Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

March 14, 2019 - Depositions & Trials

01:15:04

PART 2: Alex Jones / Sandy Hook Video Deposition

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	We are back on record at 2.51 p.m. Mr. Jones,
	some of your Sandy Hook reporting... ... some of your Sandy Hook reporting... ...
	Mr. Jones, some of your reporting on Sandy Hook involved an anonymous website known as Zero Hedge.
	You know what Zero Hedge is?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	You'll remember that there was an affidavit submitted by one of the plaintiff's experts that said Infowars and Zero Hedge promoted and endorsed each other's content.
	You remember that?
	That affidavit?
	Okay.
	You've taken issue with that statement, though.
	You don't believe that statement's not true? - I don't know who runs Zero Hedge.
	I wouldn't have a relationship with them.
	Okay.
	I want to show you what I'm now marking as Exhibit 7. Do you want to take a minute to read this, Mr. Jones?
	What I've handed you is the August 28th affidavit that you executed in the Hessling case.
	Do you want a minute to read that?
	Sure.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Jones.
	I'd like to direct your attention there at the end of page one and spilling on to page two.
	I'm going to read a sentence there for you that's highlighted.
	It states, none of the defendants ever cooperated in any way of zero hedge, nor have defendants and zero hedge ever promoted or endorsed each other's content.
	Did I read that correctly?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Now, and I believe the next sentence there, at times, there's been times where Zero Hedge has been cited.
	Yes.
	And commented about.
	Yes.
	Right, but to talk about you engage in the promotion or endorsement of Zero Hedge content, that was wrong.
	That's what this affidavit is.
	Yes, that's wrong.
	I mean, I don't know who Zero Hedge is.
	I've reached out to him before and said, hey, who are you?
	I'd like you to come on.
	And there's been no response back.
	I've said, wow, this is a good article from Zero Hedge.
	Like I've said to the New York Times, if it's a good story.
	But I don't have any relationship with them.
	Right.
	Okay.
	Well, I want to show you a video of you talking about Zero Hedge.
	I'm going to show you a clip that was taken on June 13, 2017. This clip, unfortunately, is not available online anymore.
	This is what you're about to see has been downloaded from a website called SandyHookFacts.com.
	So I want to show you that video, which is just a recording of your video.
	Can you play the clip called Zero Hedge?
	Zero Point Now is who posted it.
	This article, I need to get this person to write for InfoWars.
	They absolutely get where I stand.
	They're journalists.
	They actually reported on what I said.
	They showed my quotes going back over years, saying, I don't know what happened, but it's got more holes out of the Swiss cheese.
	But again, I want to encourage people to read the Zero Hedge article that breaks it all down because they absolutely are on target with this report where they ask the questions that the media seems so scared that I might even actually talk about if the Megyn Kelly interview I want to encourage people to read the Zero Hedge article When you said in your affidavit that Infowars and you have never promoted or endorsed Zero Hedge's content, that was a false statement.
	Okay.
	I just said before you played the clip that I've said they've done good reporting.
	Sure, but Mr. Jones here...
	That's not an endorsement.
	I don't know who they are.
	You're going to tell us that that clip we just saw was not you promoting and endorsing Zero Hedge's content.
	Objection is to form.
	I just told you I've said I think they do good reporting.
	You think the statements that you made in that affidavit were honest, forthright, and complete?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Mr. Jones, you've said in testimony in this case that you've used you've said in testimony in this case that you've used blue screens before, you have experience of blue screens, and that there can be anomalies if the blue screen is not properly aligned, correct?
	Yes.
	Tell me how to align a blue screen.
	It depends if it's an older chroma key model or it depends if it's dozens and dozens of different digital units.
	But if the lighting isn't correctly displayed against the green screen, blue screen, it's whatever color you really dial it to.
	TVs, you use blue screens, a lot of entertainment stuff, green, but it doesn't matter.
	It can be any color that's not really common.
	It's not going to be on your shirt or on your tie, because then it'll make that disappear as well.
	And also, if there's kind of a blue hue to your nose, at the event horizon point, noses turning is generally the number one thing that disappears.
	Or any hairs that are amiss can create a blue shimmer off of television lights, and then you'll see areas that disappear.
	And so that's the telltale sign, not of digital breakup, but that's in squares.
	How do you align it?
	What does that mean, aligning the blue screen?
	I mean, that's not even really a technical term.
	You have to turn the lights on, put people in chair, and make sure the lights are properly set up to then work in the blue screen system.
	Can you pull up Exhibit 1?
	This is 7. Can you look at paragraph 3 of Exhibit 1?
	This not technical term aligned, that's your term, right?
	You used it in a sworn affidavit, correct?
	Well, I would call when you dial, like two different dials, lights, and a thing to make them work together, I'd call that aligned.
	I mean, I think that's a pretty good word.
	I guess you would call it sync.
	So, the lights, you're talking about the lights need to be aligned, not a blue screen?
	You've got to dial something on a light?
	Well, no, the lights and the computer program have to be aligned.
	You have to look at a color scope.
	You have to make sure the colors are all lined up where it won't work.
	You have to be perfectly aligned.
	And that's either on an old spectrum system where you align them on a digital system.
	That's called actually aligning on that is on the scope.
	And now the scopes are digital.
	So you align the scope.
	Technically that is a type of scope and then you have to align the lights with the scope so that it hits the settings of the chroma key System.
	You would be able then, I think, through your years of experience and exposure to these kinds of videos, you've seen them before, the most common type of nose disappearing stuff, you would be able to produce to us examples of blue screen videos with noses disappearing just like Anderson Cooper's, right?
	I think you'd probably find those.
	Yeah, that's something that you could produce.
	I can't guarantee it, but that's pretty...
	Everybody seem like the weather person and they're wearing the wrong color tie and it does that.
	Absolutely.
	And so if they're wearing a blue shirt, all of a sudden it looks like their shirt's invisible, right?
	Because it's the same color as the blue screen, right?
	Or it might be set to green and somebody sets it to blue.
	Or somebody hits it and it goes to brown and all of a sudden the rest of their coat disappears.
	And the whole shirt disappears because it's blue.
	There's a dial.
	You can dial it to any color you want.
	Okay.
	At least on those units.
	Okay.
	Older units.
	What kind do you have in InfoWars?
	You said you had one in the back.
	We probably have about 10 of them.
	Okay.
	Every new computer system has them.
	You still have them?
	All 10 of them?
	In fact, that's not an accurate statement.
	We probably have 50. You have 50 blue screen mechanical devices.
	No, I said I have a blue screen system.
	They're on all your major video editing software now.
	Okay.
	And then we have somewhere we might actually have an old-fashioned tube-based one.
	I'd say 50. Do you think we've got 50 computers?
	I mean, we've probably got 50 computers old and new.
	Those blue screen...
	In other words, what InfoWars uses to create blue screen that still exists is available for inspection.
	Correct?
	Well, it's standard on Final Cut Pro.
	It's standard on...
	On all those editing systems.
	You can go to the store and buy them.
	Okay, so whatever InfoWars has that it's claiming gives it knowledge of how blue screens work.
	That still exists.
	You haven't gotten rid of that stuff.
	Right?
	No, we've got a couple of green screens up on the walls.
	Perfect, okay.
	One of the things that you talked about, remember we said we're going to put a pin in it, about blue screens, is one of the reasons that you were suspicious about this interview in blue screens is because CNN's got caught using blue screens before, right?
