Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 20, 2019 - Depositions & Trials

01:35:58

Deposition of Rob Jacobson - March 20, 2019

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	We are on the record for the videotaped deposition of Robert Jacobson, taken on Wednesday, March 20th, 2019. The time is approximately 12.01pm.
	Will the court quarter please join the witness?
	Will you raise your right hand please?
	You do solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
	Yes ma'am.
	Thank you very much.
	Good afternoon, Mr. Jacobson.
	Can you introduce yourself for our record?
	I am Robert Jacobson.
	Mark, I'd like to ask a couple questions and make a comment real quickly.
	I don't think you've been given any orders from the court to do any discovery, so no, Mr. Enoch, you're not asking this witness any questions.
	Mr. Jacobson...
	Mr. Enoch?
	Mr. Enoch, please point me to the order in which you've been allowed to do any discovery or take any questions of any witness.
	Point me to it, Mr. Enoch.
	Right now, point me to it.
	Please do not interrupt.
	Mr. Enoch, stop talking to the witness.
	Mr. Enoch, this deposition will be suspended, and I will sink sanctions if you speak one more time to this witness.
	Mr. Jacobson, have you been served with this?
	Mr. Enoch, we're going off the record.
	We're done.
	No, we're not going off the record.
	Deposition is suspended.
	You have no ability to take any testimony, Mr. Enoch.
	None.
	Zero.
	Mr. Bankston, I suggest instead of getting emotional about it, you let me ask the questions that I ask.
	No, we're not going to let you have any questions, Mr. Enoch.
	Please don't interrupt me again.
	Mr. Enoch, you have no right to answer questions.
	Before you ask a single question to that witness again, direct me to what authority you think you have the ability...
	Did you serve a subpoena on this witness?
	I served notice of deposition on this witness.
	Sir, if you didn't serve a subpoena, he's under an NDA and a confidentiality agreement.
	He is not excused from that.
	You did not provide him with an order to this court.
	He cannot testify today.
	You should have served him with a subpoena and you did not.
	You want to take this up with the judge?
	No, sir.
	That's what I want to talk with this witness about.
	You're not going to talk to him about it.
	You don't have the ability to do discovery.
	I'm going to ask this witness questions.
	If you instruct him not to answer and try to prevent this deposition from happening, I will take it up to the court.
	Mr. Bankston, you are the one preventing me from asking any questions.
	I am.
	Then do what you need to do, sir.
	That's what we're going to do.
	I want to make sure this witness knows of his obligations under the non-disclosure agreement and confidentiality agreements that he signed.
	Are you going to...
	You sent him a letter telling him what his confidentiality agreements are, telling him to observe them.
	You have already had these communications with this witness.
	You have no reason to ask this witness any questions today.
	The court has not granted your client any discovery whatsoever, and you will stop interfering with this deposition.
	You have no reason to be asking this client about confidentiality when you have already informed him of his obligations.
	Mr. Bankston, I'm going to ask the question, and if you instruct him not to answer...
	I don't represent this witness.
	Mr. Jacobson, did you receive a letter from me?
	In December or so, advising of my client's insistence that you maintain confidentiality under your agreements that you reached with Alex Jones and with Free Speech.
	I don't recall.
	Do you still have those confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements?
	I don't recall.
	Since whatever happened to me at work...
	My files have been scattered around.
	I'd also like to add that that NDA was forced upon me after employment with Alex for over eight years, on the record.
	Sir, you can, I'm not arguing with you.
	Mr. Enoch, objection.
	You've already done what you said you were going to do.
	Don't start having conversations with the witness.
	Don't do it.
	Don't influence his testimony, Mr. Enoch.
	Mr. Bankston, please stop interrupting me.
	Well, then I will put, first, before you ask your question, I object and my objection is to the form of your question.
	Very well.
	Mr. Jacobson, are you familiar with the requirements and the documents that you signed that you maintain confidentiality unless you are subpoenaed or ordered by a court?
	I'm familiar with the action that it was forced upon me after being employed by him with language in that NDA, which includes things like the known universe and stuff.
	It's garbage.
	No, no, I am not aware of any.
	I know that it was forced upon me.
	I was employed by Alex for over eight years, and they forced it upon me.
	So I don't know where it is, I don't know what the language is, and I don't recall anything.
	I'd like to mark as an exhibit, please, madam.
	Object to any exhibits being offered by you?
	Mr. Enoch, what are you doing?
	Let's just talk.
	What do you think you're doing?
	You're not questioning this witness anymore.
	This is not your deposition.
	You have no ability to do discovery.
	I've had extraordinary patience with allowing you to ask the questions of the witness to ascertain whether he knows there's a confidentiality agreement.
	I will also be asking him about that same confidentiality agreement.
	Now that that's been done, you have no reason to be questioning.
	The only reason you're doing it is to influence this witness.
	That's literally the only reason you're doing it.
	I consider what you're doing highly improper, and I am asking you once again, knock this off, Mr. Enoch.
	What are you doing?
	Mr. Jacobson, do you recognize exhibit number one?
	I don't have any recall of this exhibit.
	Would you look at your signature on the last page and please identify that?
	We need to go off the record and call the court right now.
	Mr. Enoch?
	Do you recognize your signature?
	I want you to notice the date.
	When was my employment started?
	Sir, I don't have any representation here.
	When was my employment started?
	When was the first day I started working?
	Mr. Jacobson, let's stop for a second.
	When was the first day I started?
	We're going off the record right now.
	We're calling the court.
	Very well.
	Hey Mark, I've got the cell, I've got the number when you're ready.
	Please leave a message for Alyssa Ho-Kon.
	After the tone, please record your...
	You got a separate number for Tiffany?
	Uh, yes.
	512-854-7278.
	Please leave a message for Tiffany.
	All right.
	For the records purposes, I have attempted to Mark, I got it.
	Try the court administration.
	All right.
	Well, no, that's a totally different office bill.
	That's Judge Livingston's court administration office.
	Okay, go back on mute.
	For the record, I have attempted to call the court on an emergency basis.
	I have been unable to get a hold of staff attorney Alyssa Hogan or court coordinator Tiffany Gould.
	I have properly noticed this deposition.
	I am entitled to question the witness first.
	I am entitled to question the witness about the topics that the court ordered that I allow him to question him on.
	Mr. Enoch did not notice this deposition.
	He is not entitled to question the witness first.
	While I attempted to stop him from this highly improper conduct, he completely ignored me and continued to question the witness, agitating the witness who is not represented by counsel.
	This witness agreed to appear voluntarily with the understanding that plaintiff was conducting discovery today, has never made any agreement to appear here unrepresented to be inquisited by his former employee's counsel.
	He's never made that agreement.
	Mr. Enoch knows it is highly improper to interrupt my questioning, prevent me from questioning the witness first, and just start his own examination.
	That would be true even under normal deposition circumstances.
	But today we are here on expedited discovery under the Texas Civil Participation Act, which grants my client the right to discovery to respond to a special motion to dismiss brought by Mr. Enoch's client.
	It gives him absolutely no right to conduct any discovery.
	This deposition has been highly improper, and so this is the agreement I'm going to make.
	I have not been able to contact the court.
	I have not been able to do that.
	Mr. Enoch insists on questioning, won't let me question, and just ignores what I'm doing.
	Under those circumstances, and given the level of agitation by Mr. Jacobson, who is here today, without counsel, I am suspending the deposition unless Mr. Enoch agrees to cease his improper efforts to question this witness and continues to act appropriately in just defending the deposition.
	Mr. Enoch, if you cannot agree to do that, this deposition is suspended and it will be added to my motion for sanctions being filed with the court today.
	What would you like to do?
	Well, I don't agree with anything you just said.
	It was all self-serving, and it doesn't accurately reflect what was happening.
	The only reason I asked him a question about this document is to show his signature.
