“I Don’t Condone Violence at All”: ZeroDarkTony Predicts a Juror Will “Have a Problem,” Then Threatens Critics with Subpoenas

Later in the broadcast, D’Amato responded to critics who had accused him of bribery and perjury, dismissing both allegations as misreadings of jokes and threatening to subpoena the accounts making those claims. He characterized the critics’ conduct as a “pattern and course of conduct” that would not be excused, and stated he would “enjoy watching what happens to you in that courtroom.”

D’Amato’s disclaimer of personal violence is present and intact, but the surrounding construction links juror identity exposure directly to predicted harm by unnamed third parties. The passage does not identify the juror by name and D’Amato does not instruct viewers to find her identity. The dual framing, disavowal paired with a prediction of consequences if exposure occurs, is the documented pattern here.

D’Amato states that continuing to criticize him will result in “severe legal consequences” and expresses personal satisfaction at the anticipated courtroom outcome. The critics are not identified by name in this passage, but D’Amato characterizes the situation as already heading toward litigation. The language is a stated legal threat, not a physical one.

D’Amato explicitly names subpoena of critics’ accounts as an anticipated legal step and frames their commentary as evidence of an ongoing pattern of conduct against him. He denies the bribery reading by asserting the original statement was a joke, while simultaneously invoking what he describes as active litigation strategy. The clip establishes D’Amato’s stated intention to pursue account-level legal process against named critics.

Taken together, the three clips document D’Amato predicting third-party harm to a juror contingent on identity exposure, threatening unspecified critics with litigation, and describing a plan to subpoena critic accounts, all in a single broadcast on September 4, 2026.

Prior Coverage

HNZ has already examined the bribery episode, and the coverage was more measured toward D’Amato than his September 4 characterization suggests. In a “Zoey Explains” video publishedon September 2nd, she walked through the California statutes potentially implicated by his plan to crowdfund PetSmart gift cards to get Lara FM to drop off Scott Hochstetter’s bail bond, including witness bribery, witness tampering, extortion, and conspiracy, and concluded that the strongest theories were plausible, but not proven. The analysis explicitly pushed back on treating this as a clean, he offered money to a witness, therefore it’s bribery case, and noted that realistically, prosecutors probably would never file a standalone case over unaccepted gift cards.

What the coverage did not do was call it a joke. On stream, D’Amato didn’t either. He defended the plan in legal terms, not as humor:

“It’s just a pitch, you know, and it really doesn’t exist until one certain thing happens. So right now, it’s not even real.”

That defense has its own problem HNZ flagged at the time: bribery statutes are generally satisfied by the offer itself, acceptance isn’t required, so it’s not even real until she accepts doesn’t hold up as a shield even if the underlying bribery theory is less than airtight.

Where our coverage was firm was on probation. D’Amato pitched the plan after being found in violation of his supervision in the Los Angeles case. That hearing runs on a preponderance standard before a single judge, not a jury and not beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning any new law violation, even one that never becomes a standalone criminal case, can be grounds to revoke probation outright.

[Video: “Did ZeroDarkTony Commit Bribery Live? Zoey Explains.” https://youtu.be/Er0xQ6Pzke0 ]

Sources

• Original YouTube Video
• Full SRT Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Full Text Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Full Chat Transcript: for HNZ Supporters
• Date: 2026-09-04
• Stream ID: YOUTUBE · S65WxrCsbMk