	In fact, one of the things you brought up was about CNN getting caught using blue screens in the Gulf War, on the satellite feeds, right?
	I want to play you a video really quick from something you said in May 13, 2014. About these blue screens.
	Can you play CNN blue screen for me?
	Just like CNN, I'm going back to our guest, just like CNN back during the first Gulf War was at the broadcast center in Atlanta on top of a roof with a blue screen behind them saying they were in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and Israel, different days, being hit by nerve gas.
	And then they went on air for parts of it with the blue screen not even turned on.
	With blue behind it.
	Now, Mr. Jones, you've seen...
	There was actually a satellite feed leak, a leak of this that you've seen, right?
	Mm-hmm.
	Okay.
	Is that a yes?
	Yes.
	Mr. Jones, I'm going to hand to you what I've marked as exhibit eight.
	You recognize this.
	This leak from the Charles Jaco CNN broadcast where he's got the blue screen behind him.
	You recognize that?
	Yes.
	And this was something that some people recorded off of a satellite leak.
	I believe so.
	Long time ago.
	And you've done some reporting about this on Infowars.
	You've shown this video and what happened that day.
	Yes.
	And as we see from here, you can see kind of on the left-hand side and on the right-hand side of their screen, there's this big blue screen up behind them, right?
	Because they left it on.
	I mean, they didn't put anything on it because they were on a satellite kind of practice feed, I think, right?
	I don't remember all the particulars, but they admitted they weren't in one location.
	And then, again, it's not like the background turns on.
	The computer overlays it.
	Right, it's not like actually there's something up on the screen.
	The computer takes care of that in post-production.
	Or does it live.
	Or does it live, right, okay.
	But that CNN studio, that setup, what I'm going to hand you now is what I've been marked as Exhibit 10.
	Do you think ABC News and Forrest Sawyer was given access to Ted Turner's secret studio?
	I don't even know anything about this.
	I mean, I know they were...
	You've never seen that picture?
	No, I believe that CNN and others, especially CBS partners with other groups routinely, but that's conjecture.
	I don't know.
	Okay.
	So I take it you've never done any sort of research as to where these interviews were allegedly done, where CNN says they were done.
	You know, this is so long ago, I think there's even PBS documentaries about this.
	Yeah, let me show you an exhibit about that.
	I'm going to hand you now what I've marked as Exhibit 9. You've never seen the International Hotel in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, have you?
	No, I know that's where they said they were broadcasting from.
	Let me show you what I'm going to mark as Exhibit 11. You've never seen the photographs of the satellite setups for the major networks at the International Hotel in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, have you?
	Nope.
	I just know J.C.O. says that they staged the chemical attack.
	It didn't happen.
	You know that J.C.O. admits, is what you're saying.
	You've seen clips of Charles J.C.O. saying it was fake.
	Yeah, I mean, it came out later that there was nerve gas in the air and all that, and that they staged some of the shots on Blue Stream.
	So you're maintaining that that thing behind them in that shot is a blue screen used for compositing and not just the walls of the International Hotel in Riyadh that was on every broadcast during that time.
	Objection.
	That's what you're saying?
	Objection is deformed.
	Well, no, if they were saying they were there, I think they were saying they were projecting that behind them.
	I get your confusion about the blue thing, or my confusion, it's a long time ago.
	It's not debated that CNN has staged location shots before.
	They didn't stage that shot, did they?
	That shot was in front of the International Hotel in Riyadh.
	That was not a staged shot.
	Yeah, they put the gas mask on and do the whole thing, and then they stop during the breaks, and it's all a big joke.
	I'm not real concerned with what they did on the broadcast.
	You said that they were in a secret broadcast center in Atlanta.
	When they said they were in Riyadh, you were wrong.
	That was false.
	They were actually in Riyadh.
	You can admit that.
	I can't say that.
	In fact, you don't know.
	When you were saying that they were not in Riyadh, you had no idea.
	I think you're mixing things together.
	Okay, Mr. Jones.
	You're right, Colin Powell, the anthrax was real.
	You're right, nothing stays.
	There was a lot of reporting during the recall four.
	A lot of people doing really hard work to uncover the fact that those aluminum tubes were total bunk.
	That wasn't WMDs, right?
	Yeah, Judith Miller, was it wrong for people to question that?
	Absolutely.
	There was a lot of people questioning that.
	They did some really good reporting.
	They found out, for instance, that some of the allegations of torture in Kuwait were total bunk.
	It was total propaganda.
	Some good journalists found that out.
	The babies in the incubators?
	I think that's some of it, isn't it?
	That's not just the babies in the incubators, though.
	There was a lot of false things being told to the American public to get them to go to war, wasn't there?
	Yeah.
	And a lot of reporters did a really good work doing it and finding out what those things were.
	There were some really good reports, right?
	An incubator report, for instance.
	Yeah, I was pretty young then, but yeah.
	So those good journalists did good work uncovering those facts.
	But your work on the blue screen allegation in Gulf of War, that wasn't good journalism, was it, Mr. Jones?
	No, they admit they did blue screen shots from Atlanta and a whole bunch of places.
	That's what you're doubling down.
	You're saying that that's a fact.
	I'm saying you're mixing things together, so I can't say anything any further.
	I want to talk a little bit...
	Actually, I want to go back to something you said earlier, which is that you have CIA sources who told you that something's up in Vegas.
	Something funny is going on in Vegas.
	Who?
	You actually will instruct the witness not to answer on journalist equipment.
	Got you.
	What did you hear?
	What did this person tell you?
	The same instruction not to answer if it in any way will disclose their identity.
	Yeah, I'm not asking for their identity.
	What'd they tell you?
	Thank you.
	I got contacted in the morning with...
	I got contacted by individuals assigned to the SURF teams, CIA assassination squads.
	They had people inside the hostage rescue team in Vegas and they said that he was selling weapons to the jihadis.
	And that they had paraphernalia of jihadis from going to the Middle East.
	He was an arms dealer.
	Because the Saudis were having a civil war, they were having an event with the Saudi military, over 10,000 of them, in Las Vegas that weekend as part of a larger event.
	And that as basically inside the Saudi Arabian Civil War, that they used the arms deal to get weapons inside the United States, and that they then killed the Patsy and then carried out the operation, and that the whole thing was basically a Saudi Civil War.
	And a lot of that later came out.
	Came out where?
	It came out in the news that he went to the Middle East.
	It came out that he had been involved in arms dealing.
	I then also had to sign nondisclosures that I can't get into subsequently with other information.
	You've signed nondisclosures?
	Mm-hmm.
	With who?
	Can't talk about it.
	Okay.
	What about?
	What's the general topic that you can't disclose?
	I can't talk about it.
	Okay, so apparently there is some nondisclosure agreement that you signed with some unnamed person that is relevant to the allegations that you were making about Vegas?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And you can't, for reasons of that non-disclosure, you can't disclose anything about that today?
	No, I can't.
	Was that a government person that you did a non-disclosure with?
	Objection would instruct the witness not to answer to the degree it could disclose its identity.
	I think that question basically would.
	Was it a corporate entity?
	Same instruction not to answer on grounds of the journalistic privilege shield as something that may identify or lead to the identity.
	Was it a real person or an imaginary person?
	Oh, it's real.
	It's a real person.
	So there is a contract.
	If we needed it, we could get it.
	It exists.
	I already told you it exists.