	Now that I've shown it to him, you may go ahead and question.
	Under Rule 199, I don't know of anything that prevents me from asking questions in due order, sir.
	Are you aware of anything?
	Yeah, I am, actually.
	You said the parties may attend and ask questions.
	I'm actually aware of it under Chapter 26 of the Remedy Code.
	You have no right to conduct deposition.
	Only I do.
	I disagree with that, and rather than talk about it now...
	We'll take it up with the court.
	I agree.
	I think that would be inappropriate.
	I agree.
	So, Mr. Enoch...
	Please continue your deposition.
	Well, Mr. Enoch, before I stopped my deposition and you said you were going to ask him one thing about one document and whether he had a signature, and now you say you're done, when I asked...
	Hold on.
	He refused to answer the question.
	He sure did.
	And when I asked you, okay, you've asked him, are you done?
	You completely ignored me, continued to berate this person, and he expressed to you that he was very agitated for you.
	Are you now saying you have asked the totality of the questions you intend to ask this witness?
	Of course not.
	Then we are suspending this deposition.
	I don't know what I'm going to ask or if I'm going to ask anything until you're done with your examination, Mr. Bankston.
	Well, apparently you did because you started asking questions before I even started my examination, Mr. Enoch.
	And you know that's highly improper.
	I'm asking you right now.
	Do you intend to question this witness today?
	Mr. Bankston, I am alarmed.
	That this witness is not represented by counsel.
	I am concerned that he is not aware of his rights and obligations under legally binding contracts with my client.
	I want to make sure he is aware of those to protect himself or to get counsel of his own choosing.
	You've been able to do that.
	Excuse me.
	Do not interrupt me again.
	I did not interrupt you.
	It appears that you have not counseled him one bit about this and are only interested in getting him to voluntarily disclose information that he's obligated not to do with that court order.
	You did not serve a subpoena.
	You did not tell him of the effect of that under his agreement.
	He now knows it.
	You may continue your deposition.
	Mr. Enoch, let's make this clear for the record.
	I do not have his agreement.
	When you sent this letter that informed him of that agreement...
	You do now.
	I asked you at the time.
	Didn't I, Mr. Enoch?
	When I sent you a letter, said your letter's very unclear.
	It could, in fact, cause this witness to think he's not supposed to testify today.
	Wouldn't it be best if you disclosed to everybody what that agreement is?
	You didn't do that.
	You waited until we walked into this room to put it down on the table.
	You say you have every right to inform this client of this person.
	of his obligations, and you were worried that he didn't understand what those were.
	I understand that, which is why you sent that letter, which I think is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
	And if you wanted to call this witness, talk to him, or contact him, that's perfectly appropriate.
	To ambush him at the moment of his testimony is not appropriate.
	And it is not appropriate to start asking questions before I even ask questions.
	If you intend to ask more questions today, let me know because we will suspend the deposition so that Mr. Jacobson can get counsel and so that we can take it up with the court to see if your actions today Do you want to ask questions today or not, Mr. Enoch?
	Mr. Bankston, I did not know until my first question to this witness that you had not served him with a subpoena, as I think you were obligated to do to obtain his testimony.
	Therefore, I wanted to make sure he was aware of Exhibit 1 that does not allow his voluntary participation in your discovery without a court order or subpoena.
	With respect to questions of this witness, I can't answer that now because I haven't heard your questions.
	I think I'm entitled to ask questions under the rules.
	You think I'm not.
	So go ahead and ask your questions.
	Let's see if I have questions.
	If I do, the rules allow me to make my record.
	You can object as you wish, and then we can take it up with the judge.
	But we spend a lot of time haggling right now.
	We've taken the witness's time.
	Ask your questions.
	You've taken the witness's time.
	Ask the questions.
	You've taken my time, Mr. Renak.
	That's what you've done.
	Ask your questions.
	And I can tell you this.
	I don't represent this witness.
	And when I'm done asking my questions, if he wants to get up and walk out of this room without saying another word to you, I'm not stopping him.
	On what basis?
	I'm not stopping him.
	I have no control over this man, Mr. Enoch.
	I have none.
	I don't represent him.
	You understand the witness under your notices here from day to day, and you understand cross-examination is allowed.
	And what do you want me to do to stop him?
	What do you want me to do?
	Why don't you just ask your question?
	Should I chain them to the chair, Mr. Hino?
	Mark, please start asking your questions.
	Let's get on with the deposition.
	Will you do that, please?
	Yeah, now we'll do that, Mr. Hino.
	Thank you.
	We sure will.
	Mr. Jacobson, I'm really sorry about all of that.
	Yes, sir.
	I believe the only...
	I'm not sure if we got this question out.
	Did you introduce yourself for the record?
	Yes, sir.
	I am Robert Jacobson.
	Okay.
	Did you used to work at InfoWars?
	Yes, sir.
	Okay.
	When were you hired?
	I was hired in 2004 by Alex Jones.
	Do you know what corporate entity you were hired by?
	At the time, I felt I was hired by Alex Jones, and he was an independent proprietor.
	Do you know today what entity your former employer claims you worked for?
	Yes.
	What entity is that?
	Free Speech Systems.
	LLC. Okay.
	When did your employment end?
	My employment ended in May 1st of 2017. Or April 30th.
	So am I right that that's over a decade that you were at Infowars?
	I was there for around 13 years.
	Approximately.
	As an employee, Did you have a confidentiality agreement of any kind?
	Not for the first six years or so, no.
	Okay.
	So does that mean around 2010 or so the idea of confidentiality came up?
	Confidentiality was passed around the office but was never given to me until years after.
	And it was more of a...
	you know, sort of an ultimatum kind of suggestion, putting my livelihood at risk.
	Apparently I wanted to show you something I wanted to mark as Exhibit 1, but I believe Mr. Enoch has already hijacked that exhibit, so I am going to mark this as Exhibit 2.
	Object, sidebar, move, describe.
	Mr. Jacobson, I've handed you what's been marked as Exhibit 2. Have you ever seen a copy of that before?
	Do you remember seeing that?
	Yes.
	I want to direct you to the second page.
	I'm going to read the paragraph that appears on this page to you.
	You were reminded that you have important continuing obligations under your confidentiality non-disclosure agreements with my clients.
	You are expected to strictly observe those duties and obligations.
	Do you feel like you understand what obligations are being referred to here?
	I do.
	Okay.
	Have you abided by those obligations?
	Yes, sir.
	In fact, may I add something?
	To my understanding of the non-disclosure is not to reveal any company secrets.
	I don't think abuse or abusive behavior inside the company constitutes company secrets.
	I don't think misbehavior inside the company.
	By an adult who runs the business constitutes company secrets.
	In fact, I'm here to try to bring light to the truth of abusive and behavior inside the walls of InfoWars.
	And I don't think anything that I say today violates the NDA, which would be constituting of company secrets, their formulas and how they produce the news.
	Nothing like that is going to be revealed today.
	today what will be revealed is abusive behavior and the behavior of Mr. Jones and his staff.
	Objection no response.
	Did you understand that there was a judge here in Travis County who issued an order concerning this deposition today going forward?
	No.
	Not sure, actually.
	Okay.
	Fuzzy.
	Sitting here today, do you recall seeing a court order concerning your deposition?
	Yes.
	did you feel comfortable appearing for deposition without a court order?
	Section 4.
	Seems facts not in advance.
	You can go ahead and answer something.
	Okay.
	Again, I'm sure I'm not.
	I mean, with or without a court order, I just feel this is the right thing to do.
	When you first joined InfoWars, did you believe in its mission?
	For the most part, yes.
	Tell me about the kinds of stories or things that you wanted to be working on when you first came to InfoWars.
	When I first arrived at InfoWars, my understanding of InfoWars and Alex's subject matter was the occult.
	Esoteric politics, let's say.
	What's going on behind the curtain.
	Things that politicians don't tell us and expose in that fashion.
