Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 26, 2019 - Depositions & Trials

02:57:29

Deposition of Alex Jones, November 26, 2019

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	We are on the record.
	This is the videotaped deposition of Alex Jones.
	Today's date is November 26th, 2019, and the time is 9.17am.
	Would the court reporter please swear in the witness?
	together be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
	I do.
	All right.
	Amen.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Jones, we're doing that thing where you don't respond.
	Well, objections is Mr. Jones.
	Yeah, I was trying to see if the witness would acknowledge, like, hey, good morning, how you doing?
	Anyway, whatever.
	Mr. Jones, you signed an affidavit verifying the discovery responses of free speech systems, right?
	About a yes.
	Okay.
	Let's go ahead and mark that as Exhibit 1. Mr. Jones, I'm handing you what I've marked as Exhibit 1. That's Defendant Free Speech Systems' second amended objections and responses to plaintiff's request for admissions, interrogatory's request for production.
	This is the discovery responses that you verified?
	I believe so.
	And you understand that by verifying a discovery response, you signed an affidavit in which you subscribed and sworn that these discovery responses are true and correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Would you do me a favor and flip to page 3 for me?
	You see where it says interrogatory number 2?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And that states, identify by date and title every article or video discussing the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting created or published by Free Speech Systems LLC, which is not already listed in the Declaration of Brooke Binskowski.
	Did I read that correctly?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	I want to talk to you about videos first.
	It's true that on November 7th your company produced to me 42 videos of Sandy Hook in the title.
	Is that correct?
	Is there somewhere I read that?
	No, I'm just asking you.
	I don't know.
	Well, at some point when those videos were produced, you were the one who verified these, in the last sentence here, the InfoWars videos produced on November 7th, 2019, correct?
	I know they got videos together and gave them to you, I believe, yeah.
	Okay.
	Well, when you certified this is correct, were you certifying that that was the production of all videos in InfoWars possession that discussed or relate to Sandy Hook?
	I mean, I believe so.
	Okay.
	It's true that after I sent a letter saying that that's not true, that those weren't all the videos, that on November 14th, you produced an additional 12 videos to me.
	Isn't that correct?
	I don't remember.
	Okay.
	When you signed these interrogatory requests, again, the last sentence there says, and videos produced on November 14, 2019, you were involved in that process or you weren't involved in that process?
	I just said give them all the videos.
	You did nothing to verify that those were actually all the videos?
	I mean, I...
	I mean, I...
	I didn't really know how to pull those videos up.
	I don't understand all those computers and that type of stuff.
	Well, what I'm saying, Mr. Jones, is you signed an affidavit verifying these answers and that these were the responses of Free Speech System.
	Are you telling me you didn't have anything to do with that?
	I relied on my attorneys and my crew.
	I said, give them all the videos.
	Okay.
	Who did you say that to?
	Don't relay any conversations you had with counsel.
	Okay.
	I can't relay that.
	Okay.
	Just give any instructions to any members of your staff?
	Just to comply with the...
	I'll give you all the videos.
	Okay.
	So you did talk to your staff about the production of videos?
	I guess the previous three lawsuits by you, but I just say comply with it.
	I'm not...
	I'm not doing that.
	Well, what I'm asking you is when you got these discovery responses in this case and when you executed an affidavit on September 24th of this year, who'd you talk to in terms of your staff?
	I don't think I even needed, I mean, they were given the information.
	I believe they had turned it over.
	I don't remember who I talked to.
	I don't think I may not even have talked to any of the staff.
	I just obviously supply with the discovery.
	Okay.
	Well, when those 54 videos were provided to me, that's not all the videos where InfoWars discuss Sandy Hook, is it?
	I don't know.
	What did you do to try to find out?
	Well, I mean, I did go and I guess just last night and said, you know, in the computer, are there any other videos?
	And they did some searches, Rob Dew did, and was able to find stuff that wasn't under the name Sandy Hook.
	And he was there and we put him on a USB drive.
	Okay.
	And when you say he is there and you're pointing off camera, you're talking about your attorney?
	Wade Jeffries, yes.
	Okay.
	So, in other words, first of all, in response to my question, those 54 videos that were produced on November 7th and November 14th, those were not all the videos that discuss or relate to Sandy Hook.
	Yes.
	That's true.
	That's not all the videos?
	We discovered that, yes.
	Okay.
	And when you produced today, as I walked into this deposition room, a USB drive, how many videos are on that USB drive?
	I don't know.
	Okay.
	Is it your opinion that between those 54 videos previously produced and that USB drive you gave me today, that you have produced all videos in which Infowars has discussed Sandy Hook?
	That was what I said last night.
	I said, find anything and give it to them.
	You didn't say that back when you were answering the discovery back in September?
	I mean, obviously, I said, we're not hiding anything.
	I said, give them all the videos.
	We didn't get all the videos, though, did we?
	I didn't know that until last night.
	Okay.
	And so right now, you can't say to me that I currently have produced from you all the videos from InfoWars that talk about Sandy Hook.
	You can't say that, can you?
	I mean, actually, I can't because that wasn't my job.
	But I told people to do that.
	So I'd be happy to look some more.
	When you say that wasn't your job, you're the person who signed a sworn affidavit saying that this had been done.
	Yes, I relied on my counsel and my crew.
	So in other words, this affidavit here...
	Can you flip to the last page with me?
	Page five?
	Do you see at the very end, the very last two lines, it says the answers are true and correct based upon his own personal knowledge and belief.
	These answers are not based upon your personal knowledge.
	You relied on somebody else.
	My personal knowledge of the lawyer and my crew doing it.
	And before we came here, we discovered this and had told you and produced it, supplemented it.
	Right.
	What I'm saying is here right now, you don't have personal knowledge to say whether these responses are full and complete and correct.
	I mean, if you want to be technical, it's possible there could be something somewhere.
	But to the best of my knowledge, we have given you what you requested.
	Let's not be technical about it.
	Let's be really accurate about it.
	Which is to say, if you wanted to find out if there were videos talking about Sandy Hook, how would you do that?
	We would have to do what we did and search for things that don't have any of those names in it.
	Because I started digging deeper into it and I said, I remember a video or two and so we took hours digging around and then found it under another name and then produced it to you.
	Digging around in what?
	I don't understand.
	Searching in the computer.
	What are you searching on the computer?
	Video files?
	Are you searching transcripts?
	Everything.
	Trying to find stuff.
	Do you have transcripts of your InfoWorth videos?
	No.
	Okay, so you're not searching transcripts.
	You're searching videos, right?
	Well, you search words, too, because that's what the names are, but yeah.
	Okay, and so are you searching the titles?
	Yes.
	Okay, you're searching anything else?
	I don't know.
	It goes on titles.
	Okay, so if Sandy Hook isn't in the title, it's not in there?
	No.
	That's how we were able to find it.
	It didn't have anything really related to that.
	But I said, I remember I remember this video, and so we went and dug through again and were able to, I forget the exact search term, but it was different.
	Okay, so there is a video that doesn't have Sandy Hook in the title that you asked to be produced.
	It was late last night.
	It was a couple of them, I believe, when we produced them.
	You don't know what you did last night.
	How many videos there were?
	I don't remember the exact number.
	I think it was a couple.
	It was a couple.
	I think it was multiple versions of the same one, and we just said, so what?
	Just put all the copies of it.
	And you're saying we've discovered this because you remembered a video that didn't have Sandy Hook in the title, but that was talking about Sandy Hook.
	Yes, I remembered a title when I was going back over the paperwork, just double checking it.
	And so we went and called Rob Dew up to the office and went in there and searched through the computer.
	I'll show you later.
	When you do an Infowars show, there's some sort of written record of that show.
	What the outline of the show is, what you're going to talk about, that exists, right?
	No.
	So what's a daily show log?
	What is that?
	Sometimes someone writes notes about topics that were covered, guests that were on, so that somebody can Grab clips out of that and make a boil down, a derivative of it.
	Right, so a daily show log is an outline of that day's show.
	A list of what happens the first hour, what happens the second hour, what happens the third hour, what happens the fourth, what segments, what topics are going to be discussed, correct?
	I would think of an outline as what somebody does before a show.
	So no, I would call it more of a primitive, maybe a log.
	Wait, so you're saying a daily show log doesn't occur before the show, it occurs after the show?
	It occurs during the show.
	Somebody is, as the show is being recorded, is writing down and creating an outline?
	It's live.
	Okay, so are all InfoWars videos live or some recorded?