	Do you own a copy?
	We have a copy of that, don't we?
	Yes, we have a copy.
	Okay.
	Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
	Let's talk a little bit about sources.
	What is Infowars policy on using unnamed sources?
	If they've been credible in the past and have been good sources, then we report it from an unnamed source.
	Who is in charge or makes the decision on if the source is credible?
	Paul Watson, myself, Rob Doe.
	Okay.
	You've talked a lot about covering the internet.
	Let me be clear, Paul does his own thing.
	So he does his reporting and then helps us out with other stuff.
	Okay, so it's you and Rob who assign credibility to sources?
	Yes.
	Talked a bit about covering the internet and what's being said on the internet.
	When you cover the internet and the stuff that's being said there, are there particular places that you consider important places to look on the internet for what's really being said and what's happening?
	Yes.
	What are some of your primary sources on the internet to get internet chatter?
	I mean, everything from The Intercept to the New York Times to Drudge Report to CNN. I mean, we just look at everything.
	To the rational record.
	Well, I mean, I understand you look at media and mass media and government reports, but I'm talking about internet chatter, what the people are talking about online.
	How do you get a pulse of that?
	It's not even getting a pulse.
	In the past, we would cover whatever the big chatter was because I thought it was interesting and the crew did.
	We basically try not to even do that anymore because it always gets assigned to us when we cover even big stories.
	Because it'll be like CNN takes the angle on Pizzagate and makes it huge.
	It's all a concerted effort, Washington Post, New York Times, CNN. They make that part 4chan's reporting on the huge thing, and then we go and report on this huge thing that the media, corporate media, actually went...
	It's like a honeypot and set up.
	So more and more I try to not even report on whatever the big thing on 4chan or any of these sites are talking about.
	In fact, I'd directly stay away from it now.
	4chan, let's pick that one up first.
	That's sort of what I'm looking at.
	That's an anonymous image board, right?
	Yes.
	The posters there assigned a random number, right?
	Yes.
	InfoWars has frequently used 4chan as a source.
	We've reported on things being reported at 4chan.
	As a source, right?
	That's what a source is, isn't it?
	Yes.
	I mean, somebody emailing you, you could say technically it's a source.
	Sure.
	Even if you'd ever even open it.
	Any piece of information that you're going to report secondhand is a source, right?
	Yes.
	There's a source of that information.
	Yeah, like somebody draws the bathroom wall to be a source.
	Now, for instance, we talked about misidentifying the Parkland shooter.
	No problem.
	We talked earlier about misidentifying the Parkland shooter.
	Last year, Infowars source was 4chan, right?
	I don't remember that, but we corrected it within a day.
	Well, I mean, I didn't ask anything about correction, right?
	What I'm asking is, do you or do you not know 4chan was your source?
	I believe it was one of the places that put it up.
	Okay.
	Hence why I've told...
	So that's what I was kind of asking when I say, where do you get your chatter?
	4chan's one.
	Do you have any others for me?
	Email.
	People are talking about on the street.
	Well, I mean, specifically, we're talking, honing in on this idea that there were people on the internet chattering about Sandy Hook.
	The internet was talking about it.
	Oh, I would say YouTube.
	I mean, there were like...
	Videos in the first few weeks were like 5 million, 10 million views plus, and they were showing a lot of things that, when you looked at it, looked pretty compelling.
	Okay.
	So there were people making videos on YouTube.
	You've had some of those people on your show, right?
	I'm not.
	I can't remember.
	Okay.
	You know who QK Ultra is?
	You heard that name?
	No.
	You know what the Independent Media Solidarity Group is?
	You heard that name?
	No.
	You know Peter Klein in his film Let's Talk About Sandy Hook?
	You know the book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
	I've not read it.
	Okay.
	All of these things have been sources for you, though, right?
	No, I don't think Fetzer, by the time he wrote that book, was a source.
	There's a broadcast discussing Mr. Heslin in 2017 about his statements on the Megyn Kelly show.
	You know what I'm talking about?
	Can you give me specifics?
	Yeah, you were sued over it by Mr. Heslin.
	You know what broadcast I'm talking about now?
	What specifically?
	Mr. Jones, you understand Neil Heslin sued you?
	No.
	Do you understand that?
	Well, you're asking me about a specific broadcast.
	I'm saying, what broadcast?
	Right.
	First, I'm asking you, do you understand Neil Heslin sued you?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Are you telling me that you don't know, sitting here right now, what broadcast he sued you for?
	I'm asking you to give me the specifics so you can get me to comment.
	No, I'm asking you right now.
	That's what I want to know a question to you.
	Do you even know what Mr. Hesslin sued you for?
	Objection is to this being outside the scope.
	He's an individual.
	There's no 30b6 notice here.
	He has no scope.
	If he has personal knowledge, he can answer.
	Are you instructing him not to answer?
	Okay, then you can go ahead and answer, Mr. Jones.
	I don't know what the scope is.
	I have no idea what the scope is, what you mean.
	Is there something in the order that you think there's a scope?
	I don't see a scope.
	The court said you are allowed to ask things consistent with your RFPs.
	Yeah, whether Mr. Heslin was defamed is relevant to my case.
	You know that.
	I had the document request all about Mr. Heslin.
	Don't even start this with me.
	I would rather you not because you're not defending this deposition, Mr. Enoch.
	I've had an extraordinary amount of patience with you speaking during this deposition, but we're not going to do this to you when we defend depositions.
	You should not misrepresent this lawyer that the judge did not restrict the scope to the limited to the RFPs.
	Do you agree that he limited that?
	No, I don't think so.
	Not to an RFP. No, I don't think so.
	I don't think the scope of...
	No, Mr. Enoch, I don't think the scope of written discovery on request for production was identical to the scope of deposition.
	And many, many times, Mr. Enoch, the judge said, no, you can't ask that question for a request for production, but you can just ask it in deposition.
	So no, I don't agree with you at all.
	Oh, and I would appreciate it if you kept quiet the remainder of the deposition.
	You are not defending this deposition.
	Mr. Bankston, I will speak if it's appropriate for you to speak.
	It is not appropriate for you to speak, Mr. Bankston.
	Sir, I'm going to ask you to leave my deposition.
	Go off the record for a second.
	I want you to leave.
	No, I do not agree to go off the record.
	All right, don't go off the record.
	Mr. Enoch, I'm asking you to leave my deposition.
	You are being obstructive.
	You are talking.
	You are not appearing at this deposition.
	You are not defending it.
	If you do not agree to be quiet, I'm asking you to leave the deposition.
	Are you going to stay and be quiet, or am I going to have to ask you to leave?
	Mr. Bankston, I am not leaving the deposition.
	Then you're going to stay quiet.
	Would you like to continue your deposition?
	I am, and if you leave again, if you keep speaking, I guarantee you I will seek sanctions against you, Mr. Enoch.
	Mr. Jones, does interactions with readers and viewers, that tends to help drive what you do on the show, right?
	Somewhat.
	I mean, if viewers want you to cover something, that's a motivator for you to cover it.
	Sometimes, not so much.
	In fact, you've said about Sandy Hook, this is what our viewers wanted us to cover.
	That's why we were covering it.
	Yes, it was the internet since a big deal early on.
	And in fact, when you weren't covering it so much, whenever you stopped covering it for a little bit, your viewers would get upset and they'd be like, why aren't you covering Sandy Hook?
	It's a hoax.