	Fringe media off the mainstream, but still honest, was my impression.
	Were you passionate about journalism at that time?
	I was passionate about filmmaking.
	And I wanted to be a documentary filmmaker, so in that aspect, yes, that does, I believe, fall under a broader umbrella of journalism.
	So when it comes to documentary films, I was on board.
	Did you want to do good journalism?
	I did.
	What's the form?
	Well, under the rules, I'm not sure.
	I think you're leading the witness.
	And I think, I'm not sure if I'm supposed to say objective leading or form.
	I think I'm supposed to say both, so that's my objection.
	You're leading the witness, sir.
	Mr. Jacobson, what does good journalism mean to you?
	Good journalism means...
	An objective reporting of facts.
	Somebody who can or if the journalist can remove his emotion and theory as much as possible from reporting what he sees with or she sees with their own eyes and ears.
	Empirical evidence reported to the public.
	with very little bias.
	- In your mind, what is the relationship between good journalism and corroboration what is the relationship between good journalism and corroboration of facts? - I think good journalism,
	If you're going to have a corroboration of facts, I believe the more witnesses and points of view of the same action or activity that is being reported on, the better.
	And, for example, just theoretically thinking one person can't see both sides of the cup at once, so when two people are observing it at the same time, you get a better description of the object in question.
	And so the more witnesses that have viewed it...
	The more impressions we can get after the fact of what has actually happened in the object that we're observing.
	In your first few years at InfoWars, were you comfortable with the style of journalism and the stories you were working on?
	Objection formally.
	Anytime I make an objection like that, sir, you can go over and answer.
	Okay.
	Let me say one thing.
	I may ask you not to answer based on the privileges.
	That's your choice.
	That's my client trying to protect the privilege.
	But when I object, say objection form or leading, you can go ahead and answer.
	Okay.
	Would you like me to ask that question again?
	Yes, please.
	Okay.
	In those first few years at Infowars, were you comfortable with the style of journalism and the stories you were working on?
	Same objections.
	I was...
	I was comfortable with the films I was producing and helping Alex produce.
	I found them interesting and I found that Alex did present enough expert testimony that it held water in my mind.
	All right, Mr. Jacobson, you understand this lawsuit has to do with Sandy Hook?
	Yes, sir.
	I want to direct your attention then to that event, which is...
	End of 2012, very beginning of 2013. Okay.
	Okay, for that time period, at the start of 2013, by that time, had the company changed in your mind?
	Absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	Okay.
	Mr. Jacobson, I have a feeling that Mr. Enoch is going to object to just about every question I ask.
	Okay.
	So what I would like you to do to accommodate this, because otherwise it's going to be super disruptive on the deposition, take a couple second pause.
	Before you answer my questions, because he's going to step on your answers, okay?
	If you can just take a second pause, then what I'm going to do is ask you that question again, because I got kind of disrupted, and I think Mr. Enoch's going to object again.
	Okay.
	And just for reminders, we may in typical conversation tend to try to finish each other's sentences, or talk over each other, not to interrupt each other, but to help us get to points faster, makes it very difficult on her.
	She has trouble writing down when two people are speaking at the same time.
	So this is why, if you can, if you can take a pause, you might even want to check and look over.
	To your former employer's counsel, see if there is going to be an objection.
	That way we can make sure to keep the record clear.
	At the start of 2013, around that time period, in your mind, had the company changed?
	Yes.
	Tell me about that.
	When I first started working for Infowars, it was an operation with just a handful of employees, as far as I know, possibly five.
	Or less.
	Maybe a few more than I'm aware of.
	But I was working out of my own private office.
	Alex had a tiny office in the far south of Austin.
	He had one employee that I knew of, Ryan Schlickheisen, another employee who I'm not sure of her name, I can't really recall, but she was a woman who tended his warehouse, which was on the far south side of Austin.
	And I'm not even sure where Alex was broadcasting out of.
	In 2010, he had a full-size facility.
	He had, as far as I know, over 60 people on staff, if not more.
	And he had a full-blown studio.
	So it wasn't just different.
	It was dramatically different in every way, shape, and form.
	One of the aspects I want to direct your attention to Is whether you, in your mind, felt that anything had changed in the company with regards to how it performed journalism.
	I do.
	What are your thoughts about that?
	I feel that Alex's formula has definitely changed.
	He changed his formula from a complement of the website and films to...
	No films anymore and more or less the radio the website the radio show and films was the original form he took the film part out which I felt I felt the films would were part of his kind of thing and he went more radio show and That's it website as far as I know So in that form of media,
	I kind of just felt like He just ditched an important part of his media.
	That's all.
	Mr. Jacobson, in terms of InfoWars' consistency or process in terms of InfoWars' consistency or process for corroborating facts, in your mind, had that changed between the start of your employment and the end of your employment?
	Mr. Jacobson, in terms of Injection Form.
	I feel that from the beginning when I first started working there the fact collection was mostly Alex and mostly himself was the researcher.
	By the end Alex did let a lot of others do research for him and I don't know if these people were specifically qualified or experienced enough to do that kind of work.
	A few months back, do you remember calling me about this case?
	Yes, sir.
	Why'd you do that?
	I was concerned.
	I wanted to make sure.
	I felt I was part of something just being in that building when all this was going down.
	I felt terrible what happened.
	Even though I myself know I wasn't directly involved in, you know...
	Putting this out there directly, just being in the building, I feel complicit.
	I feel I have to right a wrong that I was involved in, and even though I was part of that wrong, I want to at least stack a couple of correct decisions up with some of the mistakes that I've made in the past.
	When you say that you weren't directly involved in putting this out there, what is this?
	This would be Sandy Hook.
	Anything that InfoWars put out concerning Sandy Hook, I had absolutely no involvement in.
	During your employment, were you exposed to InfoWars coverage of Sandy Hook?
	During my employment, I had other assignments to do, and I wouldn't much pay attention to the show.
	However, when I did and I heard about Sandy Hook, it actually bothered me.
	Tell me what you mean by that.
	What did you hear that bothered you?
	I heard them making accusations based on extremely narrow cross-sections of information that I did my best to make the writers and the staff aware that what they were doing was speculation based on not enough information.
	It bothered me.
	They had no concept of journalist ethics.
	Did you tell anyone at Infowars your feelings about the Sandy Hook coverage?
	I attempted to make it as clear as possible to the writers that there is something called journalist ethics and how what they were doing was in a direct violation of that.
	Anytime I caught wind of the Sandy Hook Story on Infowars.
	Now mind you, I would like to add that it's not something I was thinking about all the time considering I had other things to do.
	I'd be working on other projects.
	But when it would come on the screen, I would make it my business to go into the writers and explain to them as clearly as possible that there is journalist ethics and I tried to demonstrate.
	What those ethics are and why they are violating them and what the damage could possibly be.
	In fact, I remember...
	I must have been in that room four to five times at least and only to be received with laughter and jokes.
	When you say the room...
	Is there a specific room you're talking about?
	The room I'm talking about is the room in which the writers worked.
	About how many writers are we talking about involved in working on Sandy Hook?
	I believe that there were two, one primary writer and perhaps one other, that were definitely involved in Sandy Hook.
	Just so I can possibly clear up that objection, what is the objection to how many writers worked on Sandy Hook?
	Okay.
	Just to help clear up this issue, and I believe this has been asked, so if you have to answer it again, I'm sorry, but you were exposed to InfoWars coverage of Sandy Hook?
	Yes.
	You would know how many people are working on Sandy Hook inside of InfoWars?
	I'm aware of every staff member that worked at InfoWars as of up to May 2017. When it came to coverage of Sandy Hook and the work that was being done by the writers, did you see things that you would consider reckless?
	Yes.
	Can you tell me...
	Are there any individual employees that you believe engaged in reckless conduct regarding Sandy Hook?
	Yes.