	Well, you were saying the show, the daily show is live.
	Okay.
	I guess every once in a while parts of it are recorded.
	Okay, so when is the daily show log created?
	As the show's being made.
	Who creates it?
	Just one of the people that's in there during the live show, usually a producer or just someone that makes notes.
	Okay.
	So, first of all, your testimony is that a show log is not distributed to employees in advance of the show.
	No.
	Okay.
	Second is, if you were to search those show logs, you could discover all the videos that talked about Sandy Hook, couldn't you?
	No.
	Well, they certainly mention the topics you're going to talk about on the show, right?
	No.
	So in your testimony, if we were to go look in InfoWars production, the documents that you produced, we wouldn't find daily show logs which list that Sandy Hook is being discussed that day.
	The log is made, it's not really a log, it's just to mark interesting things that went on during the show or like an interesting caller or things like that.
	I mean that's basically, it's just something to make boil down like best of things out of.
	So that's what I'm trying to explain is that We only started doing it a couple years ago.
	Well, okay.
	When you say a couple years ago, so would there be daily show logs in 2015?
	No.
	So those don't exist?
	I don't believe so.
	I think we started like in 2016. Okay.
	If you had daily show logs that mention that Sandy Hook was discussed on the show, you should be able to produce those videos, correct?
	It depends.
	A lot of the live show was only archived on YouTube, and so then that was taken down.
	Okay.
	And between April 4th, when you were given first notice that these lawsuits might be filed, and when your YouTube account was taken down later that summer, you took no efforts to save all those videos?
	There was over 30,000 videos.
	We didn't save those videos, most of them.
	Okay, so most of those videos you allowed to be lost when that happened.
	No, I didn't take the YouTube channel down.
	Right, I know.
	I understand that.
	that, but before your YouTube channel was taken down, but after you were sued, you took no steps to preserve any of those videos?
	We did save the videos that we had on our servers.
	That's not what I'm asking you though, is it?
	When you talk about the videos that were lost, that you don't have because the YouTube channel was taken down and the only place you had them saved was natively on YouTube, you don't have those videos.
	And so by extension, I don't have those videos, correct?
	No, those videos were duplicated on other people's channels.
	I've seen what you guys have.
	You have basically everything we ever talked about.
	Am I asking you if we have basically everything or am I asking you if we have everything?
	I don't know if you have everything.
	Okay.
	You don't know if I have everything, correct?
	I don't.
	Let's talk about articles.
	You know how many articles you produced to me that Infowars did about Sandy Hook?
	I don't know.
	No, it was about several hundred pages though, right?
	I don't remember.
	Why don't you take a look at page 3, what you swore to?
	You see in response to interrogatory number 2, And you can tell me that there are hundreds of pages of news articles about Sandy Hook, correct?
	I'm not sure what these numbers mean, but I guess that means 327.
	It's your answer, Mr. Jones.
	Why don't you tell me what it means?
	I guess that means 327?
	You guessed that it means that.
	You swore to it, but you guessed that that's what that is.
	Well, I'm not a lawyer, so I went off what I believe was best through my counsel.
	Okay.
	Again, that answer's not based on your personal knowledge.
	You're just trusting other people.
	Well, you have to trust your lawyer, because I don't have a law degree.
	Do you need a law degree to figure out how many pages of InfoWars articles you produced to me?
	I mean, I believe that means 327. It just says zeros in front of it.
	Have you ever looked at that?
	Yes, I read this.
	Before you signed this affidavit, swearing that this answer was correct, did you look at page 1 through 327?
	I remember it was there, yes.
	Okay, so when you swore to this answer, you understood that 1 through 327 was InfoWars articles you were producing?
	To the best of my knowledge, yes.
	All right.
	When you were searching for articles, did you search for articles on the website as it exists now, or did you search for deleted articles as well?
	I don't really understand that question.
	Well, you understand that Infowars has deleted articles from its website relating to Sandy Hook, correct?
	I don't know that.
	Do you know if the search was done on the website as it exists now or was it a backup of the website as it always existed?
	I don't know.
	I don't understand.
	You understand that there's a website on the internet, Infowars.com?
	Yes.
	It's published live.
	Anybody can go there and look at it.
	Yes.
	I assume that the total content of everything that was ever on the website, whether it's there now or not, is saved somewhere, right?
	I believe so.
	Was that searched?
	I don't remember.
	Did the company search PrisonPlanet.com?
	I believe so.
	Well, it's strange because I don't have any PrisonPlanet.com articles, and you would agree with me that there has been Sandy Hook articles published on PrisonPlanet.com, right?
	But it's a mirror, so it's the same database.
	Okay, so you're saying that every article that's ever been published on PrisonPlanet.com relating to Sandy Hook was also published identically on InfoWars.com.
	It's a mirror site, I believe so.
	Okay.
	Can you look on page three again for me at interrogatory number four?
	That interrogatory, do you see it?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	That interrogatory reads, identify every method by which employees or agents of Free Speech Systems LLC have communicated messages to other employees, agents, or sources concerning the subject matter of this lawsuit, including the name of any electronic application, program, or service used in such communications.
	I read that correctly?
	Yes.
	Alright.
	If you flip the page onto page four, You will see at the end of this answer, after all the legal objections, that it states the methods by which employees or agents of Free Speech Systems LLC have communicated messages is via email, telephone, or verbally.
	I read that correctly?
	Yes.
	That answer's not true, is it?
	That's false testimony, right?
	Where is it?
	Which one?
	I'm talking about on page four, your answer at the very top of page four.
	That answer is not accurate.
	That is false testimony.
	Objection form.
	That's how we communicate.
	Okay.
	You're saying you're going to testify here under oath you've never received a text message relating to Sandy Hook?
	No, I searched my phone.
	There was nothing in it.
	I remember that.
	Wait, let's back up and make sure we understand this correctly.
	First, you're testifying that what you're saying right now is you searched your phone.
	Yeah, there was nothing in there.
	I remember doing it, yeah.
	Okay.
	First, let's go back to the original question.
	Regardless of what's in your phone right now, are you saying you've never received text messages relating to Sandy Hook?
	No, not that I remember.
	Okay.
	What did you do to try to verify that?
	Was it just looking at your phone?
	No, I mean, you could search at the top.
	I've never talked about it.
	Okay.
	I've seen in court filings that you frequently destroy your cell phone.
	Is that true?
	No, I've gotten new cell phones.
	Okay, so if it was said in a court filing you frequently destroy your cell phones, that's not accurate?
	That wasn't true?
	Oh, destroy?
	You mean like it gets in the lake or whatever?
	I've lost them.
	No, I mean intentionally destroy.
	You haven't never done that?
	I guess I did get mad in a couple years he was going to throw one or something against the wall.
	I have destroyed a cell phone before.
	When was the last time that you either destroyed or replaced a cell phone?
	I don't know, like three or four months ago I got a new cell phone.
	Three or four months ago?
	It has the same SIM card, so it's the same deal.
	How far back do you have text messages?
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	So you're saying you never received text messages relating to Sandy Hook.
	Is your testimony the same that you've never sent a text message relating to Sandy Hook?
	I mean, I've, like I said, like to like talk to a lawyer, like meeting about it or something, but I know I don't sit there and talk about Sandy Hook.
	It's not my identity.
	I very rarely talk about Sandy Hook, period.
	Okay.
	So your testimony is you've never sent a text message relating to Sandy Hook to a fellow employee or a source or somebody outside the company?
	No.
	I mean, I think I've talked about meetings with lawyers about it, and that's it.
	Okay.
	You're also saying you've never sent messages over any kind of internal messaging application to a member of your staff about Sandy Hook?
	Internal messaging system.
	I don't know of any other systems.
	Are you saying you don't know what an internal messaging system is or InfoWars doesn't have any?
	I don't know of any internal messaging systems other than like a calendar.
	Do you know what Yahoo Instant Messenger is?
	Yes, I haven't used that in over 10 years.
	Do you know what Slack is?
	I've heard of it.
	Okay.
	Both of those are things used inside InfoWars, right?
	No.
	I haven't used it.
	It's probably longer than 10 years since Yahoo Messenger.
	We used to use that a long time ago, more than 10 years ago.
	What do your staff use to send messages to each other in terms of internal applications?
	Do they use Slack?
	I don't know.
	I've heard that name.
	Wait, hold on.
	Let's back up here.
	When you say you don't know if they use Slack, when you had to answer this question about what methods of communication were used by members of your staff among each other and with sources, what exactly did you do to find that out?
