I selected a person from Connecticut because no one else at InfoWars was willing to do it again. No one wanted to have their deposition placed on video online to the ridicule of all the Alex haters.

There's a website I learned about called Knowledge Fight. These are a couple bottom feeders who make their chops hating Alex.

Yeah, well, I mean, you know, either that or printing more monopoly money. It was pretty astounding. And what's more, that's just the beginning. There'll be an attorney's fee application, which could increase this by about 40% to the 1.4 billion. And then Judge Bellis will also have the ability to make a separate finding on punitive damages. So by the time this is done, it could easily be $2.5 billion.

It's a huge verdict, and it sends a chilling message. I think the message that it sends is that, you know, if you are outside the mainstream media, if you're challenging the orthodoxy and the orthodoxy determines what you said isn't true, there's now a body of law, if this stands on appeal, by the way, and we will, I hope Alex takes the appeal, you know, that would say you're responsible for what anybody said if you've uttered an untruth.

There were things to argue about in this case, but the court didn't want to hear argument about it. I had to move mountains to win the right to make the limited little arguments I was permitted to make in that courtroom. But the bottom line is, if I'd stayed home, Alex wouldn't have been much worse off. The court just didn't want to hear from me and didn't want to let the jury hear from me.

And the question that nobody asks, and for which there must be an answer, is, you know, what makes Alex an InfoWars and you so popular? You don't hook people on some sort of drug that is foreign to their body. You talk about things that are obvious to them and that no one else talks about. And until people begin to understand what makes a show like Infowars or Alex Jones or Owen Schroyer popular, they're asking the wrong questions.

Your job is to decide if Mr. Jones is responsible for all they are claiming. In other words, we claim that their claims are exaggerated.

You will learn that each of the parents and family members here transformed their grief and rage over the death of a loved one into a powerful and effective motive for causing gun violence and promoting school safety.

Do they overstate the harm that Alex caused them? Because they want to silence him for political reasons? because he disagrees with their point of view. I would suggest to you that is the case. We'll argue that.

Our contention, to be clear, is that the damage claims here are exaggerated because of the idiosyncratic motives of the plaintiffs, transforming their griefs into political weapons.

Alex is old, loud, brazen, often offensive, and a liar.

Six stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt you.

Alex wasn't perfect today, but he did a good job. He showed far more patience than I would have or perhaps could have.

The trial is set to take place this summer, and it's looking to me, and I don't want to be called the lawyer conspiracy theorist, but it's looking to me like this might be the trial of the century as to... As to the right of ordinary people to raise questions and draw unpopular conclusions.

It appears to me that the Sandy Hook families have decided, together with the New York Times and Elizabeth Williamson, formerly the Times editorial board, that this is a trial not about damage to Sandy Hook, but what they perceive to be damage to the American Republic. And they view Mr. Jones and Infowars as something akin to a cancer, a cancer eating away at the truth.

What they're missing is that we've lost a common conception of truth. That's what makes Alex Jones and Infowars popular.

What he said about the law is whether if you contributed knowingly or unknowingly to events that led to violence, you are a co-conspirator. That's simply wrong. You are not a co-conspirator in a crime unless you engage self-consciously, deliberately, for unlawful purpose with another and agree with another.

I think this is the great lie on the American people. I mean, for Kamala Harris to stand up in front of the nation and say, January 6th was like, you know, September 11th was like Pearl Harbor. No, it wasn't. January 6th was like 1776. It was like Lexington. It was like Concord.

Well, you know, I mean, basically, it's an attempt to criminalize ordinary behavior, and it waters down the conspiracy requirement to almost meaningless dimensions. If, in fact, agreeing to go to a protest and agreeing to stand outside to try to delay Congress from doing something or a federal agency from doing something or trying to hinder them from doing something, that expression of protest is now considered, under this precedent, sedition.

Now, I took the vaccine. I got double shots of Pfizer. Nobody warned me about any gene therapy or anything like that. So as far as I knew, I was taking a vaccine that was tested under exigent circumstances to meet an emergency.

We cherish difference for the sake of difference. We're in a situation where parents could be accused of risk of injury to a minor by not heeding their minor children's desire for sex change operations. I mean, it's just absolutely insane.

I do not believe there are facts sufficient to warrant a further investigation of you or much less an arrest. I'm prepared to wage that fight when the time comes, if it comes.

I know that had she been black and there were no charges, no transparency, there might be more riots in the streets, and then we'd be talking about the need for a so-called racial reckoning.

Hey, you know, I tried to buy woke insurance the other day. The crowd looked at me. What's woke insurance? Well, woke insurance is what you need if you're a white man because I'm reading the paper, and everything that's wrong with this country is my fault. How am I going to pay for all of this? I need woke insurance. And we're at a point where, you know, that sort of humor isn't necessarily farcical any longer.

Because she's trying to recolonize the continent that was stolen from Native Americans and to discomfit her neighbors by showing that we're here and we matter.

You don't ever want to create an interest in the outcome and a potential witness. No, no, no, I'm here. I'm going to... Why does the law enforcement say there's an out... Why does law enforcement say $5,000, dead or alive? One million! Because we all know who did it! So let's talk about what happened here. You think I won't pay one million? I didn't say that. I just don't want you to create an interest in the outcome of a person who testifies because they now have a... There is a contingent interest in telling...

I have spoken to federal prosecutors. They regard you as a victim. They do not regard you as in any way a suspect. No one's going to search your computers or try to build a case against you. I want them to. I want them to track it back to you-know-who. You are not a suspect. You are not a target. You are not a person of interest. You are a victim, and that's the story here.

They contracted out to a sophisticated data mining firm. They spent probably $100,000 to go through your emails looking for whatever they could find. And they did find this.

You believe that that was placed there and they knew where to look and how to find it. I'm not I don't have evidence of that yet.