	Yes, I do.
	Okay.
	Tell me who the employees are that you developed opinions about their work on Sandy Hook.
	First and foremost would be Rob Dew.
	Okay, let's start with Mr. Dew.
	What is your observations about Mr. Dew's journalistic integrity as it respects Sandy Hook allegations?
	Objection form.
	I feel that Mr. Dew was overzealous to receive any type of hint that perhaps this might have been a phony act, a staged act.
	any type of whisper that came through the hymn, he would celebrate.
	You know an Adon Salazar?
	Yes, sir.
	Did you ever observe any work being done by a Don Salazar on Sandy Hook?
	Yes.
	Do you have an opinion as to whether that work was done responsibly by Mr. Salazar?
	I do have an opinion of that.
	Can you tell me what facts and observations you may have seen that would inform that opinion of Mr. Salazar?
	Like I've stated already, whenever this subject came up, I would immediately clarify to the writers that there is a journalistic ethics that they're I would immediately clarify to the writers that there is a
	And what I've pointed out to Adan specifically is that you're taking the word of one witness primarily and a couple of speculative other facts and calling it the truth without actually going down and investigating it ourselves.
	We're actually going with our own reporters and corroborating what these people are saying.
	I made it aware to Adan that Wolfgang Halbig could have a lot of issues that we're not considering.
	That by taking the word of this one man so heavily, with such a great accusation that he's accusing people of, was so irresponsible, so damaging.
	I asked him, consider the size of the audience.
	And Adan Salazar responded with, and I'm going to quote him, because he said it to me many times, I want to print up a t-shirt that says, Hal Big was right.
	I want bumper stickers that say how big was right to a laughing room.
	Do you feel that Mr. Salazar...
	Ever mocked your concerns about Sandy Hook coverage?
	Absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	Let's talk about, you mentioned the name Mr. Holbeck, correct?
	Yes, sir.
	Okay.
	Can you briefly describe who Mr. Wolfgang Holbig is?
	As far as I can recall, whenever Sandy Hook Was on the air or Alex or whoever was hosting, was covering Sandy Hook.
	It was always accompanied by Mr. Halbig.
	And when I took a look at Mr. Halbig, considering he was the one and only person, and the claims, or as far as I know, he was the one and only person, because whenever I would tune in, he was always on.
	So based on that impression, I would say he was the one and only person.
	And every time I saw him, I saw somebody that, if he was amongst a group, a large group of people, okay, but a one and only person, I felt that this person may have mental problems.
	This person may have a lot of emotional problems.
	Could be a lonely man.
	Could be somebody looking for attention.
	There could be a lot of questions to be asked before we present forward as a news organization such a heavy accusation.
	As accusing the parents of slaughtered children of being liars.
	I think that perhaps we should have asked the question, what is Wolfgang Halbig's story before we put this story to the public?
	This story should never have been put forward to the public at all without, and if they knew ethics and journalism, they would have known that immediately, but they have absolutely no ethics experience, in my opinion.
	Therefore, the story went forward and the damage was caused.
	Mr. Jacobson, I think it's fair to say you have strong opinions about Mr. Halbig.
	I do.
	I have strong opinions about his validity as a sole witness.
	Okay.
	Who is Halbig's points of contact at InfoWars?
	Who did he talk to?
	I don't know.
	As far as I know, it's the people who are handling the Sandy Hook story.
	What's the form to asking him who Halbig's point of contact is?
	Mr. Bankston, when you ask me a question, the rules require that I respond to you clearly.
	I did so.
	You did.
	No reason to chuckle, sir.
	It's funny, Mr. Enoch.
	I'm sorry if the things that happen in this deposition are funny.
	I think it's unprofessional for a witness to talk about having information from CIA kill teams about Las Vegas, and that's why I chuckle at it.
	I think it's unprofessional for you to make constant objections even when they have no legal basis.
	That's why occasionally, yes, you will see the corners of my mouth turn and smile.
	He's obviously asking him about his personal knowledge, and that's what I'm asking him about, so that is why I smiled.
	Are you familiar with the types of claims made by Mr. Holbig?
	Some of them.
	Okay.
	I want to ask you about some claims, and if you know what they are.
	Have you ever heard the claim from Mr. Holbig, or repeated from Mr. Holbig by somebody else, that the school was actually closed before the shooting?
	I've heard, uh, yes.
	Did you see anything in your time at Infowars that would make you think that people were acting irresponsibly as it concerned that particular claim?
	Yes.
	What kinds of things did you see?
	Oh, excuse me, scratch that.
	Who did you see acting irresponsibly with respect to that claim?
	Mr. Robert Dew and Mr. Adan Salza.
	Excuse me.
	Are you familiar with the claim that no paramedics were allowed inside of the building?
	I mean, I've heard it.
	Okay.
	That's not something you had direct exposure to?
	No.
	Outside of me just briefly watching it on the video as if I was audience.
	Have you ever heard the allegation...
	That there are photographs of children who are supposedly dead who are actually alive.
	Yes, I've heard that allegation.
	Okay.
	Do you, from what you had seen inside of Infowars, have you seen anything that has caused you to form an opinion about that allegation?
	I mean, you know, my opinion is so distasteful, and it happened a while ago that, you know, it happened a while ago, so it was just that all these things seem to...
	All of the little allegations that Halbig and all these other people set forward, I sort of see it as individual cross-sections of information that each one was improperly handled.
	Did you ever voice any criticism of Mr. Halbig specifically while you were at InfoWars?
	Yes, I did.
	Who did you voice that criticism to?
	Adan Salazar.
	Okay.
	Are you familiar with the Sandy Hook parent, Leonard Posner?
	Have you heard that name?
	I have heard the name.
	Okay.
	Have you ever seen written communications, like emails from Mr. Halbig?
	Have you seen what his emails look like?
	No, I haven't.
	Okay.
	Do you know if Mr. Hobbig ever came to Infowars?
	Did he ever come to the Austin location?
	I'm not aware of that.
	Do you happen to know whether anybody ever from InfoWars went to visit Mr. Halbig in Florida?
	Again, I'm not sure.
	Okay.
	Do you know anything about Infowars helping raise money for Mr. Halbig?
	I...
	I'm unaware of anything like that.
	Okay.
	Are you aware of Mr. Halbig ever engaging in any sort of harassing behavior towards people involved in Sandy Hook?
	Thank you.
	I have never heard of Halbig himself engaging in that kind of behavior.
	Okay.
	Do you know who Dan Bedondi is?
	Yes, sir.
	Okay.
	Can you describe what Mr. Bedondi has ever done for InfoWars?
	Mr. Bedondi worked for InfoWars briefly for about a year or so, and he served as an on-air reporter and journalist.
	Okay.
	Are you aware if Mr. Badandi ever went to Newtown to cover Sandy Hook?
	I'm not sure.
	I don't know.
	Have you ever met Mr. Badandi?
	Yes, sir.
	If you were going to pick someone to treat this story with respect and sensitivity, would you pick Mr. Badandi?
	No, sir.
	No, I wouldn't pick Mr. Badandi.
	Can you explain why not?
	Because Mr. Badandi is very emotional.
	And he's also very belief-based.
	And I always viewed him as more of somebody who could be a character, as more of a journalist.
	And to send somebody like that with such a serious accusation to cover that, especially To talk and conversate with Mr. Halbig, knowing Badandi, how impassioned he gets over these things and how impressionable he is with these kind of scenarios, especially with conspiracy kind of situations.
	Badandi gloms onto conspiracy kind of situations.
	He really magnates towards them.
	No, I wouldn't, because he would...
	I think bias the situation and not fairly report it and be over emotional.
	When you say that Mr. Badandi tends to glom on to conspiracy scenarios, can you tell me what you mean by that?
	I mean that he really, you know, a lot of his programming when he was working at Infowars had to do with the occult and all this stuff.