	I mean, the only communications with Sandy Hook are like email and verbal and some guests on the show.
	That's not what I asked you, Mr. Jones.
	What did you do to find out what methods of communication your staff used?
	I talked to the staff and I had the lawyer ask the staff to handle it.
	What members of staff did you talk to?
	Oh, I talked to like Rob Dew and I talked to Zimmerman.
	Alright, let's talk about Rob Dew first.
	You asked Rob Dew, hey, how do Infowars employees communicate with each other?
	What did he say?
	Objection form.
	It was just like, hey, give them all the Sandy Hook stuff.
	That's what you said to Rob Du?
	Yeah, just like any type of communications on this, just, you know, give it to the lawyer.
	How did that help you answer this question?
	This question is, what methods of communication were used?
	How did you answer that question?
	I asked, I mean, I know the members of communication, like they talk through email in person.
	And over the phone, stuff like that.
	You just told me you don't know if they use Slack or not, right?
	When you said the word slack, I've heard of that before.
	Okay, why is that not in your interrogatory response?
	Because I've never thought of that, and I don't even know they use that.
	I've just heard of a bunch of other names, too.
	Let's just make sure we have this really clear.
	When that question asked you to identify all methods of communication, including any applications, messaging programs, etc., you didn't make any steps to find out if there were messaging programs.
	You didn't do that.
	I've not seen anybody.
	I've not used Slack.
	I've not seen anybody use it.
	Again, that's not what I'm asking you.
	I'm asking you for the purposes of answering these questions.
	You didn't do anything.
	I mean, I did say provide anything about Sandy Hook.
	Right.
	So, for instance, there's some requests for production.
	Do you see that?
	The next one is number one, request for production.
	Yes.
	And it says all documents created, edited, or replied to by any name defendant relating to Sandy Hook and some other topics.
	You see that?
	So you told your employees to comply with that question, right?
	Yes.
	But when it comes to the previous question, when it comes to what methods of communication, you didn't do anything to identify those.
	I did.
	I believe counsel and the crew were doing that.
	Okay, so again, your answers that you swore to are not based on your personal knowledge.
	You just trusted that the counsel and the crew were correct, that it was only email, telephone, and verbally.
	Well, personal knowledge is that I believe that that's what they've done.
	Okay.
	That's not true though, is it?
	This answer's just not true?
	I don't know that's the case.
	Okay, so you don't know whether your communications have ever been by Slack or text messages among your employees.
	You have no idea.
	No, we checked the text messages.
	There's no Sandy Hook.
	Whose text messages did you check?
	I remember giving my phone to Zimmerman and to the other people and them going around and checking.
	That means you.
	You checked your text messages, correct?
	Yeah, I checked it myself and then Zimmerman did some type of more intense thing.
	Did more intense thing with what?
	With my telephone.
	With you, with your text messages, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	What about your employees?
	I told them to go through it and that's what they said they did.
	Okay, so you're in terms of trying to find out if there were responsive text messages from your employees to each other, you left it entirely up to your staff to go find those and know if there were any that existed.
	Yes, I told them to do that.
	Okay, and so potentially the employees who are implicated in some of the conduct that's alleged in this petition, they were the ones who were responsible for finding out if there were any text messages.
	No, it was the IT guy who went and did it.
	Wait, so your IT person went and searched all your employees' text messages?
	They talked to the lawyer and followed this.
	That's not what I'm asking you, Mr. Jones.
	I'm asking you, did your IT person search your employees' text messages, or did your employees search their own text messages?
	I know Zimmerman searched mine.
	I don't know.
	Okay.
	So when you answered this question about what methods have they communicated, you don't know if your employees have texted each other about Sandy Hook.
	You have no idea.
	No, I was told there was nothing there.
	Mr. Zimmerman told you that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So are you saying now that Mr. Zimmerman is able to represent whether there were text messages on all of your employees' phones relating to Sandy Hook?
	I don't know about all my employees' phones.
	Okay.
	I don't know if that was what was even asked.
	Well, let's look at what's asked.
	It's right in front of you.
	Let's look at interrogatory number four.
	Turn back one page to page three.
	You'll see the question.
	It says, identify every method by which employees or agents of free speech systems have communicated.
	So it is asking for every employee or agent.
	Is it not, Mr. Jones?
	And that was not done, right?
	No, I remember them checking and they said there's no text messages.
	Okay.
	Let's make sure we have this clear on the record because you've given a couple different answers.
	You are saying that all of your employees' text messages have been checked for Sandy Hooker material.
	I believe that that was being handled by the lawyer and by Zimmerman.
	And I believe whatever was found was turned over of anything.
	I don't know.
	Okay.
	Was anything turned over?
	I don't know.
	All right.
	Let's talk about request for production number three on page four.
	This request Sought all documents reflecting disciplinary action taken against any employee of Free Speech Systems LLC for publication of false information or for breach of journalistic ethics between December 14, 2012 and April 18, 2018. Your response is none, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Give me top two.
	Now, Mr. Jones, if you look on page two, do you if you look on page two, do you see where it says a certificate of service?
	Yes.
	And then the last line says November 20th, 2019?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	You remember you actually verified a previous set of interrogatory responses about a week earlier.
	Do you remember that?
	Yes.
	Let's mark that as 2. Okay, Mr. Jones, I'm handing you what I've marked as Exhibit 2, the previous set of interrogatory responses.
	And what I'm interested in is if you go to page 4, and it bleeds onto page 5 is the answer that I'm interested in.
	I noticed that you had a different answer before that you changed to say none.
	And I want to ask what the difference between these two answers are.
	So I'm going to read for you.
	If you see at the bottom of page four, do you see that same question?
	All documents reflecting disciplinary action in request for production number three?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And if you turn the page, you'll see your answer is on the back there, on page five.
	And do you see the highlighted portion that states, free speech has never knowingly published false information in breach of journalistic ethics and thus never had any reason to take disciplinary action against any employee.
	You see where it says that?
	And then you changed your answer in amended response to just say, none.
	Correct?
	Is this the amended one?
	That's the amended one, yes.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	This statement in the first response that free speech has never knowingly published false information, is that statement still true or are you trying to say by changing it that that statement's not true?
	No, we're just making it simpler here.
	Okay, so this statement here you still stand by, free speech has never knowingly published false information in breach of journalistic ethics.
	Absolutely.
	Okay, and thus you've never had any reason to take disciplinary action.
	You agree that that's true under your testimony?
	Yeah, not for someone lying.
	Okay, so you admit free speech has published false information before, it just hasn't done that knowingly.
	We made mistakes before.
	Okay.
	And you just didn't, it's not, it'd be different if somebody did it knowingly.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And the only reason you'd take disciplinary action is if someone knowingly published false information.
	No, I mean, if somebody was messing up a lot as well, they'd have issues.
	Alright, so there'd be other reasons you might take disciplinary action in addition to it being knowingly published, right?
	Sure, like people aren't being lazy or something.
	There's a lot of things.
	Sure.
	So people have been careless in the past and let false information get to air before, haven't they?
	I don't think that's a fair statement.
	You don't think somebody's made a mistake at InfoWars before?
	I think people make mistakes.
	People have been careless.
	You don't take disciplinary action, though, for mistakes, correct?
	We've taken corrective measures.
	We've talked to people.
	Okay.
	Okay, so when it says here, you've never had any reason to take disciplinary action against any employee, that's not true?
	Objection form.
	Not for journalistic reasons.
	Not for journalistic reasons, did you say?
	So you've taken discipline with people that had nothing to do with the reporting of the news?
	Yes.
	But in terms of things that have happened at InfoWars, with reporting of the news, nobody's ever been disciplined for anything that's happened at InfoWars.
	Not for knowingly putting out false information.
	That's not what I'm asking Mr. Jones.
	We had just talked that there are other situations besides putting out knowingly false information.
	When people are reckless, careless, they make a mistake they shouldn't have made, they're incompetent, they're lazy, and as a result false information gets published.
	Has somebody ever been disciplined for that?
	Objection form.
	Was that a question?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	I don't understand the question.
	Okay.
	I can see it.
	I can't read it.
	Yeah, I can get close enough.
	Besides putting out knowingly false information, if somebody was reckless, careless, they made a mistake, they were lazy, they were incompetent, and one of those things caused false information There's no discipline taken for that.
	There's been discipline when people have done things that are wrong.
	It's just that we never had anybody that we know knowingly lied.
	So I think that's what we're saying.
	No one's ever been disciplined for where someone knowingly lied about something.
