 up,000. b, emotional distress damages, past and future, $39 million. total, fair, just and reasonable damages to playoff desoto and alex jones, add line a and line b, $57 m 600,000. to playoff marino, a, defamation/slander defamation past and future, $30 million, b, emotional distress damages, past and future, $38,800,000.

total just and reasonable damages against alex and free speech systems, add line a and line b, $68,800,000 initialed by juror number one. to playoff william alderberg. a, defamation/slander damages past and future, $45 million. b, emotional distress damages, past and future, $46 million. total fair, just and reasonable damages to playoff william aldenberg and against alex jones and free speech systems, add line a and line b, $90 million, initialed by juror number one. to playoff erica last, slanter damages past and future, $18 million, b, emotional distress damages past and future, $58 million. total, fair, just and reasonable damages to plaintiff erica

lafferty, add line a and line b, $36 million. to playoff william sterling, defamation/slander damage past and future, $1 million. b, emotional distress damages past and future, $27 million. total, fair just and reasonable damages to playoff william sherlak, add line a and line b, $36 million initialed by juror number one one. award of attorneys fees and costs. check yes or no. check yes the judge will determine the amount rp for the plaintiffs attorney fees and then award the plaintiffs that amount at a later date. check no. the judge will award $1 for the attorney fees and costs. wet jury find that the standard charge for the assessment of attorneys fees and costs has been met.

yes is checked. reasonable attorneys fees and costs to be award by the judge at a later date. initialed by juror number one. the last page is juror number one's signature and the date 10/12/2022 and also initialed by juror number one. ladies and gentlemen of the jury, do you all agree that this is your verdict? >> yes. >> thank you. >> anything further, counsel, before i discharge the jury? >> nothing from the defense, judge. >> all right. now as you will recall when we started the case, i read some preliminary instructions to you, and i now have a brief and i promise you brief statement to read to you regarding post-verdict communications. you've now concluded your service at jurors, and jurors often ask whether they can discuss their jury experience with others. under our law that decision remains solely with each one of

you. if you wish to discuss your jury service with others when you're asked about it or even if you're not asked about it, you may do so. on the other hand, if you choose not to discuss your jury service with others you may does that do so. the choice is yours. it's your decision to decide whether to speak or not speak about your experience. now, you may be contacted by members of the media seeking comment from you about your experience in this case. you are under no obligation to speak to the media, nor do you need to provide any explanation for not doing so. as you know, highly publicized trials may arouse strong reacted in the public. for this reason and others you may wish not to publicize your service as a juror. that decision is entirely your own. now i can deviate from the script. on a personal note i would like to thank you all for your service and your dedication and serving on this jury for taking

time out of your busy lives. i hope that you found the experience a rewarding one, and i thank you for your service on behalf of the parties, the lawyer and the court. you are hereby formally discharged from your service as jurors. thank you again. we are adjourned. >> you have been watching a judge read out what is ultimately a staggering amount of money that alex jones is now being ordered to pay to families of sandy hook school shooting victims for the lies that jones perpetrated, for the conspiracy theories he put forward claiming sandy hook was a hoax. it was not. nearly two dozen people killed, murdered in new town, connecticut. damages are totaling roughly $1 billion. again, it's an extraordinary amount of money here. we've got ben collins, pal

cevallos and our legal analyst joining us. ben, let me go to you. simultaneously we're also hearing from alex jones on info wars learning in real time that he's about $965 million plus attorney fees to these families. >> that's correct. look, my jaw is on the floor here. this is an amount of money he cannot make up, and he knows that and that's what he's saying right now. he's obviously telling people to go buy some supplements but there are no amount of supplements that will make up that level of money. his team counted over $1 billion, like that's how high the damages are here. nobody has a real number yet. we're still trying to figure that out. i do want to read you a quote from him. he said, first of all, he said we've lost count, it's in the billions. why not make it trillions because he doesn't have any of this, and he said this must be what hell is like. they just read out the damages, even though you don't got the money and that's what he's going through right now, alex jones. he says he's not going to stop.

they want to scare us away from questioning uvalde or parkland. we're not going away. we're not going to stop so this is not a deterrent for him. he'll just keep going but at this point, know, i don't know how info wars -- he's hoping there's a cap on damages but i just don't know. >> danny, let me go to you again. we're looking at the numbers and what was read out in court, and it looks to be nearly $1 billion and we cannot lose sight of the intensely emotional refraction many so of the families in the root you can't take your eyes off of what was happening on the screen as we were watching the numbers being read live as families were hearing the numbers for the first time. loved ones are not going to make their kid come back, their sibling come back, but numbers that attempt to try to compensate them for the harm that alex jones caused. danny? >> reporter: unfortunately, that is a limitation of the civil justice system. i mean, all we can do is give money back to the people who have suffered immeasurable loss,

and while exactly you put it right, i mean, a small consolation but it's maybe the beginning of a consolation in holding someone accountable. just to give you an idea of how hard it is to forecast and put a dollar amount on these damages. defamation damages are typically measured by the amount of money you would have been paid professionally, for example, if someone hadn't defamed you and the difference between that and the amount of money that you made or that you lost as a result of the defamation. that is almost not applicable here at all. in fact, the plaintiffs' attorney suggested to the jury take the number $550 million. based on the number of views that alex jones had for his alleged defamation. that's not the typical measure of defamation damages, but in a case like this, what else are you going to do? how else are you going to convey to the jury, hey, find a number. you know, the jury not only took that number, they nearly doubled

it. >> paul, i have about 40 second left in the show. jones' attorney is calling today a dark day for freedom of speech saying they are likely to appeal. what would an appeal even look like sneer. >> it's hard to imagine u.might have noticed that the judge had a fake smile on her face when she reviewed the verdict before it was announced. i think that probably comes close to what she thinks about this verdict. i think it's likely to stand. the appellate court may reduce the amount somewhat. this is historic, but if the american legal system has anything to do with it, alex jones will spend the rest of his life paying back the 15 people who his vile words and deeds injured and his business will go bankrupt. guess what, there's a third damages trial coming up. westbound on that note, thank you all. that does it for us. nicolle wallace picks it up with "deadline white house" right now.