	But a lot of it also has to do with, for example, a big claim to fame for Dan Bedandi would be his appearance as a reporter for the Boston bombing.
	He made a national spectacle of himself in an unprofessional way, which of course made him a celebrity at InfoWars.
	When you say that him making a spectacle...
	He made him a celebrity at InfoWars.
	Can you tell me what you mean by that?
	He basically accused, instead of asking a question at the Boston bombing situation, he made an accusation, in which case he was escorted out of the building in typical journalist activist style, which has been popularized by InfoWars.
	And because he did that, he was much celebrated.
	by the people at InfoWars, and for a moment there, you know, he was on the top of his game, I suppose, inside that office.
	Judge, you're not responsive.
	When you were at InfoWars, in general, if a person did something in public that was agitating, was that good for their career at InfoWars or bad for their career?
	It wasn't.
	It was excellent for their career.
	I can point to several examples where it's not reporting at all.
	It's pure agitation by many members of the staff.
	And I have also been very critical of that.
	It's been pure.
	In fact, some of it is so agitating, it's almost to the level of public disruption.
	So, including...
	Can I go on?
	Please.
	Objection, non-responsive so far.
	Here, let me ask you another question.
	Can you give me an example of some of the things you're talking about when you say agitation?
	Yes.
	Miss Millie Weaver, last year or the year before that, I'm not sure when, but it was in the last perhaps 12 months, I believe, because it was after I left.
	She showed up at a Hillary Clinton book signing event that was at Book People.
	These people were not there to protest.
	These people were not there to...
	Hillary, this is far after the election.
	Nobody was campaigning.
	But Miss Millie Weaver decided to show up with a lot of Trump gear, which obviously is going to be, as we follow the news, we know is agitating towards in a very political way.
	So in my opinion, just by looking at that, I noticed that reporters don't show up sponsoring politicians.
	So for her to go there and say, and in fact, the name of this video on YouTube is called Journalists Harassed or something.
	She identifies herself as a journalist while she shows up wearing political gear directly aiming at the opposite end of the spectrum asking abrasive questions about Hillary Clinton.
	Now, that's not journalism.
	That's agitation.
	And that is a clear-cut case example of them Swapping out the words agitation for journalism and vice versa.
	Have you ever seen anyone at InfoWars engaged in conduct that you believe was designed to elicit a negative emotional reaction from the subject being interviewed?
	I've never been involved in, let's say, people planning such things.
	However, I've never worked with Millie Weaver closely or Owen Schroyer closely.
	These guys show up.
	Both of them show up.
	I mean, Owen, I don't find to be, I think he's very, in my opinion, it's a very smart guy.
	So he must know what he's doing by showing up at these political events, wearing Trump hats and whatnot.
	He must know the difference between a journalist and an agitator, how a journalist has to appear neutral in his stance, and how an agitator appears politically motivated on one side or another, at the moment, present in the spot.
	So, I don't know about Millie.
	But I do know that Owen Schroyer should definitely know the difference.
	So that being said, I mean, I've never been involved in, let's say, let's go down there and cause a fight kind of discussion.
	But I do know that they should know better.
	showing up at these places with this kind of gear that will affect people's emotions is pretty obvious.
	Jet, non-responsive.
	While you were at InfoWars, did you ever hear anybody inside the organization express negative feelings about the Sandy Hook parents?
	You know, except for what Alex said live on the air.
	Were you uncomfortable with the things that Mr. Jones said on the air?
	Yes, I was.
	Specific...
	Specific...
	Would you just hesitate, please, before you get your answer?
	Yes, sir.
	Specifically as it regards to comments about the Sandy Hook parents, were you ever disturbed by anything you saw being said on InfoWars?
	Objection.
	I was disturbed by the way they said Mr. Posner.
	He went from a laughing stance to a serious stance when the camera was on him briefly before he was asked to call.
	Again, this is another thing I attempted to clarify with Mr. Salazar and others, that when you go through an extreme tragedy, your emotions are all over the place.
	And this is a known fact.
	Just because somebody laughs at a joke, somebody tries to...
	You're not immune to humor, even if you went through a massive tragedy.
	For a brief moment, somebody could say something and it, oh, ha ha!
	You don't have any really control over if somebody makes you laugh.
	You don't have that control.
	Just because somebody went through a massive tragedy doesn't mean that you have to jump on the guy for smiling right before the camera was on him.
	In fact, a lot of people...
	Who experience this level, or I don't know about this level, but tragedy in their life, they don't begin to even mourn until days after.
	They go through shock.
	So I was disgusted.
	And I did attempt to clarify to everybody that people go through a range of emotions after a traumatic event.
	Have you ever, while working at InfoWars, hear the term crisis actors?
	Yes.
	What do you understand that term to mean?
	I believe it means that there are people from special forces, let's per se, or something like that.
	There are people from a nefarious group run through the government or outside through special interest money, let's say, who will then Had
	you ever heard while at InfoWars the term crisis actors or a similar allegation being attached to the Sandy Hook event?
	Yes, I have.
	While you were at Infowars, did you feel that you had ever seen evidence which you would consider sufficient to responsibly make that allegation on the air?
	No.
	What is your personal feeling sitting here today about an allegation that there were crisis actors in use at Sandy Hook?
	I mean, my opinion is...
	My personal feeling is it was shocking to hear...
	Well, it wasn't shocking that they went down that line because they went down that line of thought before, but the way...
	Of the accusation in this particular case.
	It was shocking that they didn't do more research.
	They didn't go further into it.
	They didn't, I mean, what I constantly tried to clarify is a story of this level should not be brought forward unless they are, I tried to make it clear that they need as much evidence in this story as if they were going to court to prove their case.
	case and if they didn't have that they don't have a story.
	Can you tell us who Paul Watson is?
	Paul Watson is sort of Alex's alternate host.
	He's basically like Alex's sidekick.
	Have you ever been aware of Mr. Watson's opinions about the Sandy Hook hoax allegations?
	No.
	Okay.
	Do you know of anyone else at InfoWars who ever voiced an objection regarding any element of the Sandy Hook coverage or the coverage as a whole?
	Thank you.
	I don't know if...
	I mean, I did it independently on my own, and then I wouldn't talk to others about it.
	Get non-responsive.
	Have you ever had any...
	Private conversations with any of your co-workers at InfoWars about negative reservations about the Sandy Hook coverage.
	Yes.
	What co-workers would that be?
	I spoke with Ashley Beckford.
	I spoke with Adan Salazar.
	I spoke with Kit Daniels.
	I spoke with, I must have spoken, and others.
	I don't recall.
	I have spoken quite a bit.
	Can you tell us who is Kit Daniels?
	Kit Daniels is a writer at InfoWars.
	Was Kit Daniels ever involved in any of the Sandy Hook coverage?
	I'm unsure.
	Okay.
	Are you familiar with an allegation concerning an alleged blue screen video interview with Anderson Cooper?
	I am.
	When you were at InfoWars, did you ever work in video technology?
	Yes, I did.
	Can you explain to us kind of your background and your training and experience in video technology?
	My background began in New York City.
	I was working for several audio recording studios, including the Hit Factory in New York City, which is a legendary studio.
	I moved to Austin shortly after that.
	I worked for the Austin Music Network.
	Before that, I worked for a music studio here in Austin, Texas.
	I then worked for the Austin Music Network for about three and a half years, where I got even better than I... I moved from there and I worked for Alex for 13 years, producing roughly 10 of his feature length documentaries.
	Can you explain to us what is blue screen compositing?
	Blue screen compositing is when you can stand in front of a blue screen and you can add any background you'd like behind yourself.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Mr. Jacobson, I am going to play you a video clip that is going to be Exhibit 2 to this deposition.
	I think it's Exhibit 3. Oh, it will be.
	Yeah.
	Change that number.
	Let me ask that again, Mr. Jacobson.
