Alex Jones Wants To Snitch to the Feds in Exchange for Immunity. So, What Might He Know?

Photo by Drew Angerer / Getty

Conspiracy peddler Alex Jones of Infowars is unraveling and quite likely terrified. After three of his companies declared bankruptcy this week to try and stave off a trial for damages brought by the Sandy Hook families, late yesterday The New York Times reported that Jones’s lawyer has approached the Justice Department offering Jones’s cooperation on January 6 in exchange for immunity. While it seems unlikely that prosecutors would ever cut such a deal, this raises a key question: What exactly does Jones know about the insurrection, and how valuable must that information be that he thinks it can buy him protection?

Back in November, I wrote about the subpoena that the January 6 Committee served on Jones. An accompanying letter outlined what the Committee already had discovered about his involvement in, and apparent advance knowledge of, the planning around the rally at the Ellipse and the subsequent march on the Capitol—which in turn became the mob’s deadly assault of January 6. Jones and his cohort Ali Alexander had organized “Stop the Steal” rallies around the country as well as a separate protest on the other side of the Capitol on the day of the electoral count in Congress. Both have been tied to far-right militant groups such as the Oath Keepers, which provided “security” for Jones and other figures such as key Trump advisor Roger Stone at gatherings. 

Jones is a high-profile ally of Trump and claims to have been involved with members of the Trump campaign in financing and organizing the events and rallies leading up to the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Jones has boasted that his efforts secured half a million dollars in funding for the rallies, with 80 percent coming from Publix heiress Julie Fancelli. As a primary organizer of the events, Jones (or any one of his co-conspirators) could provide a crucial link to key questions: Did the White House know about the strong potential for violence on January 6? And if so, why did it not only fail to warn the authorities and fail to act to stop it, but instead actually encourage the crowd to march upon the Capitol, fueling an already explosive situation? The use of the angry, incited crowd to bring a hammer down on Congress that day goes directly to the question of the former president’s guilty state of mind and corrupt intent in seeking to obstruct Congress in its official duties.

In response to the subpoena, Jones appeared before the Committee but then invoked the Fifth Amendment “almost 100 times” in response to questions. While Jones said the deposition was “interesting” and the questions that were asked were “pretty reasonable” such that he “wanted to answer the questions,” he claimed at the time that “it’s a good thing I didn’t.” Now, that strategy appears to have failed him. Other witnesses, such as Ali Alexander, have come forward and testified more cooperatively, and Alexander is now working with a federal grand jury to provide documents relevant to his organizing and planning activities. If Jones thus far hasn’t received a similar subpoena, this is bad news for him, as it likely means that he could become a defendant.

Further, some leaders of right-wing extremist groups such as the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys already have been charged with the very serious federal felony of seditious conspiracy, which carries up to 20 years in prison, and some of them have agreed to cooperate with authorities in exchange for a more lenient sentence. It’s often the case that those who come forward early receive the best deals from authorities, and Jones may long since have blown his chance.

Given Jones’s overture to the feds, it is worth reviewing some key facts that the Committee already has learned and confirmed about Jones’s involvement with January 6. These facts help shed light on what information might still be missing. The following curious facts are already known to investigators, and I have added the questions they likely already have been busily answering, perhaps from other witnesses:

• On December 29, 2020, Jones said on his show, “Now I know some incredible information that I am not at liberty to tell you. But I am at liberty to give you a hint, which I don’t think is too hard. You notice Trump said, ‘January 6th will be wild in D.C.?’ Well, it will be wild.” What “incredible information” did Jones have as of that date, and who gave it to him?

• On December 31, Jones had host Matt Bracken stand in for him on Infowars. Bracken told listeners, “We’re not going to be saved by anybody above us. We’re only going to be saved by millions of Americans moving to Washington, occupying the entire area, if necessary storming into the Capitol. We know the rules of engagement. If you have enough people, you can push down any fence or wall.” Did Jones discuss a plan of the mob “storming into the Capitol” with Bracken? If so, was the same plan discussed with anyone inside the White House?

• On his own show on January 7, 2021, the day after the insurrection, Jones stated that the White House had instructed him, on or around January 3, that he “was to lead a march to the Capitol” where “President Trump would meet the group.” Did the White House plan all along to turn the permitted rally into an unpermitted march, led by the former president, tying him directly to the plan to disrupt Congress using the mob?

Again, it is highly likely that both the January 6 Committee and the Justice Department already have independent answers to these questions and do not need an immunity deal with Jones in order to establish the relevant facts. Jones himself is not a credible or reliable witness, and so his testimony would be more easily dismissed by the former administration, with Trump likely throwing him entirely under the bus. But the fact that Jones sees the walls closing in and is desperate to save his own skin is quite telling. It certainly means that the investigation is getting closer to a truth that could lead to significant legal risk for Jones and any who were in cahoots with him.