	Yes, the public in general had major questions.
	I mean, even the Hartford Courant did.
	They said that they'd never seen stuff covered up like this.
	Right.
	I mean, I knew FBI agents and people that said there was something weird going on with it.
	One of them was his uncle, right?
	Yes, Robin, his uncle, yes.
	Yeah, he was up there with Mr. Halbig and Mr. Badandi and Mr. Reich.
	We didn't even know he was going.
	Right, I'm not saying he did, I'm saying he was up there.
	Yep, career retired FBI, yep.
	Right with Mr. Halbig, Mrs. K, Wilson, Mr. Badandi.
	It's been a big city council meeting, yeah.
	Yeah, Mr. Reich was there.
	I don't know who those folks are, but...
	Okay.
	Now, Mr. Dew, he has been frequently sent as the news director of InfoWars.
	Hold on, let me back that up, because I'm making an assumption.
	Mr. Dew is the news director of InfoWars?
	For some of the programs.
	We don't do the Nightly News anymore, but he was directed on those shows, yes.
	Okay.
	So, Mr. Do had been, over the years, sent emails and communications and tweets from Sandy Hook debunkers.
	You know what I mean when I say that?
	Yes.
	And Mr. Do had been told by these people, what you're saying is wrong, you need to stop saying it, here's the real proof.
	I thought you meant debunkers debunking the official story.
	No, I mean those who were debunking what you were saying about Sandy Hook.
	Yes, and then we would offer them to come on air and cover what they said.
	In fact, you had been given information by them.
	They had given you information.
	And we put it on air.
	And you had a debate with a guy named Keith Johnson, right?
	I don't think I did.
	Well, okay, so there was a debate hosted on InfoWars between Keith Johnson and Mr. Halbig.
	Was that the...
	I forget the name of the newspaper guy.
	I can't remember the name.
	Well, Keith Johnson, he's a former InfoWars contributor, right?
	There's a lot of articles, a lot of people who contribute, like a letter to the editor, articles occasionally.
	That's not what I'm talking about, Mr. Jones.
	Keith Johnson was a paid contributor to InfoWars. - That's my memory.
	Okay.
	So there was this debate that Mr. Dew hosted, and would you agree with me that sometime around 2015?
	I don't remember.
	Okay.
	Mr. Dew, in addition to those debates, has been provided written information from a lot of these debunking people seeking to stop the allegation that it's a hoax.
	You would agree with that?
	Yes.
	There's a big internet fight going on.
	We were showing both sides.
	Right.
	And so, in terms of information about these anomalies, some of the things that I've been showing you today were in Mr. Dew's possession.
	Correct?
	Thanks, Mr. Foreman.
	I don't understand.
	There's been an ongoing debate back and forth on these issues.
	Okay.
	Do you know who a person named C.W. Wade is?
	No.
	Okay.
	You've never heard of that person's debunking efforts about what you've been saying?
	I've told you, like, I don't live, eat, breathe, sleep, this stuff.
	I get you.
	I'm just asking questions.
	I'm just, really, I... If I had it all over to do, I'd have done a better job, but I didn't do it on purpose, be malicious.
	And everybody wanted to have debates about it.
	And I said years ago, like probably five years ago, I said, no more of this.
	I'm sick of it.
	It's a tar baby.
	I think it probably happened.
	And then we'd see stuff in the cover-up and them never releasing documents.
	And the Hartford Courant saying, looks like a cover-up's going on.
	We don't think it's a hoax.
	And so it's just a tar baby.
	I'm sick of it.
	And so that's why I made so many apologies and statements that I'm sorry that I was even ever...
	Covering it, because I don't want it to be my identity.
	I'm tired of it.
	What question are you answering?
	I mean, I'm answering your question about these debates in this, and I'm trying to state.
	That's what I'm saying is we invited everybody on.
	We had debates.
	If I remember that debate correctly, isn't that when Halbig really got manned?
	Was because we pretty much disagreed with him.
	Can you scroll up to my period?
	I'm really trying to be helpful.
	Mr. Jones, I asked you, do you know C.W. Wade?
	I don't know, no.
	Thank you, sir.
	I want to talk a little bit about InfoWars LLC.
	Have you ever taken money from InfoWars LLC?
	Instruction is to privacy.
	Unless it's Sandy Hook specific or relevant, it would instruct the witness not to answer, consistent with the constitutional rights of privacy.
	Protected under both the Texas Constitution and the United States.
	Okay.
	We'll take that up another day, I guess.
	Wow.
	I mean, I don't know who the case is if you want me to.
	I mean, I don't at all, Mr. Burns.
	InfoWars LLC, has it ever had any money?
	Objection, same instruction to the witness not to answer on grounds of privacy.
	What is InfoWars LLC? I don't believe it's even an operating company.
	So it's your allegation it's not an active corporation by the Secretary of State?
	You know, I'm not the expert on this, so I probably shouldn't answer it.
	I don't want to state it wrong.
	You made InfoWars LLC. You created it.
	You know, I'm not one of the lawyers.
	I don't want to answer it wrong.
	Nobody else is involved.
	It's nobody else's company, right?
	Objects instruct the witness not to answer on the grounds of privacy that could also implicate the privacy of third parties.
	Okay.
	Infowars LLC, what does it do?
	What has it ever done as a business?
	I don't know.
	Okay.
	You have any job duties at Infowars LLC? I mean, as you heard, I'm not going to get into structured things.
	Plus, I'm not a CPA or a lawyer.
	I don't want to say it wrong.
	Okay.
	Have you ever had job duties in the past?
	I don't want to say...
	I mean, I think I'm the only...
	I'm the sole person.
	Has M4's LLC ever had an office?
	I really don't understand.
	I don't know what you're getting at.
	You know what an office is?
	No, but I don't understand asking you about a corporation that has an office.
	The company that has offices is Free Speech Systems.
	Well, so if I were to ask you, does Free Speech Systems have an office?
	The answer is yes.
	I think that's what's on the letterhead.
	Okay, let's try it again with InfoWars.
	Does InfoWars LLC have an office?
	You know, I don't want to inaccurately answer that, so I can't.
	Okay.
	Who would be the person at InfoWars LLC who could answer that?
	You know, those corporations got set up a long time ago, and I'm not sure you'd ask those questions.
	Okay.
	Now, when it comes to Free Speech Systems, LLC, you're the boss.
	There's nobody with more power at Free Speech Systems, LLC, than you.
	I make all the major decisions.
	The buck stops with me.
	You make final call on anything that goes to error.
	I mean, I don't sit there and watch over everything.
	I try to have good people that are smart and are trying to tell the truth.
	But, I mean, you have the authority.
	If something's going to air and you find out and you don't want it on air, you can stop it.
	Yes.
	I told you the buck stops from me.
	Okay.
	Can I have a water, please?
	Thanks.
	Sure.
	There's not an extra cut.
	It's fine.
	Thank you.
	I know.
	Is it okay to break for 10 minutes and eat?
	Yeah, you know what?
	This is not a bad spot.
	We're at 3.30 right now.
	10 and 15 is fine.
	If we can come back here by 3.50, I can get us out of here before 5.00.
	Get back on the record at 3.42 p.m.
	When was the last time you did anything for InfoWars LLC? I can't accurately answer that.
	Was that Invor's LLC in the news business?
	I don't think I can accurately answer that.
	I don't know.