	Okay.
	Well, what I'm asking is, if somebody was reckless, careless, incompetent, lazy, did a bad job, and it caused false information to be published, not knowingly, just reckless.
	Has there ever been discipline taken for that?
	I don't think...
	Not under your definition of reckless.
	What's your definition of reckless?
	Not what we're doing.
	I'm not sure what that means.
	What do you mean?
	What does reckless mean to you?
	Reckless would just be with no regard.
	Okay.
	What if somebody is careless?
	Is that different than reckless to you or is that the same thing?
	No, I mean, I think careless is a form of recklessness.
	Okay.
	Somebody does that at InfoWars, do they get punished?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Has that ever happened?
	I'd have to refresh my memory, huh?
	Well, when these questions asked you to do that, didn't they?
	These questions asked you, has anybody ever been disciplined for the publication of false information?
	Has that ever happened?
	Or did you not refresh your memory when you were answering these sworn questions?
	Hold on, let me read it again.
	Sure.
	Where was that?
	Request for production number three at the bottom of page four.
	I don't know about between those days.
	It just all kind of blurs together.
	Couldn't give you an accurate answer.
	Did you go and try to find out?
	Yes, we did not find anything in writing about that.
	Okay, so between those dates, 2012 to 2018, the last six years of your business, you were unable to locate any examples of you taking disciplinary action against an employee related to the publication of false information.
	Nothing verifiably false, though.
	Was there disciplinary action taken for something that was probably false, that you couldn't verify?
	I'd have to consult my files.
	I'd have to look into that more.
	I don't know, but that's a different question.
	Okay.
	You say nobody at Infowars has ever breached journalistic ethics, correct?
	We're mainly punditry and opinion.
	Right.
	Journalism is a very small part of what we do.
	Okay, this answer here disclaims that false information has ever been published this answer here disclaims that false information has ever been published in breach of journalistic Do you stand by that answer or do you not stand by that answer?
	I stand by that answer.
	Okay, so nobody at Infowars has ever breached journalistic ethics causing false information to be published?
	Not knowingly.
	Okay.
	So people have unknowingly breached journalistic ethics?
	Well, that would be according to whose point of view you're looking at.
	I'm asking your point of view.
	Has anybody at Infowars ever breached journalistic ethics?
	Not that I have in front of me.
	Okay.
	What if someone at Free Speech Systems wanted to say on air, Sandy Hook Elementary School had actually been shut down and wasn't an operating school?
	What has to happen in order for that to be said on air?
	Well, generally that would be someone talking about what other people were saying and why people were asking questions and some of the claims that were out there.
	Okay, let's say they wanted to make that claim factually.
	They just wanted to say that sentence.
	What has to happen?
	It would just depend on the context of how it was said and what was said around it.
	Alright, well, let's just assume nothing was said around it.
	That's all they wanted to say.
	You have a reporter and that's the thing that they wanted to say during a broadcast that you were doing.
	I can't respond to hypotheticals.
	Okay, so if somebody was to come to you before a show and say, Mr. Jones, I want to say this on today's show, you can go, well, that's hypothetical.
	I can't tell you whether you can or cannot say that.
	That's hypothetical as well.
	Okay.
	So, basically, anybody can say anything they want to on your show.
	They don't need to get prior permission from you.
	Objection for one.
	It is a call-in show.
	There is no prior constraint on the callers and on many of the guests.
	Let's talk about employees.
	Do you have any kind of prior restraint on anything employees say on your show?
	Yes.
	I mean, I don't want people to say things that they think are false.
	I wouldn't have anybody working for me that's like that.
	All right.
	Well, let's say you have a factual claim an employee wants to make on the air.
	Or that you want to make on the air?
	What has to happen before you make a factual claim on Infowars?
	Well, if we publish an article saying it's definitive that X, Y, and Z happened, then we'd want to have proof there so that the viewers and listeners could see that for themselves.
	But generally, we're talking about events and what other people are saying, and we're just covering news events that aren't even being contested, or we're covering Generally, what the public thinks, like a Jeffrey Epstein thing, like people don't believe that he killed himself.
	And would people be sued for that?
	I mean, the government says that he did kill himself.
	Most people don't believe that's true.
	And so nowadays, the establishment doesn't want you to be able to say that.
	They want to be able to sue you to make you believe the official story and not question it.
	Okay.
	And it's not working.
	Let's put a pin in Epstein.
	We'll definitely come back to Epstein.
	Definitely want to talk about that today.
	But I want to talk about when a factual claim is made on InfoWars and you say, we'd like to present proof so the viewer can have it.
	You obviously don't present proof of every factual claim made on InfoWars, right?
	Most of what we do is not factual claims.
	Well, for instance, if you were to get on the air and say something like, Roger Stone lost his criminal trial, you wouldn't need to present your audience with proof of that, because everybody knows what happens in that case, right?
	Yes.
	But there might be some claims that you make, things like, Sandy Hook Elementary School wasn't an operating school.
	If somebody wanted to say that, what kind of proof would you need before you could say that on Infowars?
	Again, if I'm covering what other people are saying, saying that Google showed that it wasn't operating school, that nothing was being delivered there, then that would be why we were covering people believe that.
	Okay, so your opinion is that if you're repeating a factual claim made by somebody else, you don't really have to fact check that.
	I'm not even calling it a factual claim.
	Okay, you think Sandy Hook is not an operating school.
	You think that's an opinion?
	I don't know the context you're speaking about it in.
	I'm just saying right now, if I told you, if I said to you, Mr. Jones, Sandy Hook wasn't an operating school.
	I believe it was torn down.
	That's not what I'm asking.
	Oh, I'm confused.
	I see that.
	I'm asking you, if I said to you, right now, I'm going to say it to you right now, Mr. Jones, Sandy Hook wasn't an operating school.
	Did I just make a statement or did I just make an opinion?
	Well, I think that's your opinion.
	Okay.
	So those sorts of statements can be said on Infowars without fact checking.
	I don't know the context.
	Let's say an editor at Infowars publishes a false accusation that a private individual is a criminal.
	And publishes that accusation based on anonymous sources whose identity cannot be verified.
	Is that okay at InfoWars?
	Can you say that again?
	Sure.
	Let's say an editor publishes a false accusation that a private individual is a criminal and publishes that accusation based on anonymous sources whose identity cannot be verified.
	Is that okay at InfoWars?
	It would depend on the context and who the source is.
	Well, I've just told you the source cannot be verified.
	Is that okay?
	Well, that's what so-called journalists do all the time.
	Do they?
	In the New York Times, everybody, they say that they've got the proof that Trump's a Russian agent, but it never was there.
	Okay.
	That's not good, is it?
	No, it's not.
	No, it's not.
	So relying on an unnamed, unverified, can't even figure out who they are source, that's not okay.
	Well, Daniel Ellsberg was an unnamed source for years.
	No, if you know who the source is, and you know that they're a good source, then you have to protect that source.
	That's totally different, right?
	Let's say the reporter knows the identity of the source, but the public doesn't.
	Oh, sure, sure.
	So let's back up here.
	I don't understand your question.
	Right.
	So let's back up again.
	Let's try it again.
	Let's say an editor publishes a false accusation that a private individual is a criminal and publishes that accusation based on anonymous sources whose identity the reporter cannot verify.
	Is that okay?
	That's quite a mouthful, but I think what you're saying is they know it's not true.
	That would not be good.
	No, I'm just saying they don't know who the source is.
	You just said it up front.
	Say that again.
	Sure.
	An editor publishes a false accusation is just wrong.
	Just publishes somebody else's accusation that somebody's a criminal.
	And that person they're relying on for that accusation, they have no idea who that person's identity is.
	Well, I wouldn't do that if I knew it was false.
	So you're putting that up front.
	So I would not go with something if I knew that it was false.
	Let's try it one more time.
	We'll reword this question for you, okay?
	Let's say an editor publishes an accusation that someone is a criminal and in doing so they relied on a source whose identity they cannot verify.
	They have no idea who it is.
	It's a totally anonymous message they got.
	And then it turns out that that reporting was false.
	Is that okay?
	No, it's not.
	Okay.
	You would take disciplinary action if that happened?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Now, what kind of disciplinary action would you take?
	I would generally just smite at something like that and probably let him go.
	Okay.
	Now, when Kit Daniels ran an article accusing an innocent young man of being the Parkland mass murderer based on anonymous sources, which he could not verify, you didn't fire him, did you?