	Mr. Jacobson, I'm going to show you a video clip that is going to be Exhibit 3. To this deposition.
	That is a video clip from a part of an InfoWars episode.
	So I'd like you to watch it and I'm going to ask you some questions about it, okay?
	Okay.
	So here it is at the very beginning of this chunk where his nose disappears and we have blue screen here.
	It's clearly blue screen.
	Is there anything else you want to say?
	Is there anything else you want to say?
	And Anderson Cooper has got some explaining to do.
	Because I know a blue screen when I see it.
	Thank you.
	First, Mr. Jacobson, based on your training and experience in video technology was what we just saw.
	It was not clearly blue screen.
	Would anybody with competent video experience think this is blue screen?
	Not at first view.
	Would anybody with competent video experience have serious doubts about saying this was blue screen?
	I feel they would.
	They would be on the fence.
	If they saw this video, they would have questions.
	Okay.
	Can I go further and explain that?
	Actually, let me ask you a question on that, okay?
	Okay.
	Your opinion about whether or not it could be fairly asserted that this is clearly blue screen, informing your opinion on whether that could be asserted.
	Can you tell me about any of the things you see in this video or any of your experience that would inform that opinion?
	There's nothing in that video that will clearly indicate to me that that was a blue screen video.
	Okay.
	If a witness, if anyone, was to say, I can look at that video, I work with blue screen, it's got all the telltale signs, that's clearly blue screen.
	In your opinion, is that person acting responsible?
	No, I don't.
	I think that based on what we see on that screen, that could be that error in the nose could have been caused by a number of different reasons.
	And none of them are clear from what we see there without knowing what happened behind the scenes with the operating room controllers and so on and so forth.
	That could have been a natural glitch that happens all the time on YouTube.
	We see it all the time where pixels smudge.
	There is no secret about that.
	There must be a million videos or more where pixels smudge all the time.
	In order for that...
	Should I continue?
	If you have more facts that you...
	The only thing I could tell you about that is the only way that that is possibly green screen.
	is if Anderson Cooper is not standing next to that woman.
	When you say that means Anderson Cooper wasn't standing next to that woman, are you making an opinion about whether the woman in the video was actually on location?
	I'm not making an opinion on anything.
	What I'm saying is if his nose was cutting off, that means he stepped out of the green screen or the blue screen bounds and his nose would cut off, which would suggest she was somewhere else.
	He was standing in one room and she's standing somewhere else.
	That's what it would mean.
	If he stepped outside and she's not outside the green screen bounds...
	How could he have stepped outside this green screen bounds if she is, she'd be disappeared.
	She wouldn't even be on the screen.
	We would see, if that was green screen, we would see she would either, it would be a cutout.
	See, what they're suggesting is Anderson Cooper, okay, would be in this frame.
	Everything else would be green.
	He would be, they would composite behind him the town hall scene that you see behind him.
	He would step outside and his nose would get cut off.
	She would also be outside that box.
	If the box was only this big and he steps outside, she would also be outside that box, part of the composite, which would mean that she would have to be on location while he was somewhere else.
	Objection, non-responsive.
	Would it be accurate to say if this theory of the setup that you're describing is true?
	Would it be accurate to say, then, that the woman in the interview would not be actually looking at Anderson Cooper?
	That's what it would mean.
	It would mean that what you see in there were two people who were acting remarkably responsive to each other, almost superhuman level in my opinion, because, no, they wouldn't be looking at each other.
	She would be in one location, he would potentially be, according to this theory, in a CNN studio.
	Around the corner, down the block, miles away, if not on the other side of the globe.
	So they would not be in the same place at the same time to make that interaction if he stepped outside the bounds of the green screen and his nose got cut off.
	Now if somebody's wearing glasses in a green screen shot.
	Will the green screen background that's being composited, will that show up in the refraction of their glasses?
	Sometimes.
	Sometimes.
	If there's a projection being used?
	Depending on how the lights are.
	If the lights are blasting against that green screen, yes.
	If the lighting guy takes into that account, they can, you know, depending on how the lights, if the lights are bright...
	And blasting at him, yes, you would see a green screen.
	Also depending on his proximity to the screen.
	Okay, and maybe, I think maybe I didn't ask, the question was a little unartful there.
	So let me make, let's kind of back up here.
	If there's lights being shined on the green screen, then it might be possible to see green in some glasses.
	Yes, actually.
	My question is, if...
	There's a background being put on that green screen.
	Does it show up live there on the green screen, or is that just in the computer?
	Just in the computer.
	If a person's wearing glasses, and they're being filmed against the green screen, will the projected image that's in the computer of the town hall or whatever appear in their glasses?
	Absolutely not.
	Okay.
	Did you...
	As part of your discussions with people at Infowars about Sandy Hook, have you raised complaints about this video allegation?
	I mean, it was one of those things.
	I just kind of mixed it in with all the rest of it.
	It wasn't...
	It was just one of those points that was just so silly.
	It's just, I couldn't believe that Alex was jumping all over that.
	When he knows perfectly well YouTube pixels smudge.
	Objection.
	Non-response.
	Was any, were you, at any time during your time at InfoWars past 2013, were you aware that Clarence had been complaining about this coverage?
	No, not immediately.
	I really became aware of it sometime afterwards when I saw, actually, I think a PBS special on what was going on, and it really hit home at that point.
	I was like, this is...
	You understand...
	What is your understanding...
	I'll scratch that.
	Was the InfoWars staff...
	Was the staff aware of the public controversy they were causing with Sandy Hook allegations?
	I believe they were.
	Was the staff aware of the public opinion about their Sandy Hook coverage?
	I believe they were.
	I believe that they were aware of a dual opinion at the same time, and they get a rush out of it.
	Were you still employed at the time that Mr. Jones was interviewed by Megyn Kelly?
	No.
	Okay.
	Did you ever become aware that parents were being harassed by believers in the Sandy Hook hoax conspiracy theory?
	Yes, I became aware of that.
	When do you think you became aware of that?
	Somewhere around...
	2014, 2015?
	Maybe 2015?
	Like I said, when I saw that PBS documentary.
	So the PBS documentary you saw, that was when you were employed at Info?
	I was still implied there.
	In light of the harassment that you became aware of, did it cause you to form any opinions about the level of caution that would be required in covering Sandy Hook from then on out?
	Absolutely.
	Like I've already stated, I marched into the writer's room several times and attempted to point out that they have an ethical responsibility to abide by.
	Do you feel, based on your personal knowledge inside the company, that InfoWars was responsive to those criticisms and began to act appropriately?
	No, I don't.
	Okay, Mr. Jacobson, we are about an hour in.
	As you know, your deposition was ordered for, I believe it was two or two and a half hours today.
	I'm not going to keep you that long, but I am going to take a short break, and we do have some more to cover.
	We might get near two hours, I don't know.
	But I'm going to try to get you out as soon as I can today.
	But why don't we, for the moment, we'll take a 15-minute break, and then we'll come back in and resume on the record.
	Great, thank you.
	Hey, Mark, can we call this telephone?
	Absolutely.
	We're back on record at 1.30 p.m.
	Mr. Jacobson, earlier we had talked about a writing room.
	And I want to ask you questions about that room itself.
	That room was the center of the writing process at Infowars, is that right?
	Yes, up until the last years that I worked there.
	Okay.
	From your personal knowledge and observations of the writers, can you tell me, as it concerns the writing process for coverage of Sandy Hook, what, if anything, concerns you about that process?
	The fact that they took Hal Biggs' word for it, and that was the article.
	The article was, whatever came out of Hal Big's mouth was news.
	When you were, as you mentioned earlier, communicating your thoughts to people at Infowars about the Sandy Hook coverage, Thank you.
	Can you describe to me on a scale of 1 being not outrageous at all and 10 being extremely outrageous?
	On that 1 to 10 scale, what is the level of outrageousness of this conduct that you were trying to impart?