	We've talked a lot about Free Speech Systems employees today, like Mr. Do.
	Mr. Do ever do anything for InfoWars LLC? Infowars LLC is a real corporation.
	It's inactive and it was set up, something to do with like intellectual property or something like 10 years ago.
	And I was just trying to like have a basic corporate structure.
	It's pretty standard I'm told, but I'm not a lawyer.
	And so, but I mean it's filed with the state.
	It's up to date.
	It's just not...
	I think the things we were going to do with it, we never did fully.
	But I'm not a lawyer, but that's the best of my understanding of that.
	Object is not responsive.
	I asked you if Mr. Dew had ever done anything for InfoWars LLC. Is that yes or no?
	I don't believe so.
	Okay.
	What about, help me with this name, Tim Frugge?
	Frugge.
	Frugge.
	Tim Frugge do anything for InfoWars LLC? No.
	InfoWars LLC have anything to do with the InfoWars website?
	I don't want to state it wrong, but I think so.
	So yeah, I think that's the whole point, is that different things than a different company.
	Regarding sourcing, would you put information on the air from a source if nobody at Infowars knew their identity?
	No, not generally.
	Okay.
	And that's because if you can't verify their identity of who's telling you the information, you can't assess its credibility, can you?
	Well, if we got an anonymous call that there had been a gas explosion in South Austin, we'd go see if that was the case, or if we looked up and saw smoke.
	Not that I normally cover stuff like that, but we've actually got calls like that before, like the morning at 9-11, I got a call, hey, have you seen something pulling into the World Trade Center?
	Sure.
	I mean, it was just...
	I mean, so it's not trying to answer questions simply, but if somebody calls up and says somebody's a bank robber and there's no evidence of that, we don't cover it, 99% of the time we report on what is already in the news or something that gets sent in Congress or something that He's already out there and we just give our comment on it.
	Let me go back to your example of say you got an anonymous call that in South Austin there'd been an explosion, right?
	You would take steps to confirm that that explosion had occurred.
	Yes.
	Somebody over there.
	And in corroborating that, once you felt confident that there was an explosion, I mean, at that point you should notify the public because that could save lives, couldn't it?
	Sure.
	Okay.
	Yes.
	Now, if an anonymous person called you and told you that there was an explosion and you didn't send anybody out to go confirm the explosion, reporting the explosion on the air could cause problems.
	Correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Let me just ask you really quick, going back to this nondisclosure agreement that we discussed earlier, that you can't tell me about the identity or the subject matter.
	Okay?
	I do want to know, what did you agree to do?
	I can't get into the specifics of the nondisclosure agreement.
	You were asking sources on Vegas, and we have particularly good ones on that.
	Okay.
	But in terms of your legal obligations, that's also something you're not prepared to talk about today?
	Yes, I had to sign a non-disclosure agreement before I was allowed to see something.
	Okay.
	I want to ask you a little bit more about Wolfgang Halbig.
	Now Wolfgang Halbig was a former security officer at a school, correct?
	Yes.
	He has He has sold security plans and security consulting services across the nation.
	Yes.
	He was one of the, you would agree with me, he was one of the most aggressive people in trying to publicize the idea that Sandy Hook was fake.
	Yes.
	How did you meet?
	I've never met him.
	Well, no.
	I don't know he's ever been in studio.
	I don't know if I've ever met him.
	It all blurs with Skype or audio, but I don't remember.
	So your conversations with him generally aren't face-to-face?
	They were on air.
	On your radio or web show, you mean?
	Those are the places you would typically talk?
	Yes.
	Do you ever communicate in any other ways?
	I vaguely remember talking to him on the phone a couple times.
	Okay.
	You think you've ever emailed Wolfgang Halby?
	I think we've responded back to his emails, yes.
	Okay.
	And he's emailed people on your staff?
	A lot.
	A lot.
	What did you do to vet him?
	How did you assess his credibility?
	We looked him up, and he'd been on national television as an expert.
	And he'd been on the state police, and he'd been as security, head of security at a school.
	And at first, a lot of what he said sounded, he was more credible.
	And I think he genuinely believed what he was saying.
	And he had that professor coming out from Florida, I forget his name, just a bunch of other people.
	It was just a big firestorm on the internet that we covered that firestorm and I gave my opinions on it.
	So what I think I'm hearing from you is he's been on TV. Well no, I mean he was a state police officer.
	And then he was the head of school security at a school.
	And then he was nationally recognized, at least according to the big national shows I saw.
	I guess they're big mainstream, they must have vetted it.
	That he was just really a big, credible guy.
	So are you saying that he had a resume of such that you did not feel the need to fact check or corroborate his allegations?
	Objection is too formal.
	We did try to fact check it, but because it was such a wall of secrecy up around it, around Sandy Hook that Hartford Courant and others noted, unprecedented, it allowed that darkness for things not to be checked out.
	Well, let's take them one by one.
	Mr. Halbig said the thing about the port-a-potties, right?
	You know what I'm talking about?
	The port-a-potties?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	That wasn't hidden behind a cloak of secrecy.
	That's in a video that's been public for six, seven years, right?
	Well, I don't think that that piece of information has been proven one way or the other.
	I think they did deliver port-a-potties pretty quick.
	EMTs were in the building, right?
	That's been public for six or seven years.
	Most of that report's blacked out.
	But do you know EMTs are in the building?
	That's borne out in multiple reports.
	In the report itself, the police officer says it didn't look normal.
	Things didn't look right.
	That was the kind of thing we were reading.
	Okay, Mr. Johnson.
	You know about what Mr. Halbig did up in Newtown, right?
	You know about his activities there?
	Earlier, you played the Badandi tape.
	That wasn't even Badandi saying those things.
	We noticed.
	So I'm not sure what you're going to describe to Halbig or me, but I'm not involved in it.
	No, I don't know what...
	After a certain, after about a year or so.
	You know he almost got arrested at the United Way.
	You know about that, right?
	No.
	You've talked about that on your show.
	I don't remember.
	You don't remember what happened at the United Way with Mr. Halbig?
	I don't remember some things I talked about two weeks ago on my show.
	I guess so you don't remember him almost getting in a brawl with a fireman at a firehouse in Newtown?
	No.
	You certainly knew he was harassing parents up there.
	No, I remember hearing that there were some Some fracases going on.
	That's what I said.
	I don't want to have on the show anymore.
	And then he emailed you about his associate, Jonathan Reich, who was up there with Mr. Badani and Mr. Halbig getting arrested for harassing a Sandy Hook parent.
	You knew about that.
	I vaguely remember back at the time.
	Yeah, you know who Jonathan Reich is, don't you?
	That's been told to you plenty of times.
	times.
	Mr. Halbig tried to get you to support his case, right?
	He sent thousands of emails.
	I haven't read any of them really.
	You know who Lucy Richards is, don't you?
	No.
	Even today?
	You don't, sitting here today, you don't know who Lucy Richards is?
	I don't.
	Okay.
	You don't know that there was a woman, an InfoWars follower, who went to federal prison for stalking and threatening to kill Sandy Hook parents, and that she's now barred from ever seeing InfoWars again by court ordering?
	I read about a woman and the media alleging that.
	And you know that happened in Central Florida very shortly after you disclosed Mr. Posner's personal email address and maps to where he picks up his mail.
	You know that, right?
	No, I do not.
	Okay.
	You didn't know where that occurred?
	No, I did not do what you said I did.
	Okay.