	That individual's name was not put out, and it was from another site, and it was pulled down, and then the individual reported themselves and their name into the record.
	But Kit Did not do that on purpose.
	And it was on thousands of publications.
	He intentionally, on purpose, reported an accusation of a crime based on an anonymous source whose identity he could not verify, correct?
	No, it appeared to match the information that was also on other sites, but it was incorrect.
	That's why we took it down.
	What sites are you talking about?
	It was a long list of sites.
	It was all over the internet.
	Before Kit Daniels published it?
	Yes.
	That's your belief?
	That's why I remember out of the best of my knowledge.
	Kit Daniels testified that he just found it on 4chan and saw it in a tweet by an anonymous Twitter account.
	I don't remember that.
	If that was true, though, if he just relied on two anonymous sources whose identity he could not verify, that's a fireable offense, isn't it?
	Yes, I believe there was more, but yes, that's not good.
	You didn't take disciplinary action against any employee involved in the false reporting on the Chobani yogurt company that you publicly apologized for, correct?
	That was a publicity stunt by Chobani yogurt and there was no money, it was all There were migrant workers being brought in, there were rapes in the area, but technically the company itself wasn't doing it.
	It was the owner and the fellow reserve board member.
	Didn't David Knight tell you explicitly that there were no rapes?
	That that was false?
	I don't remember what you're talking about.
	Okay.
	You didn't take any disciplinary action against any employee involved in the false reporting on Pizzagate that you publicly apologized for.
	No, the Jeffrey Epstein blackmail rings are real.
	When your reporter, Owen Shroyer, tried to falsely connect the Austin pizza restaurant Eastside Pies to a pedophile ring, you didn't take any disciplinary action.
	Correct?
	I don't know.
	I'm not telling the specifics what you're talking about.
	You've never taken any disciplinary action against any employee for any of the false things said about Sandy Hook on InfoWars, correct?
	I'm judging the phone.
	I don't understand.
	I'm not sure what you're getting at.
	Really?
	Is it the question or is it the subject matter of Sandy Hook?
	Is that too broad or what do I need to clear up for you here? - I mean, I just don't understand the question.
	Sure.
	So you understand what disciplinary action is, right?
	Yes.
	You understand what Sandy Hook's, the coverage of Sandy Hook by InfoWars.
	You understand what that is, right?
	So you've never taken disciplinary action against any employee for any of the false things that have been said on InfoWars about Sandy Hook, correct?
	We have questioned public events.
	Like any American has a right to do, the First Amendment.
	Are you saying you haven't said false things about Sandy Hook on InfoWars?
	I have covered the internet and others questioning the anomalies around it.
	And you've told me in testimony back in March, you said there are things that you said that were not true, were inaccurate, you were wrong about it.
	And I discovered later things that people were saying, anomalies, had been cleared up, yes.
	So the things you said were false, right?
	Not the things I said, the things I covered that other people were saying.
	Okay.
	The questions.
	Let's put it this way.
	The things that you repeated from people like Wolfgang Halbig were false.
	I'd have to go through the specifics.
	Can we go through the specifics?
	We will, but I'm asking you right now generally.
	There have been things Wolfgang Halbig have said that you repeated that were false.
	I'd have to see the specifics.
	So you can't just admit that generally right now?
	I'd have to see the specifics.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Let's talk a few about...
	I have some questions about a couple of your employees.
	And the first one is a gentleman named Buckley Hammond.
	Hammond?
	How do I say that?
	Hammond.
	Okay.
	Buckley Hammond.
	That's your cousin, right?
	Mm-hmm.
	Okay.
	What's his job at InfoWars?
	He doesn't work at InfoWars.
	Okay.
	Has he ever worked at InfoWars?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	What was his job at InfoWars?
	It was IT infrastructure.
	Okay.
	What dates did he work at InfoWars?
	I don't remember the exact dates.
	Okay, when did he...
	I mean, you imagine he very recently stopped working for Infowars.
	A couple years ago.
	Okay.
	Do you know what his opinion was of your Sandy Hook coverage?
	I don't know.
	Okay.
	Let's talk about Jerome Corsi.
	In 2017, you hired Dr. Corsi as your Washington Bureau Chief?
	Yes.
	Okay, that didn't last very long, though, did it?
	No.
	Okay.
	You two had a falling out?
	Yes.
	Dr. Corsi, that's someone who has told you their opinions about you bringing up Sandy Hook over and over, right?
	I don't remember.
	Okay.
	So you don't recall any conversations you might have had with Dr. Corsi in which he talked to you about you repeatedly bringing up Sandy Hook?
	I don't remember that, no.
	Okay.
	Daria Karpova?
	Who is that?
	That's a radio producer.
	So your show goes out on syndicated radio, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay, so she does a job that is tailored towards having that show brought to radio.
	Is that right?
	No.
	Describe her job functions for me.
	Producers and TV are the people that pay for and run the production.
	Radio just means the person that answers phones and sets guests up.
	I like the technicals of the show.
	Okay, so when she sets guests up, she does that for radio, but not for the web broadcast?
	It's a simulcast of radio and TV, but it's really a radio show, so what it is, is a technical director.
	Okay.
	In radio, it's called producer, so that can be confusing.
	Gotcha, okay.
	Now, Daria Karpova, that's the same person as Daria Ruskaya?
	I don't know.
	Okay.
	When did Ms. Karpova start working for you?
	About four years ago.
	Still working for you now?
	What about Roger Stone?
	Is he an employee of yours?
	No.
	Has he ever been an employee of yours?
	Yes.
	When did he stop being an employee?
	No, he was a contractor.
	Okay, so he's a paid contributor in some way.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And just let me give you a little instruction to caution, because I know we have a court reporter here who is having to write everything down.
	And if you jump on my question, it makes it really difficult for you to write that down.
	Can we take a break?
	Yeah, we can take a break.
	Going off the record at 10:12 AM.
	We are back on the record at 10:27 AM.
	Mr. Jones, we were talking about employees and agents of InfoWars, and I want to ask you about a gentleman who I'm going to show you in Exhibit 3.
	You recognize that gentleman?
	Dan Badandi.
	Yeah, can you hold that up for the camera for us?
	Can you hold that a little higher so we can zoom in on that?
	Okay, that's Mr. Badondi?
	Yes.
	Alright, thank you, Mr. Jones.
	That's the man that Infowars sent to Newtown to report on Sandy Hook in 2014, correct?
	Well, he lived up there, so he went and covered it.
	Okay.
	He lives in the Boston area, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay, so InfoWars sent him to Sandy Hook to cover it.
	In 2014, right?
	Not exactly.
	He had his own separate radio show from us.
	Okay, but he did reporting for Infowars in 2014 in San Diego.
	We had him on as a guest, but he wasn't working for us then.
	Okay, he wasn't your reporter?
	Not technically.
	You described him as your reporter.
	I don't remember that.
	I may have.
	Okay.
	And you sent him to go cover Wolfgang Halbig, correct?
	I don't remember that.
	Go ahead and give me Tab 4. Mr. Jones,
	I've handed you what I've marked as Exhibit 4. This is from tv.infowars.com.
	You recognize this format?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And this is from your video archives, and you see on the right-hand corner, May 9, 2014, correct?
	Yes.
	The video is an InfoWars video entitled, School Safety Expert Seeks the Truth in Sandy Hook School Shooting, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And that's Mr. Badandi interviewing Mr. Halbig, correct?
	Yes.
	And this was an InfoWars episode?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Wolfgang Haubig, the man he's interviewing, that's a retired school safety officer who sort of got obsessed with Sandy Hook, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	What did you think of Mr. Badandi's work in Newtown in 2014?
	I did not follow a lot of it.
	Okay.
	When you did find out about it, what was your reaction?
	What did you do?
	Objection form.
	I don't remember the specifics.
	Okay.
	When you testified back in March, didn't you say that you had seen what he did and had a reaction to it?
	Are you talking about this report?
	I don't remember this report.
	I'm just talking about his work in Newtown.
	What did you think about his work in Newtown in 2014?
	I don't remember the exact year, but I remember telling him, you're not reporting for us, and stop using the mite flag.
	And I told him, and stop.
	You know, don't come on the show.
	I mean, I don't like your demeanor and you don't represent us.
	I do remember that.
	I'm not sure of the year.
	Okay, give me tab 5.
	Can we mark that?
	Okay, Mr. Jones.
	Okay, Mr. Jones, you sent Dan Badandi back to Newtown in 2015, didn't you?
	I don't remember.
	Okay.