	I thought it was a 10. Tell me why you thought that.
	I mean, it's one thing to make a mistake.
	It's another thing to have somebody come in, and I'm not aware if I was the one and only person or not, but I know I was doing it.
	To come in and say, hey, this is wrong, you're making a mistake.
	It's one thing, you know, to actually have a mistake and something else to have it pointed out to you, not just once, but over and over and over again.
	And to not only hear...
	The damage that you're doing to people outside of your zone, but to actually laugh about it, I thought that's a 10. How long have you known Mr. Jones?
	I've known Mr. Jones since he employed me in 2004. In your 15 years of knowing Mr. Jones, have you arrived at any kind of opinion about whether Mr. Jones is capable of rational action or whether he is too mentally unwell to even be capable of rational action?
	In my 15 years of knowing Alex, I feel he is very capable of rational action, and I think the growth of his business is evidence of that.
	While his opinions may be tasteless, he definitely made conscious decisions to run a business.
	He flipped the switches himself.
	In fact, he micromanages that place.
	And obviously some of the decisions he made were successful, and he took a business from a few handful of people to what it is today.
	So based on that evidence, I do feel that he's more than rational in making these decisions.
	Based on your conversations and years with Mr. Jones, do you have an opinion on whether or not Mr. Jones can understand right from wrong?
	Objection form?
	Yes.
	What is your opinion?
	I think he knows right from wrong, and he could definitely distinguish it.
	And again, it's not just my opinion on this.
	He goes on the air and proselytizes morality all the time, which clearly he knows what's going on, and he's making a conscious decision.
	If he can proselytize it and verbalize it and actually articulate it that well to everybody...
	Then he's definitely thinking about it and he's aware of what's going on.
	With respect to your background, what is your level of experience and exposure to compositing live shots onto backgrounds?
	I mean, in my experience, I've been asked to do it and I've done it.
	I've produced those videos.
	The films and things that you would make for InfoWars.
	Did you perform any graphics work or compositing work while working on those videos?
	Mostly graphics works.
	I mean, aside from my video editing, I would do graphics much more than video compositing for the films.
	Does InfoWars and its studio during the years you were there did it perform any green screen or blue screen compositing there at the facility?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	When it comes to video technology, does that remain your profession today?
	Yes.
	Objection form?
	Yes.
	What's the basis on that?
	I don't know what you mean by victory.
	You know what video technology is?
	Yes, sir.
	When I ask you the question, you work in video technology.
	Can you tell me what you mean by video technology?
	I take technology designed to work on video as my tools, and I create a product for my clients.
	When it comes to video technology, are you someone who considers himself To have specialized knowledge or skill in that technical field?
	Yes.
	Can you tell me how many years experience you have in working with video production and video technology?
	I have 17 years in video technology and I have over 20 years.
	over 20 years in media technology in general.
	You understand the difference between a layman and a technical person?
	Do you understand those terms?
	Yes, sir.
	When it comes to video production, video technology, do you consider yourself a layman?
	Or do you consider yourself as someone who has technical expertise?
	I consider myself somebody who has technical expertise.
	Okay.
	Do you still have an opinion as to whether or not alternative media can be a force for good if done correctly?
	Okay.
	I feel that alternative media, I think the subject is much bigger than that.
	I think that media in itself or journalism is, when you cross the ethical boundary, then it will be a force for good.
	But if people are independent and they refuse to abide by standards that are journalist standards that have been established for decades already and been...
	If they refuse to do that, then no, it won't be a force for good.
	It will be a force for people to be confused and tear each other down.
	If they can figure out who's going to be the standard of that.
	I do think that there will always be a professional standard of journalism no matter what.
	Independent journalism should be put in its place.
	Non-responsive.
	When it comes to professionalism in journalism, do you have an opinion...
	Let me scratch that.
	When it comes to professionalism in journalism, have you been exposed to events, perceived things with your own eyes and ears, that gives you an opinion on whether it went right or whether it went wrong as it regards Sandy Hook?
	Objection form.
	I don't really have a comment for that.
	I'm not really sure.
	Okay.
	Do you today have any sense of guilt about the coverage about Sandy Hook that came out of InfoWars?
	Information form...
	Yes, as I've mentioned in my statements previously, the reason why I'm here...
	It's because a tremendous amount of guilt that I didn't act faster.
	Maybe I should have quit.
	Maybe I could have caught the story faster or been better at explaining, but yes, I do.
	Are you still on friendly terms with Infowars?
	No.
	Were you terminated?
	Yes.
	Have you filed a complaint with the EEOC? Yes.
	And just for the record, I want to make it clear because I've used an abbreviation.
	You filed a complaint with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission?
	Yes, sir.
	Okay.
	Tell me why you filed a complaint.
	Alex's abusive behavior and the unethical and racist behavior of his staff and the environment that's racist and abusive in general, InfoWars.
	There was evidence against me that I submitted to the EEOC of myself being photoshopped onto a rabbi's face and passed around the office.
	There was Owen Schreier saying on the air, calling me the resident Jew, as well as Rob Dew.
	It was a culture of anti-Semitism inside Infowars.
	And so I went to the EEOC with that.
	And a culture of abuse.
	propagated mostly by Alex Jones himself.
	Objection, I'm responsible.
	Do you know, sitting here today, if you're the only person who's brought such a complaint or if there's anybody else who's brought similar complaints?
	Objection, 4.
	I know of several people who have brought exactly the same complaint or similar, very similar complaints about Alex Jones and the Office of Infowars, many of which are public.
	Do you feel that people might look at your EEOC claim and think you're biased?
	I feel, yes, people will look at my EEOC complaint and claim that I'm biased.
	Should I continue?
	No, Mr. Jackson.
	I have a question for you.
	If you've got an EEOC claim and you've got bad blood with Infowars, why should people believe you?
	Because people should understand just because I have a complaint with Alex doesn't make Alex an angel.
	Myself and others have all witnessed it.
	I am doing my due diligence in bringing forth abuse that Alex had against me, as others have bring forth abuse that Alex has against them.
	As well as the fact that does not negate the fact that this stuff about Sandy Hook didn't happen either.
	What happened to me is real.
	What Alex did to the Sandy Hook's parents is also real at the same time.
	Just because one is true doesn't make the other untrue.
	They're both true at the same time.
	Alex is an abusive man.
	And every testimony that you see in public, whether it is on the record, You know, we have videos and specials all over the place, news articles written about this.
	It's no secret of Alex's behavior.
	It's no secret.
	Therefore, you know, just because I mounted a complaint because of Alex's bad behavior doesn't mean he behaved badly for Sandy Hook.
	People should understand just because one is true, the other doesn't mean the other is automatically untrue.
	Are they going to feel that I'm biased?
	Yes, but that doesn't mean I, you know, everything is true that I'm saying, and again...
	If the Sandy Hook parents who brought these suits were awarded money from Alex Jones, would it benefit you in any way?
	No.
	If the Sandy Hook parents who brought these suits...
	Are awarded money from Mr. Jones?
	Let's say a significant amount of money.
	Do you know of any way that could be a detriment to you?
	The one way is if the EEOC rules in my favor, it might jeopardize a potential compensation for myself further down the line.
	So do you feel that if the Sandy Hook parents are ultimately compensated by Mr. Jones, do you have any opinion about whether that could potentially threaten your ability to get compensation for your injuries?
	I'm not doing any of this for compensation.
	I'm doing this because Alex is disgracing himself so badly, and the way he has made the parents suffer, as well as myself.
	He's still on the air to this day saying things that are arguably true or arguably not true.
	We don't know.
	But we do know that he affects his audience in a way that angers them and mobilizes them.
	And it's unclear if anything he's saying is fact or fiction, opinion or speculation.
	But what he does do is mobilize a large amount of people in irrational thinking because there's no way to tell whether what Alex is saying on the air is news or not.