	One of the things that you told me, Mr. Jones, is that Sandy Hook has been one-tenth of one percent of what InfoWars covered.
	Correct?
	Start.
	Yes.
	How did you determine that?
	It's a dead reckoning.
	I mean, if you look at four hours on average a day, five days a week, a couple hours on the weekend, more than a couple, probably three or four every weekend.
	I mean, you add all that.
	We've sat there and added up.
	I talked to everybody around the office.
	It's like, we covered it.
	Someone had happened and then into it and then it was just all over the internet and the debates back and forth and we looked it up and went over the videos and maybe there were part of maybe 20 shows or so and then you look it's only like usually 30 minutes to an hour somewhere a little bit longer and then you add that to just the 300 and something days a year we're on air,
	340 or so I'd say And you look at all that, and you add it into all the shows and everything, and it's just like tiny.
	And then once Hillary announces that it's my identity, then the media kind of just took who I was, and then Infoworks applied it to everybody else, and just the whole thing became this big tornado.
	And I mean, since then it's been somewhat more, me responding to it and things, and then the media was editing what I was saying, To make it look like that I was making the statements they wanted to be hearing.
	It's going to be an ongoing thing.
	And I really woke up when Parkland happened and they said that I was saying nobody died and they were all actors.
	I was like, whoa!
	Because I was dead clear on that saying that that happened.
	I just said they picked the kids from the drama club.
	They did an interview saying we're in the drama club.
	We're anti-gun.
	I said they picked good-looking, well-spoken people out of 3,000 who would be spokespersons against guns.
	Didn't mean that the event didn't happen.
	We did break that the police stood down.
	That's now come out.
	I don't know why they stood down.
	We did point that out.
	So I really was like, whoa.
	You're not going to say every smash shooting that happens that I'm saying it didn't happen.
	That was a scary point.
	Every mainstream media was like, wow, these people really are crooks.
	Here's my question, Mr. Jones.
	How in the world would you know how much you've covered Sandy Hook, one-tenth of 10%, when we, the plaintiffs, have asked you to produce us every video that has Sandy Hook in the title, and you can't even do that?
	You haven't produced those videos.
	Every video from where?
	From you.
	No, after you and other law firms lobbied to have us taken off the internet, which had the index of it on YouTube and other platforms, Like Roku, oh he's doing it right now, get it off right now, he's coming after the kids right now, knowing full well that's not going on.
	You're lobbying against the First Amendment, and you are then at the same time trying to take down All of what I really said, so you can then edit things together, and that's the only record.
	And we went and looked.
	There's maybe 20 shows, maybe another, probably a 50 times caller's calling about that we know of.
	I'm sure there's more we don't know about, but then we added all that together with a calculator, and we looked at the number, and it's literally not even, maybe one-tenth of one percent of all the airtime we've done is Sandy Hook.
	So you found some shows, 20-something shows of Sandy Hook in it?
	That's a dead reckoning, but yes.
	Why haven't you given them to me, Mr. Johnson?
	Objection and fact.
	We have given you everything we can find.
	Because the truth is, you can't even search by title, can you?
	You don't have an index.
	You have no idea.
	Correct?
	You can't search by title.
	No, but we have...
	Well, actually, we do have it.
	It's prisonplanet.tv, and we can search.
	And we searched all the names, everything that had in the title.
	But that doesn't mean that a caller didn't call in or...
	That didn't get said somewhere.
	But we've done the best we can to go through all that stuff.
	Really?
	If you go to tvinfowars.com and you search Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed, that'll come up?
	tv.infowars.com is a defunct URL that pointed at prisonplanet.tv.
	Okay.
	So you know that.
	You guys made a big deal about that.
	Yeah, I just got to send a link that said...
	Okay, well, listen.
	We don't take our stuff down unless Twitter, because the lawyers on your side complain and say, he's doing this, take it down, and then Twitter doesn't take your stuff down.
	They order you to.
	Okay?
	But that's the same thing as taking it down.
	And when that happened, Mr. Dew, when he tried to preserve that, when he deleted that stuff...
	No, we had it preserved when we did it.
	Yeah, but he said in his affidavit he lost user comments, didn't he?
	Those are us.
	Twitter's us, not user comments.
	No, I know.
	There's user comments on your Twitter threads, and they were lost when you deleted them, weren't you?
	You guys are the ones lobbying to have me taken off the internet.
	I don't care about any of that, Mr. Jones.
	I'm asking you, were those deleted?
	Those comments are lost.
	They will never be recovered, and Mr. Do admits it.
	Sandy Hook lobbied to have my Twitter taken down.
	The whole thing was taken down.
	I know, and you didn't do anything to preserve it before that happened, did you?
	Oh, so you get it taken down and then it's my fault.
	I get that.
	No, I'm asking you, you reasonably anticipated litigation the moment you were sued, right?
	When you were sued on April of 2018, you knew that all that affirmation was relevant, right?
	Objection calls as the form, also objection to the degree any of the questions you're asking about attorney-client communications, then you're instructed not to answer to disclose any information that comes from attorney-client communications.
	Let me ask it a different way.
	We sent letters to Twitter and to Google requesting that they not take us down and that they save it.
	When they did, we said, please turn it back on or give us the full records.
	Let me make it very clear.
	After you were sued, the information existed, it was available to you, and then later it was deleted and those comments are gone.
	That's true?
	By Twitter.
	Twitter took the account down.
	Right.
	I understand that.
	So before Twitter took that account down, you took no efforts to preserve any of that information?
	Yes, we did.
	I think all that stuff is saved on their sites, too.
	Full services to copy it.
	What you're stating is not true.
	And Mr. Dew admits that in his affidavit.
	Infowars didn't save that in its local cache.
	It didn't, right?
	Objection calls as to forums.
	I'm not an IT person.
	I can't accurately answer all that.
	Okay, so in terms of whether InfoWars failed to preserve evidence that might be relevant to this claim, you're not the right person to ask.
	Objection is two before.
	I mean, I think despite the coordinated effort by the media and the university's establishment to take all our content offline, we've done a pretty good job of saving almost all of it at InfoWars.com and PrisonPlanet.com.
	That's just not an accurate statement.
	But you can't even search it by title.
	You have no idea how many videos have Sandy Hook in the title.
	We know there's videos of Sandy Hook in the title that don't show up on these Planet InfoWars searches, right?
	We know that.
	There's no Planet InfoWars.
	Whatever you want to call it, Mr. Jones, you have a video archive that's up right now, right?
	You have a video archive that's searchable online.
	Agree or disagree?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	On that archive, there are videos that have been produced in this lawsuit with Sandy Hook and the title that are not in that archive.
	Well, that's because you're getting other people's videos offline.
	Like, you get them from Media Matters, and then you say that's our video, and then you want us to produce someone's edited video.
	Sorry, Mr. Jones.
	When you upload a video to YouTube, you choose the title, don't you?
	Or does YouTube give you the title?
	I don't think you understand.
	No, so let's take an example of a video.
	Sandy Hook narratives, false narratives versus the reality.
	A video that has that title should be showing up in your archives, right?
	That's what you're saying?
	The vast majority of videos of us are not us.
	Other people get our videos and then put them together with other things.
	You understand that.
	No, no, Mr. Jones.
	That's not what I'm saying.
	Yeah, I'm a Zip Saffa David in front of you.
	Mr. Jones, do you have a Mr. Zip Saffa David in front of you?