	Let me show you what I've marked as Exhibit 5. You're going to flip the page and you'll see a highlighted portion.
	Do you see where it says, in an interview with InfoWars reporter Dan Badandi following the hearing?
	Yes.
	Okay, and you'll see that this story, if you look back at the front, it says July 7th, 2015, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay, so Mr. Badandi was back in Newtown in 2015, correct?
	Yes.
	Back during your prior testimony in March, we watched a video of Badandi in Newtown following people on the street, accusing them of being liars and criminals.
	Do you remember that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	I want to show you right now another video of Dan Badondi and Wolfgang Halbig in the Connecticut courthouse and a confrontation that occurred and ask you some questions about it.
	Can we play?
	We're going to go ahead and offer as exhibit 6 the entire USB drive of videos, and we'll be doing them as 6A, 6B, 6C, etc.
	So right now we're going to offer video 6A of the Halbig confrontation on May 28, 2015. Can you play that for me? Attorney Frank, are you satisfied with the decision? Mr.
	Frank, are you satisfied with the decision?
	Of course he's not going to answer.
	There goes corruption right here.
	We're going to find Mr. Benham and Mr. Monty Frank.
	And the Bill Richmond.
	Guess what there, Mr. Frank?
	What do you think?
	You're protecting all of those people?
	Are you protected at V.O. Richmond?
	You're in the synagogue?
	You should have never mentioned the Italian Mafia to me.
	You should take that American flag off your blue appell.
	We should have a communist flag on that.
	I can't help it.
	This is ridiculous.
	I mean, there is law, but not when you have a bobblehead that does what he does.
	That's not right, okay?
	And he's trying to call you a liar.
	Basically, he's saying that you didn't do anything right.
	We know the truth, okay?
	Well, I agree with you.
	I know you did.
	This was going to happen the way it happened anyway.
	We knew that they weren't going to change their minds.
	Mr. Jones, when Mr. Halbig was yelling that he was going to find Aveil Richmond and find Mr. Urbina, do you remember his accusations about Aveil Richmond?
	No, I don't.
	Alright, Mr. Halbig told you that Aveil Richmond wasn't dead.
	Do you remember that?
	No.
	Okay.
	Mr. Halbig claimed there was another little girl in the town that was actually Aveil Richmond and that he was stalking that girl's parents, the Abenas.
	What do you think about that?
	I don't know if that's true.
	Okay.
	If Mr. Halbig is going around right here where you can see, shouting about Aveil Richmond and he's going to find Aveil Richmond, The little girl who died at Sandy Hook.
	What do you think about that?
	I don't think that that's good.
	Okay.
	You claim that you saw what Badandi was doing and you fired him because of it, right?
	Well, I'd have to go back and look at all the times, but he was not working for us then and he kept doing reports and then he popped up a few times in the nightly news and I remember I've been yelling at Du and other people and saying, you know, tell him to stop doing that and don't cover it.
	I don't remember the year or whatever, but I've never even seen this.
	Okay, and you've said that Badandi was not working for you when he went to Sandy Hook, right?
	You've testified to that before?
	Well, it depends, which, again, it's a long time ago, so I really can't speak to it.
	Telling Dan that he was not doing that in my name.
	Okay.
	In addition to Wolfgang Halbig, one of your other sources for your Sandy Hook reporting was Jim Fetzer, right?
	Not one of mine, but I remember.
	Really?
	You didn't testify to that in March that Mr. Fetzer was...
	He was one of the people questioning it.
	And one of your sources for Sandy Hook coverage, correct?
	I don't think he was on my show.
	Didn't you testify that Mr. Watson was telling you that Mr. Fetzer was bad?
	You shouldn't be relying on him?
	I remember Paul saying he didn't like Fetzer.
	I do remember that.
	Mr. Fetzer is a retired professor and a rabid anti-Semite, right?
	I don't know that.
	You didn't know Mr. Fetzer was a rabid anti-Semite?
	No, I don't know that.
	You didn't know that Mr. Fetzer thinks the Jews did Sandy Hook?
	No, I don't know that.
	Just like he thinks the Jews did 9-11?
	No.
	Okay.
	After some time, you say you realized that Halbig and Fetzer were not credible and the anomalies they raised weren't accurate, correct?
	Right.
	Some of them, yes.
	Okay.
	Talking about Halbig mainly there.
	I didn't know Fetzer was saying all that.
	I didn't agree with a lot of things Fetzer said over the years.
	Sure.
	But you kept repeating those anomalies as fact right up until you got sued, right?
	Nope.
	Okay.
	You remember at the end of the 2016 election, there was some media coverage about how you had said on your show that Trump had called you to thank you for your help in the election?
	And some of those mainstream media sources were, you know, kind of trying to pile on you about that?
	Do you remember that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Two days after that happened, a woman named Erica Lafferty...
	First, let's back up.
	Do you know who Erica Lafferty is?
	No.
	Okay.
	She's the daughter of Dawn Hop Springs.
	She's currently suing you.
	You don't know who she is?
	I've never talked about her.
	Okay.
	She's been talked about on InfoWars, though.
	You didn't know that?
	I don't know.
	Okay.
	And you didn't know that she currently is the named plaintiff in a suit against you in Connecticut called Lafferty versus Jones?
	You didn't know that?
	Oh, I've seen that name, yeah.
	Okay.
	Well, two days later, Erica Lafferty wrote an open letter to Trump about you.
	Do you remember that?
	Nope.
	You don't remember a letter in which Ms. Lafferty wrote on behalf of the victims saying to Trump, please disavow Alex Jones.
	Don't associate yourself with Alex Jones.
	You don't remember that?
	I do remember a letter about that.
	Okay.
	Let me see tab 7. Alright.
	Can we mark that?
	Mr. Jones, I'm going to show you Exhibit 7, just so you can see the letter and I'm going to show you Exhibit 7, just so you can see the letter Do you see the date on that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And that is November 16, 2016, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Again, just another caution to wait until I finish my question before you answer, because he has difficulty writing that down.
	Can we agree to that?
	Mr. Jones?
	Mm-hmm.
	Okay.
	Two days after this letter, do you remember publishing a video which you called your final statement on Sandy Hook?
	Say that again?
	Do you remember two days after this letter, publishing a video which you titled, Your Final Statement on Sandy Hook?
	I remember making a video.
	Okay.
	And that was a video that you recorded to specially address this controversy, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	I want to play you a copy of that video.
	That is going to be Exhibit 6B. The video is entitled, Final Statement on Sandy Hook.
	November 18, 2016. This is going to be a little bit of a long clip, so I want you to pay close attention because we're going to talk about every part of it.
	I know you don't like it when videos are cut short, so we're going to watch a long piece of this.
	So again, I caution you to pay attention to here.
	Thank you.
	We're going to be watching this video, okay?
	So let's go ahead and play that video.
	Number one, the day before this tragic event happened, an email was sent out by Bloomberg's anti-gun group saying, "Prepare for a big event." But the biggest piece of evidence, the smoking gun, if you would, of a cover-up, of whatever really happened, is the Wayback Machine, the Internet Archive.
	We see Sandy Hook's Newtown website, K-12, having zero traffic, 2008, 9, 10, 11, 12, and then all of a sudden, it just explodes.
	It's impossible to have zero traffic to a K through 12 entire school system.
	And the word is that school system was shut down for those years.
	That's what the records show.
	But they tell us it was open.
	I don't know if the moon landings were faked, but I don't put anything past these anti-guys.
	And early on that day, we watched footage of kids going in circles in and out of the building.
	You'd be running them away from the building.
	Emergency helicopters weren't called.
	Instead, porta-potties were prepared for the press within hours of the event.
	I saw the helicopters that did respond, the police helicopters, saying that there were men or a man in the woods in camouflage.
	The media later said that was a conspiracy theory.
	So early on, I'm like, well, I saw local news of the guy in the woods and they took him in custody.
	Now they're saying it never happened.
	So that shows there's some kind of a cover-up happening.
	And then I saw Anderson Cooper.
	I've been in TV for 20-something years.
	I know a blue screen or a green screen.
	Turn and his nose disappear.
	Then I saw clearly that they were using footage on the green screen looped because it would show flowers and other things during other broadcasts that were moving and then basically cutting to the same piece of footage.
	Then I saw CNN. Do faked satellite interviews with reporters clearly with the same traffic and the same cars right behind them, conducting the interview face to face.
	Then we see footage of one of the reported fathers of the victims, Robbie Parker, doing classic acting training where he's laughing and joking and they say, hey, we're live, and he goes, oh.
