Andrew Breitbart was a former employee of The Drudge Report, and helped build The Huffington Post, before setting off on his own to create his own news site that would go on to have an incredible impact on political and social discourse throughout the last decade.
His contribution to the world has been a big one, but in terms of Alex Jones' world, the only real place where the two have their paths cross is in relation to Breitbart's death.
On April 29, 2012, Andrew Breitbart had a few glasses of wine at a restaurant called The Brentwood. He left late in the evening, and on his walk home, he had a heart attack and collapsed on the sidewalk. Paramedics came and took him to Ronald Reagan Hospital, but it was of no use. At 12:19 AM on March 1, Andrew Breitbart was pronounced dead.
In the immediate aftermath of this, Alex Jones began spinning theories that Breitbart was almost definitely murdered. Beginning on his March 1 show, Alex went on the offensive, listing out his reasons that he thought it was murder:
1) The LA Times Immediately Said It Was "Natural Causes"
Alex believed that the fact that the March 1 edition of the LA Times said that Andrew Breitbart had passed away from natural causes, claiming that this was the equivalent of the "Globalists" waving their arms and saying "nothing to see here, move along."
You can find the actual post from the LA Times here, and if you read it, you'll see that Alex Jones is missing a very important piece of context here:
The source of the quote from the Times is Breitbart's own website, so if Alex is looking to throw blame anywhere, that is the place he needs to explore. He doesn't do that, nor does he ever mention that this is the source.
Further, the term "natural causes" does not mean what Alex thinks it means, as it relates to police assessments. From an article in The Fix:
Until further analysis has been done, the term "natural causes" really only means that it does not appear that there was foul play, which is definitely true of Breitbart's death, and was reported by Breitbart.com, and relayed by the LA Times. There is nothing mysterious here.
2) Andrew Breitbart Was Too Young To Die Of A Heart Attack
While it is true that 43 is pretty young to die of a heart attack, but it is absolutely not unheard of, particularly in people who have a documented history of heart issues.
If you read Breitbart's autopsy, you will see documentation that approximately a year before his death, Andrew Breitbart was admitted to Ronald Reagan Hospital complaining of shortness of breath. He was diagnosed with congestive heart failure and held for a few days before being sent home.
A diagnosis of congestive heart failure is a pretty serious thing. When Breitbart died, his heart weighed 729 g (a normal human heart weighs between 250-350 g), and he had "60% narrowing of a major coronary artery." These are not things indicative of an acute condition, but do point to a chronic issue, something that got worse over time.
Many of the major triggers for heart attacks were present in Andrew Breitbart:
- His wife told investigator Mario Sanz that Andrew "had been under a lot of stress."
- Andrew Breitbart had a reputation for heavy drinking and cocaine use. Anthony Cumia, when discussing partying with Andrew said, "I went out drinking with him, and boy, can he party. He liked to stay awake. That's all I'll say."
- He had a documented history of a heart condition.
All he signs of a premature heart attack are there.
3) Brietbart Had Said He Was Going To Expose Obama's Past On March 1st
Alex Jones' big conspiracy about Breitbart's death was that he was planning on releasing videos that showed Obama in college, palling around with terrorists like Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dorn of the Weather Underground.
This theory was based on Breitbart's speech at CPAC 2012, where he said that during the 2012 election season, he was going to vet Barack Obama, and he made reference to having video of Obama in college "supporting radical professors." Posthumously, a video did come out of Obama introducing professor Derrick Bell for a speech at a student protest, a protest against Harvard not offering tenure to female professors of color that Bell was supporting. Even this video was not new (it was featured in an episode of Nightline back in 2008), and it appears this was an example of Breitbart talking a big game at CPAC.
On March 2, 2012, Alex Jones started reporting that Andrew Breitbart had said "wait til they see what happens March 1," implying that he was intending to release the alleged damning footage on March 1, then he ends up dead that exact day. I've searched far and wide to find any confirmation that Breitbart actually said that, and every blog that mentions it links back to a March 2 article written by Paul Joseph Watson on InfoWars:
This is the only source of the quote about March 1, and it all links back to Larry Sinclair. If you do not know who that is, he is the guy who claimed he did cocaine with Barack Obama in 1999 then blew him in the back of a limo. He's also the guy who would go on to fail a polygraph test about his allegations. He's also the guy who went on to give the weirdest press conference ever about his claims wherein his lawyer (who had previously been disbarred) says that he's wearing a kilt to the press conference because his dick is too big for pants. He's also the guy who got arrested immediately after the press conference for an out-of-state warrant for larceny. He's also the guy who has a rap sheet including numerous convictions of crimes involving fraud and deceit, and has at least 13 aliases. He's also the guy who spent 1987-1999 in prison for 2nd degree forgery, and was disciplined 97 times while in prison, often for assault.
What I'm getting at is that Larry Sinclair is a very credible source.
In my attempts to substantiate this claim that Breitbart said anything like this at the Blog Bash event, I could find nothing. I did, however, find an article about the event in DCist that said the following:
Larry Sinclair is the only source of the claim that Breitbart was talking up March 1, and he does not appear to be someone whose claims deserve the benefit of the doubt, and thus, it is unreasonable to believe that Breitbart ever did say anything of the sort.
All of Alex's narratives about Andrew Breitbart's death, upon closer analysis, are very clearly intentionally deceptive, and as much as I do not like the life's work of Andrew Breitbart, I find the opportunistic use of his death to be repulsive and pathetic. Whatever you feel about the man, it is a degrading act to posthumously use someone as a prop with which to build propaganda narratives.