	Thank you.
	Hold on.
	No, in fact, Mr. Jones, I don't need to make you run back through that.
	Let's not even worry about it.
	I've just got a couple more questions for you, Mr. Jones.
	Let's go.
	The year before you were sued, you said that everything I've heard is that the parents weren't allowed to touch the children.
	Who did you hear it from and what did they say?
	I don't know the specifics of what you're talking about, so I don't want to state something incorrectly.
	Okay, so this statement, everything you've heard is that the parents weren't allowed to touch the children.
	You can't comment on that today.
	I don't want to state it exactly right or I don't want to state it.
	You say everything I've heard.
	I don't know the specifics, but I remember complaints and things that the parents couldn't get to their kids until they'd been taken later to the morgue and things like that.
	Can you tell me any one human being in the world who told you the parents weren't allowed to touch the children?
	I believe that was in the newspapers.
	Okay.
	What about they're finding people in the backwoods that are dressed up in SWAT gear?
	That's not true, is it?
	I saw it on the national news.
	You saw somebody in SWAT gear in the woods.
	Yeah, black and camouflaged.
	The police arrested them and they said there was a SWAT drill in the area.
	No, Mr. Jones, I'm asking you.
	Did you see a video of a man in SWAT gear being arrested?
	I saw the helicopter talking about it, and they said they later arrested the man.
	So when you told your audience he was dressed up in SWAT gear, that's just something you made up, isn't it?
	There's nobody dressed up in SWAT gear.
	I do remember that being on the news.
	What being on the news?
	The helicopter and the man behind the school and the report of the guy in the SWAT gear and the police saying they arrested him and later they said they didn't.
	Yes, two reporters with cameras.
	There's reports about it.
	There's no man in SWAT gear in that video, is there?
	That's just something you made up.
	Nope, I didn't make it up.
	So you think you can produce to me a video of a man in SWAT gear in the woods?
	I remember that's what was being reported on the news.
	Okay, so now it's not you saw it in a video.
	Now it's somebody else said it.
	But I remember seeing a guy and it looked like in the video like he was in camo in black.
	Okay, first of all, camo in black, what does that mean?
	He has camo pants on?
	I mean, I would tend to think that means kind of paramilitary outfit.
	Okay, so anybody you see in camo pants when you're walking down the street, you're like, my guy's paramilitary.
	Objection is true.
	Is that your belief?
	Objection is true.
	I really have, I've told you what my memory is.
	Is it fair to describe any gentleman wearing camo pants as being dressed in SWAT gear?
	Do you think that's an honest and accurate way to describe that?
	Objection is true.
	Yeah, I think that's a fair way to describe it.
	Oh, so what I'm trying to get at, Mr. Jones, is you don't think saying that a man who's dressed up in SWAT gear or fine behind the school, when he's not actually wearing any SWAT gear, is in any way alarmist or dangerous to say?
	Oh, you can answer, Mr. Jones.
	Thank you.
	I mean, this is like seven years ago.
	Is that seven years ago?
	So I'm trying to remember.
	I mean, I remember seeing the guy look like what I'd call police gear, kind of paramilitary gear.
	I remember like camo and then like a black or something.
	I'm not...
	Again, I'm not living this every day.
	I'm very sad for folks who have had to go through it.
	I'm sorry for tragedies and I kind of feel sorry for you having to live through it all the time and knowing every detail at every angle and everything else.
	It's hard.
	Mr. Jones, what we were just talking about, men being arrested in SWAT gear in the woods.
	I don't think I said men.
	If I said that, I misspoke.
	Okay.
	Well, even if you said man in SWAT gear in the woods, you said that just a year before you were sued.
	That's not seven years ago, is it?
	I was going over why people had, well, the anomalies, some accurate, some not accurate, why people had questions.
	Yeah, but it's real recent, Mr. Jones.
	This thing about, oh, it's seven years ago, I can't remember.
	Hell, just three, I questioned Jussie Smollett, just the day it happened.
	That was just like a month ago.
	Exactly, and you know about that.
	Yeah, I don't have any memory problems there.
	I'm proud of it.
	Just have memory problems when it comes to Sandy Hook.
	I think, well, seven years from now, the specifics of, like, if I'd done 20 broadcasts on it.
	Mr. Jones, this isn't seven years ago.
	I'm asking you about 2017. I know, but is it okay to question Jesse Smollett?
	Or was that act evil?
	I'm asking you about 2017. Is 2017 so long ago it's hard for you to remember?
	Um...
	I have gone over the anomalies, and I remember seeing that footage, and that's why people questioned.
	Who is involved in fact-checking those anomalies?
	Tell me all the employees who would be involved in that.
	I think myself and Rob do, and a few others.
	Like I said, normally we're just reporting on news that's already out there.
	I'd say 98, 99%.
	It's just going, hey, look, this just happened.
	Trump just said this.
	Hillary just said that.
	What do you think?
	Okay, Mr. Jones.
	You will admit to me that of all these things that you have said, of all the factual claims you've made about Sandy Hook over the years, that if you were wrong about them, that it would be reasonable to understand that the parents would be very upset.
	I am not the only person to question Sandy Hook, and I legitimately asked those questions because I had concerns.
	And I resent the fact that the media and the corporate lawyers and the establishment of the Democratic Party has tried to make this my identity, brought it out, constantly repeated it, tricked me into debating it with them so they could say that I was injuring people.
	And I see the parties that continue to bring this up and drag these families to the mud as the real villains, the conscious villains attempting to destroy the First Amendment process.
	I do not consider myself to be that villain.
	I could have done a better job in hindsight, and I've apologized for that.
	But I've seen the very same corporate media and lawyers continue to say that I'm saying all these things and exaggerating and using it against the First Amendment.
	I think that's very dangerous and despicable.
	Mr. Jones, do you think I'm a corporate lawyer?
	Well, I know full well that when Hillary Clinton lost the election is when all this started.
	And I'm like, hey, I think Sandy Hook happened.
	And you and others continually are in the news.
	I remember when you first did this lawsuit, you're like, all Jones needs to do is say sorry, or some parents, and I'm like, I am sorry that this has all been out of context, and I believe your kids died.
	And that was all ignored.
	So I've seen the real disingenuousness and the fact that this is all just cold-blooded fit because Hillary lost the election.
	So do you think I work for Hillary Clinton or something?
	Or George Soas gives me money or something like that?
	Well, I mean, I know this.
	When Hillary lost, a light switch went on.
	I've never been sued, and I got sued a bunch.
	And then you've got all the corporate media working in tandem.
	And I know you're working with a Connecticut case and doing all that and triangulating all that stuff.
	So, I mean, let's not...
	And there's going to be some other things coming down the road where all that will come out.
	When were you sued?
	I think it was early last year.
	Yeah, like a year and a half after Hillary Clinton lost?
	But they hadn't ever put the final report out.
	You needed the report because they never would put the report out.
	What report?
	The report came out a month before you sued me.
	Okay, Mr. Jensen.
	Wait, what report?
	Who?
	What entity?
	The official Sandy Hook report.
	What entity issued this report?
	It was put out by the locals, state, and federal government.
	So you are going to sit here today and deny that there has been an official Sandy Hook report, books of it, online since December 2013?
	There have been some redacted reports put out, but it was a big deal to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
	It's a hugely litigated situation of this being so suppressed.