	And maybe that's real.
	I'm sure it is.
	All right, Mr. Jones.
	Can we mark them?
	Okay.
	Mr. Jones, I'm heading you would have marked as Exhibit 8. It's a screenshot from the video.
	Can you hold that up for the camera real quick?
	Can you hold that up again?
	Alright, thank you.
	This part of the video dealt with the Wayback Machine, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay, you said it's the biggest piece of evidence, the smoking gun.
	Explain to me what you meant by that.
	Specifically?
	Sure, what did you mean by that?
	Well, there's a whole group of research around Not just this, but other algorithm sites and meters not showing any traffic to the school website, or food deliveries, things like that for those years.
	Okay, so you said in the video, we see Sandy Hook's website having zero traffic.
	According to this.
	So, the Internet Wayback Machine, do you believe that that shows Internet traffic?
	Is that what you believe?
	What it shows is what's being archived there.
	It's a group of not just this, but I'd have to go back to it because that was years ago.
	Okay.
	Internet Wayback Machine does not show internet traffic at a school, correct?
	It shows new material and traffic on a website that's posted.
	Okay.
	You're going to stick by.
	You think it shows traffic, internet traffic.
	That's what it's measuring.
	I guess the technical term would be traffic in posting, in activity.
	Have you ever read the Wayback Machine FAQ, Frequently Asked Questions?
	Ever figured out what it is?
	It archives web pages.
	Right, so there's little crawling robots, little web robots that crawl different websites, and if it hits it, it preserves it in the Wayback Machine, correct?
	Yes.
	It has nothing to do with how much web traffic was coming to a particular site.
	Correct?
	How much updating of a site is there.
	That's the traffic.
	That's a form of traffic.
	Okay.
	Those little bars there.
	That isn't a measurement of how many people are accessing the website or how much traffic is coming over the website, is it?
	The better word would be activity on the site by the people that are posting.
	So you're saying that the little bars there reflect something other than the Internet Wayback Machine's own web crawling robots and whether or not they connected with the page?
	I'd have to go back and look at what I was covering at the time.
	Have you ever Googled why a page might be excluded from the Wayback Machine for a certain period?
	There's things like if they blocked a robot, the spider.
	Yeah, and so have you checked to see if that was done?
	This was years ago, and I was also speaking in general about, not just the Wayback Machine, but the updating of the site, the traffic to the site, and food deliveries to the site.
	It was a whole group of things.
	This was, could have been better said.
	Okay, but you said that's the smoking gun, right?
	The Wayback Machine and the traffic to the internet?
	That's what you said?
	Well, not just this, that whole group of things.
	Okay, so let's talk about the other things.
	That was an oversimplification.
	You say there's things showing that there's no traffic coming to the school.
	What are you talking about?
	I'd have to pull that up.
	This was years ago.
	Well, I think you could pull it up pretty easily because it comes from Jim Fetzer's book, right?
	You could just open up Jim Fetzer's book.
	I've never read Jim Fetzer's book.
	Mr. Jones, I'm going to caution you again.
	Please wait until I answer your question.
	Because as you can see, it's very frustrating for this man.
	And he's not here affiliated with any party.
	He's a private person who's paid to provide a service.
	He's coming here to try to write all this down so we have a good record.
	So let's try to behave in the deposition.
	Let me finish my questions.
	You didn't check any other Connecticut school district websites, did you?
	Because they all look like this, don't they?
	I don't remember.
	Well, let's say, hypothetically, if you had gone and you had seen that every other Connecticut school district website looks just like this, it would be pretty irresponsible to go on your web show.
	Call this the smoking gun, wouldn't it?
	I was predominantly talking about the other information, but I had to go back and get that.
	Okay.
	Have you seen Ms. Binkowski's declaration filed in this case discussing all this?
	Have you looked at that?
	I've read over a lot of papers.
	I can't keep track of it all.
	Okay.
	Have you read anything about this, about the Wayback Machine?
	I was speaking of a whole grouping of things, not just this.
	That's not what I'm asking you.
	I'm asking you, have you ever read any documents in this case about the Wayback Machine?
	I don't remember.
	Okay.
	What you said right after that is the school was shut down for those years.
	That's what the records show.
	Correct?
	Correct?
	I'm sorry, is he done?
	You can answer as long as I'm not talking, Mr. Jones.
	Okay, what was the question?
	The question is...
	You said, right after that, the Wayback Machine discussion, you said, the word is that school was shut down for those years.
	That's what the records show.
	That was your argument, correct?
	I'm specifically talking about the other articles I was talking about, I guess.
	That's what I'm asking you about right now.
	Those records, what are you talking about?
	I'd have to go pull them up.
	And you haven't done that?
	No, not recently.
	You've been under lawsuit now for over a year on Sandy Hook related cases, multiple cases, and you haven't done anything to go try to find what your sources for these claims are, have you?
	I've done a lot of work.
	Well, you were asked in interrogatories, weren't you, to identify your sources for all your Sandy Hook claims, including this one?
	You were asked that, right?
	I don't remember.
	Okay.
	You don't remember saying you couldn't figure out what your sources were?
	Is that what you're saying?
	I don't understand.
	Well, let's just ask you right now.
	Are you able to figure out what your sources are?
	Yes, I could specifically, now that I understand what you're asking, I could go find that.
	So if I wanted to know, when you say the records show that the school was closed down, you could produce those records.
	I could show what I was talking about at that point.
	Yeah, or you could produce whatever you were relying on as your source, right?
	Now that you've specified.
	You haven't done that though, have you?
	I don't have a law degree.
	Okay.
	If you were asked the question, produce to me your source or records or information that you relied on to say the school was closed, that's something you could do.
	Yes.
	I don't know if it would be what you're looking for.
	I mean, look, if you had records or some sort of information, some sort of source, Showing the school in America's most horrifying school shooting was actually closed.
	You probably saved that somewhere, right?
	Well, I specifically mentioned, I remember what people were pointing out, what was going on.
	I'm asking you if you would have saved that stuff.
	I mean, I don't have the specifics here in front of me.
	I'm not asking what you have in front of you.
	I'm asking you, when you had information that the school shooting that is the most famous in American history actually occurred in a school that was closed down and wasn't an operating school, did you save that information?
	You know, I don't remember.
	It was a long time ago, almost seven years ago.
	You remember we saw in that video a piece of video footage of what you claimed at the time was kids going in circles, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay, that's not accurate, right?
	Well, they are going in circles.
	They're not kids, are they?
	I believe they were kids.
	Didn't we look at that in your last deposition and you agreed with me those are not school-age kids, nor is that the school?
	I believe later there was also some stuff at the fire department.
	I have no idea what you mean.
	What I'm asking you, Mr. Jones, is, didn't you agree with me that that video does not feature school-age children, nor does it feature Sandy Hook Elementary School?
	I don't remember that.
	In fact, in March, didn't you tell me, well, that was the wrong video, we do a live show and people just put up videos sometimes?
	I remember something about a fire department, yeah.
	I don't remember it not being the kids.
	I'm confused.
	Unless it was adults?
	Yeah, we saw a video of adults walking in and out of that building, which wasn't even the school.
	And didn't you tell me that you wrongly said that that was children and you came to understand that that was false?
	I remember that conversation.
	It was one of the reasons you changed your mind about a lot of things.
	Isn't that what you said?
	Can you refresh and show me the video again?
	I don't have the video with me right now.
	I'm just asking you a question.
	I'm just trying to accurately answer this.
	Sure.
	Well, we saw the video right there.
	Right?
	We saw the video of them going in and out of circles, out of the school.
	It was pretty far away.
	I think that's the same video.
	Right, and you told your audience that was the school, and that was not true.
	I don't remember the specifics, but I do remember.
	I think that was something there was wrong.
	That's another thing that you got from Jim Fetzer and Wolfgang Halby, correct?
	I didn't really get anything I remember from Fetzer.
	Okay.
	When you talked about emergency helicopters weren't called, again, you've testified you were relying on Halbig and Mr. Fetzer, right?
	And I remember doing some research in the news and that was pointed out.
	I have to pull that up though.
	Okay, the truth is you had no idea where emergency helicopters would be coming from and you had no idea if they could have gotten there faster or gotten a patient to the hospital faster than an ambulance, right?
	I was relying on the fact that Halbig was a recognized expert on national television at that time, at the beginning, and that he was credible.
	Right.
	You did nothing to corroborate that.