	True or false, speculation or opinion, jokes or not, but he advertises it all as news.
	He is the InfoWars.
	Objection, non-responsive.
	Mr. Jacobson, have all of your answers today, have they been based on your personal knowledge?
	Objection, form.
	As far as I know.
	Okay.
	Mr. Jacobson, that's all I believe I have for you at this time.
	I appreciate it.
	Go ahead, I'm sorry.
	I didn't mean to interrupt you.
	Sure.
	That's all I have for you in terms of questions.
	I have a few things I need to put on the record.
	Mark, can you check your email?
	Yeah, sure.
	They don't need to concern you.
	If you would like to be excused while I put this on the record, I can do that.
	And I would like to ask questions.
	Are you going to prevent me from doing that, Mark?
	We're going to talk about that on the record in just a minute.
	That's what I'm asking you.
	Yeah, so we're going to let Mr. Jacobson go because we're not going to have this discussion in front of a witness.
	No, sir.
	We're not going to let him leave the building, Mark.
	We're going to let Mr. Jacobson go to the bathroom.
	And then I am going to put something on the record.
	And then if you have some things to say about it, you can say whatever you want on the record.
	I just have a simple question.
	Then Mr. Jacobson will be in the building.
	Are you going to permit me to ask questions, yes or no?
	I don't think I can stop you.
	I literally don't think I can.
	I think I would have to go over there and physically restrain you because you won't abide by rules.
	But if Mr. Jacobson is just going to go to the bathroom, now he's going to come back and he's going to sit down in that chair.
	And whether he wants to sit around and listen to anything you say is not my choice.
	But I'm not releasing him from the building right now.
	Mr. Jacobson, would you like to step out of the room maybe for a moment?
	You can use the restroom if you need to.
	otherwise just wait in the front room doors.
	What is it you would like to say outside of his presence?
	Okay.
	I have a few things I need to put on the record.
	First of all, just to read it really quick, there is an order entered in this case concerning this deposition.
	In paragraph 3 of the judge's discovery order, it allows that plaintiff's motion is granted and that plaintiff may take the deposition of Robert Jacobson. it allows that plaintiff's motion is granted and that plaintiff It does not say...
	That the parties may take the deposition of Robert Jacobson.
	It says the plaintiff may take the deposition of Robert Jacobson.
	The Civil Remedies Code provides that limited discovery will be allowed if a party shows good cause for that discovery and gets an order from the court on that limited discovery.
	Plaintiff has got an order from the court showing good cause.
	Defendants have never attempted to show good cause and, in fact, Under the case law, it is extremely questionable, and I see no authority for the idea, that a defendant would ever be granted discovery on its own motion.
	The discovery is granted for the plaintiff to meet the burdens, the ornerous burdens, caused by the TCPA. Nonetheless, Mr. Enoch has attempted, right from the start, to interrupt and hijack my deposition, which I have properly noticed, and start asking the witness questions, questions which the witness was very visibly uncomfortable with.
	This witness agreed to appear voluntarily at this deposition of the understanding that he would be questioned by the plaintiff's counsel.
	He has appeared without his own personal counsel and was suddenly ambushed by a barrage of questions from his former employer, questions he was not expecting.
	I need to put this on the record because we are now in our third deposition of this case.
	And in the first deposition of Mr. Jones, Which Mr. Enoch was not defending, but was merely an observer.
	His name appeared in all caps, where he's speaking and interjecting into the record 28 times during the testimony of Mr. Jones.
	And that's taking out the times that it appeared for housekeeping matters, like getting the witness water, or talking about the PO at the end of the deposition.
	And I don't want to be tag-teamed, and it was ridiculous and improper, but I normally wouldn't call it out on the record.
	But I've reviewed the transcript.
	And I've done this to confirm this, that there were questions on the floor about what a certain building was and whether it was the school or not.
	And as part of his interruption, Mr. Enoch blurted out to the witness that it's the firehouse in the video, a word that had not previously appeared in the deposition.
	So, of course, right after that, Mr. Jones says, quote, and I later corrected.
	You know, that was one of the things that had been said that wasn't true, was that they were at the firehouse.
	There was other footage from the school.
	At best, this was highly improper conduct, and it's exactly why we don't allow speaking objections in Texas.
	At worst, it was an attempt to communicate an idea to the witness, conduct which is absolutely repellent to the idea of justice.
	Yet on the following day, the problems continued.
	I only have a video, not a transcript, but once again, Mr. Enoch repeatedly interrupted a deposition he was not defending, at which he was simply an observer.
	And again, I've watched the video to confirm, and so has my co-counsel to confirm both of ours' memories, that Mr. Dew, the corporate representative, visibly reacted to a gesture from Mr. Enoch during a difficult question, and Mr. Ogden had to call him out on it.
	And you can see Mr. Dew's reaction and where his eyes are in the deposition.
	During both depositions, Mr. Enoch was repeatedly asked to leave the deposition if he refused to stay quiet.
	He stayed but continued to interrupt.
	I am putting this all on the record right now because this deposition began rather contentiously and my reaction to it was one of significant disturbance.
	I now am in a position where I have a witness who is not represented by counsel.
	I am facing a counsel who at the very beginning of this deposition threw all sense of propriety out the window and began questioning the witness on multiple issues, though he's not the one who noticed this deposition, had no ability to question that witness first, and almost certainly had no ability to question him at all.
	It has caused the witness to become very agitated.
	I do not feel I am equipped to defend this witness's rights.
	I don't represent him.
	What is happening is totally inconsistent with the court's order.
	We have attempted to contact the court because I believe the court would be wanting to have some sort of input on when an order like this only gives me the right to question whether Mr. Enoch should be allowed to question this witness who does not currently have counsel.
	I'm very disturbed by this turn of events.
	I want this all on the record in case these matters need to be brought to the court in any kind of connection with sanctions.
	Right now, I'm going to finish, and I am going to ask Mr. Jacobson to return to the room.
	I'm going to tell Mr. Jacobson that I have concluded with my deposition, the deposition that was ordered in the court's order, and that I have no further need of him to be here.
	I do not know what Mr. Enoch's going to do at that point.
	I do not know if Mr. Enoch's going to attempt to try to keep the witness here.
	I don't know what's going to happen.
	I do know that I am extremely concerned about a lawyer who has already exhibited an incredible pattern of astonishing bad conduct in deposition.
	To now take this very unorthodox turn.
	That being said, those are my comments on the record.
	I will allow Mr. Jacobson to return to the room and allow him to make the decision in his own best interest.
	And I do not intend to respond tit for tat, which is what I think is self-serving diatribe.
	And I will respond appropriately when appropriate.
	Let's have the witness come back in the room, please.
	You can tell the witness what you want.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Jacobson, that's all I have for you today.
	Thank you for your time.
	Mr. Bankston, if I ask questions, are you going to seek sanctions against me?
	Mr. Jacobson, are you leaving?
	He's leaving, apparently.
	He doesn't want to talk to you, I guess.
	Okay.
	And my understanding is that you threatened me with sanctions earlier if I asked questions.
	Is my understanding correct, sir?
	Yeah, if you were to go ahead and ask him questions, I would probably bring a motion against you.
	I mean, well, it would also be for your other conduct in the previous two depositions, but yeah, if you did that.
	And again, let me just make that clear.
	You didn't ask him any questions.
	I still, depending on what we need to do, might be bringing sanctions against you.
	You don't need to give me a speech.
	My question was a simple one.
	Did you say you would threaten me with sanctions if I asked questions?
	Your answer was an affirmative.
	That's all I need.
	Yeah, if you're going to engage in improper conduct, I will always put the possibility of sanctions on the table, Mr. Genock.
	I just disagree with that.
	And I think you know that about me by now.
	Mr. Bankston, we don't have to have an argument over anything.
	The question was assembled.
	Thank you for answering.

▲