	So, you and your attorney have appeared on your show to talk about this entire lawsuit being a conspiracy against you to take you down.
	Jackson Institute Forum?
	Correct.
	It's a conspiracy, as Clarence Thomas admits, to get rid of New York Times versus Sullivan.
	And you've called me and members of my law firm devil people, correct?
	I don't think specifically, no.
	Okay.
	You've made money from every single one of these broadcasts we saw today, right?
	No, we actually lose money on really controversial stuff.
	We can actually see it.
	Oh, so you can produce that to me?
	Absolutely, we'd love to.
	Okay, and you have supplements you sell too with these videos, correct?
	No, the advertisement's separate from the news.
	Well, I mean, in these news broadcasts, you advertise the sale of supplements, right?
	How do you mean they don't go together?
	You're talking about the news and you put the news down and all of a sudden you're talking about bone broth and male vitality and fluoride-free toothpaste and everything else.
	Well, they're talking about WMDs.
	Hold on, Mr. Jones.
	And then you pick that back down and you pick up the news and you start talking about it in the same video, correct?
	It's like saying the Super Bowl goes to, and the Super Bowl has Budweiser ads on the walls.
	Yeah, NBC makes money off of its broadcasting, doesn't it?
	But technically, that's not how...
	Our advertising is separate from what is going on during the program.
	We don't do product placement.
	And so, no, the answer is Sandy Hook, before I was ever sued, lost money.
	9-11 Truth lost me, almost all my radio stations, and lost money.
	Those type of really controversial stands, people don't like them, and they have crippled us before these lawsuits.
	In fact, we went back, and you can see where we talk about Sandy Hook and the listeners, everything goes down.
	I mean, really, if we look at this at the end of the day, I mean, really, you're the victim, aren't you?
	No, but I've certainly learned a lot in the process.
	You've learned how to not be a reckless journalist, right?
	Well, I think certainly...
	I've experienced real fake news watching the corporate media lie in my name and put things out that I never did in a concerted effort.
	And so I've learned certainly the polar opposite of what I want to be.
	Because I've never consciously tried to lie or hurt people.
	And I did not make money off saying 9-11 was an event where we allowed the Saudis to attack us.
	That's now come out.
	I lost.
	I had 120-something stations.
	Went down to about 30. A lot of stations dumped us when we were talking about Sandy Hook.
	If the statement is I say these things and do these things to make money, that is not what we are doing.
	Money coming in is to fund the operation to promote really questioning things and to build an alternative system.
	And it doesn't mean then when you're being an alternative system that you're perfect.
	But that's basically where I stand on that.
	Okay, I just do want to make sure it's not a non-profit situation.
	You're not doing this for the charity of your own heart.
	No, I'm not like the non-profits.
	The whole conspiracy where they're buying the college admissions and they call that a charity or Hillary's foundation.
	No, I'm not running anything like that.
	I have no idea what you're talking about, Mr. Johnson.
	Where all these people make billions of dollars on their tax-free charities.
	No, I don't do that.
	Okay, so...
	You were asking me if I was running a non-profit scam and the answer is no, I don't.
	I don't do those.
	of those I pay taxes.
	I won't even mess with that.
	All right.
	Mr. Jones, I think we're about wrapped up today.
	If you'd give me just a small break, make sure that we're all wrapped up.
	I think we've got about 45 minutes left in the day, but I'm not going to use it for you.
	I'm going to let you get out of here.
	I'm happy.
	I'm happy.
	I mean, hey, if you want to stick around and talk, we can talk.
	But you might need to do that off the record.
	You might not need to put that on the testimony.
	But I'm happy to do that.
	But let's take just a quick break, and why don't you all give us about five minutes?
	We're off the record.
	414. One of the things I was curious about, Mr. Jones, do you think that there's a question that I should have asked you today in deposition that I didn't?
	That's a good question.
	Question you should ask me.
	I can't think about it.
	Okay, Mr. Jones.
	You would agree with me that when some damage happens, when you break something, when you cause something to be lost, when you hurt somebody, whether it's intentional or whether it's a mistake, there's consequences for that, right?
	People should be accountable for the people they hurt.
	Objection is deformed.
	Well, sometimes people claim they've been hurt and they haven't been.
	So you have to look at the agenda behind things, you have to balance things about why has the mainstream media lied so much, why have governments lied so much, the fact that the public doesn't believe what they're told anymore, and are we going to criminalize questioning Jussie Smollett or WMDs or Babies and Incubators?
	And it really is the fact that we've allowed the government and institutions to become so corrupt that people lost any compass of what's real.
	And I myself have almost had a form of psychosis back in the past where I basically thought everything was staged, even though I've now learned a lot of times things aren't staged.
	So I think as a pundit and someone giving an opinion that my opinions have been wrong, but they were never wrong consciously to hurt people.
	And so I think it's part of that process of me growing up.
	In Rockwall, Texas, and watching the police steal drugs, and then conduct anti-drug programs at the school.
	I think that shook my opinion of police in general, and I was very anti-law enforcement until I grew up and learned more things, and now I'm pretty much pro-police.
	So it's been a process.
	You said false things about Sandy Hook because of the psychosis.
	Well, I'm just saying that the trauma Of the media and the corporations lying so much, then everything begins, you don't trust anything anymore.
	Kind of like a child whose parents lied to them over and over again, well pretty soon they don't know what reality is.
	So long before these lawsuits I said that in the past I thought everything was a conspiracy and I would kind of get into that mass groupthink of the communities that were out there saying that.
	So now I see that it's more in the middle.
	And so that's where I stand.
	I'm a little concerned about something I heard in your answer.
	That it seemed to be you suggesting that you weren't sure if these parents have suffered pain from what you did.
	Well, I was stating that I was reporting on the general questioning and what others were questioning, and it's painful that we have to question big public events.
	I think that's an essential part of the First Amendment in America, and I do not take responsibility For the entire train of things that lawyers, the media, have said I've done.
	So I do not take the responsibility.
	I do not take your indictment or your presumed conviction of me as the villain or the star of Homeland, because that's not who I am.
	And so I reject it.
	Saying the school is closed and was closed for years, that's not questioning.
	That's a statement of fact, Mr. Jones, isn't it?
	I was going off what other people were saying and the fact that the records were not forthcoming and the Hartford Courant headline, why is there a cover-up?
	Why are no documents being released?
	Why is it taking so long?
	The EMTs weren't allowed in the building.
	That's not a question, Mr. Jones.
	That's a statement, correct?
	And again, that was my going off with someone else who I believe to be a credible expert was saying.
	Mr. Jones?
	Are you finally prepared to admit that you have, indeed, caused these families a substantial amount of pain?
	Are you prepared to admit that?
	I am not prepared to sign on to whatever you and the mainstream media make up about me.
	Alright, Mr. Jones, that'll have to be it.
	I'll see you next time.
	Is that okay?
	Oh, yeah, to say that you're designating on the protective order?
	Yes, thank you.
	Please go ahead, Mr. Barnes.
	So what we have in the protective order is that for the 30 days following any deposition, the parties must treat all of the deposition testimony and exhibits and other documents produced at any deposition as attorney's eyes only, and so they've marked confidential until that time.
	Thank you, Gary.
	So no designation of confidentiality is being made today?
	Absolutely.
	The whole thing is confidential right now.
	It's presumed until 30 days.
	I have the order and we have 30 days to designate confidential director.
	Absolutely.
	Very well.

▲