	You just relied on Mr. Halbig.
	I don't remember back at the time.
	Can you give me time, 12?
	Can you mark that?
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Mr. Jones, I've just handed you Exhibit 9, which is a screenshot from your video.
	And you remember this bit about Nancy Grace and Ashley Banfield doing a split-screen interview?
	I do.
	Okay.
	And actually, give me Tab 13. Mr. Jones,
	I'm going to hand you Exhibit 10, which is a little bit of a higher resolution picture of that from an Atlantic article, just to help you refresh your memory.
	Do you remember that bus going behind them?
	I remember the story was that they were at the same location.
	Yeah, explain what you think is going on here.
	Well, I'm not saying they're staging Sandy Hook.
	I'm saying it's just they were staging that they were in different locations.
	Were they staging that they were in different locations?
	That's what I believe the report was.
	Do you see how at the top of the picture here you have little boxes that say where they are?
	Are they in different places?
	Or do they both say Phoenix?
	Sure, but that could mean they're a different remote location.
	Sure, but they're only 40 yards away from each other, right?
	I don't know.
	You don't remember what they're covering here?
	No.
	So, first of all, we know it's not Sandy Hook, right?
	They're not covering Sandy Hook.
	Looks like this says something different about captives and brothers held.
	Yeah, they're just going over some news headlines in the moment, but you don't know where they are in Phoenix?
	Why they're in Phoenix?
	I don't remember.
	It was a long time ago.
	I'm going to show you Exhibit 11 a little bit later in the day.
	You see the title on the bottom?
	How about jury deliberations?
	Yes.
	You remember the Jody Arias murder trial?
	You remember that happening?
	No.
	You ever seen coverage of different crimes and trials where they're all waiting out in the parking lot for a jury to deliberate, just talking on cable news?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And that's what's going on here, right?
	You have a bunch of cable news vultures sitting out in the parking lot waiting for a jury verdict to report on a crime, right?
	I don't know.
	Have you ever seen that sort of stuff, like what Nancy Grace does?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Is it surprising to you that three of those people have the same building behind them?
	That courthouse?
	Is that surprising to you?
	I can't tell what that is.
	If all those people are sitting in the same parking lot waiting for that jury verdict, is that to you evidence that there's some sort of conspiracy behind Sandy Hook?
	No.
	Okay.
	You've seen tabloid-style coverage of crimes on these cable news networks, right?
	You're familiar with what Nancy Grace does?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	We can both agree Nancy Grace has reported false things on CNN about tragic murders, hasn't she?
	I haven't really.
	I don't know that.
	You've had some criticisms of Nancy Grace about her false reporting, haven't you?
	I don't really remember.
	Okay.
	Did you know she's been sued multiple times for her false reporting?
	I don't know that.
	Do you think people are justified in suing someone like Nancy Grace when she does false reportings on crimes involving their loved ones?
	I don't know the specifics.
	I haven't really followed Nancy Grace.
	I'm just asking you if you think people would be justified suing her if she said false things about crimes involving their loved ones.
	I'm not judging her.
	I don't know.
	I really haven't followed her.
	Okay.
	You wouldn't agree with me then that you and Nancy Grace are basically two peas in a pod?
	You do basically the same thing?
	I don't follow Nancy Grace enough to know what your definition of her or I are.
	Well, I'll just tell you, Nancy Grace does really, really reckless tragedy porn.
	And you do the same thing with the conspiracy twist, don't you?
	No, I question a system known for continually lying that says that babies were thrown out of incubators that never existed in the DU. There's WMDs in Iraq when there's not, and then all these, and then the Benghazi standouts.
	We've been lied to so much.
	Just like most Americans, I question official stories that it's not illegal.
	What question did you ask in that video that we just watched?
	What was the question you asked?
	I was talking about some of the questions people have.
	I'm not, I don't, what was the question?
	What question?
	I heard a lot of statements.
	Can you tell me what the question was?
	I was putting out some of the reasons people question things.
	You were putting out assertions that were false, that you were using to justify your skepticism of Sandy Hook, correct?
	I've been skeptical of all events, like Jussie Smollett, the Covington kids, and so many times it turns out what we're being told isn't true.
	I've been wrong about things I've questioned before, and I've admitted that, but I've not consciously tried to go out and do that.
	In fact, you get attacked for questioning things, but it's something that I think is important to do because we've been lied to so much.
	It's really the system's fault for lying so much that people have lost confidence in it.
	Literally every single assertion you made in that video is false, correct?
	Not one thing you said and it's true.
	I don't know.
	I'm not understanding your answer.
	Are you claiming there are things you said in that video that are true?
	I'd have to watch the video again.
	There's also a full video.
	That's only an excerpt.
	Well, first of all, I asked you to watch it closely, because you knew I was going to ask you questions about it.
	And I want you to know, of all those assertions you made, which ones are true?
	Well, I mean, that looks like green screen to me when his face turns and the nose disappears.
	You work in Internet video, right?
	Internet video.
	Yeah, that's part of your job.
	I don't know what Internet video means, but...
	You publish videos to the Internet.
	Correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	You run an internet-based media company, correct?
	No.
	Okay.
	You've seen a lot of internet videos.
	Yes.
	You knew that wasn't blue screen.
	Are you really going to tell me you thought that was blue screen?
	That's exactly what it looks like.
	Okay.
	What efforts did you make to find out?
	I mean, I've seen that's the most classic thing is on the line, if the colors are close to each other, it'll disappear.
	I know you guys said it was video artifacts and stuff.
	Those are usually boxes where stuff blurs out over large areas.
	It doesn't just do it on the nose or on the line or on the shoulders.
	The chroma key, it's along the outlines.
	So, the answer to the question is nothing.
	You made no actual efforts to find out if that was blue screen.
	You just looked at it and said, looks like blue screen.
	That's exactly what you should, and I'm not saying that that means Anderson Cooper's involved in Scandi Hook or something.
	It's just saying that CNN's famous for faking locations.
	Again, you made no efforts to find out.
	That's all I'm asking.
	I remember back at the time, I mean, the internet was, a lot of folks, people that are familiar with blue screen thought it looked like that.
	Green screen, blue screen.
	I did not ask you what other people on the internet were thinking at the time.
	I asked you, what did you do?
	What efforts did you make to determine if it was blue screen?
	And the answer is none.
	We did.
	We went to the original CNN site.
	I remember we found the clip from them and it was like that.
	It wasn't the version of the video we had.
	Let's talk about that Bloomberg email that comes up, this idea that there was an email sent the day before Sandy Hook saying, get ready, next 24 hours, there's going to be a big event.
	That email, you've been asked for that email, and you say you don't have it, right?
	We were covering reports of the email that was sent out to the activist groups that had been in the news.
	Where were you covering it?
	What do you mean, were you covering it?
	We were covering the reports of them activating their They're an anti-gun rights organization.
	Okay.
	Well, so here's the thing, Mr. Jones.
	At first, I thought there must be some email coincidentally sent on the day before Sandy Hook that Bloomberg or his people sent that you must be willfully misinterpreting or something like that.
	But the problem is nobody who's looked at this has been able to find any evidence that such an email has ever existed.
	And I want to know if you can explain that.
	Well, I'm just not taking your assertion if that's the case.
	Well, that's why I've asked you questions in Discovery.
	And you haven't been able to produce that email to me, have you?
	Well, you guys were asking if we have an email in our emails.
	I was reporting on other news reports about an alert they put out to their group.
	All right.
	Could you find those reports if you needed to?
	Could you identify your source?
	I mean, A, you can hold back a source if you want to, but I remember being online, I can try to go find that again.
	What do you mean you can hold back a source if you want to?
	What does that mean?
	I mean, if I have a confidential source on something, I'm allowed to hold back the confidential source for their protection, but that's not what's happened in this case.
	I remember the news articles about it that we reported on.
	So you could find those, right?
	I should be able to.
	Okay.
	This bit about Robbie Parker, the whole fake crying bit, the hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo, that bit.
	I'm curious, do you feel any shame about that, or are you totally fine with seeing video of yourself do that?
	I don't think I did it quite the way you did, but...
	Do you feel any shame about it, or are you fine seeing video of yourself do that?
	I did not kill those children.
	I know the media and everybody wants to make it that way, and I have a right to question things.
	The Internet saw him laughing and joking and then turning and hyperventilating and starting crying, and that's why people who've been lied to so much for the media began to ask questions, is that real?
	Because it's also so traumatic that the public doesn't want to believe that terrible things like this could happen.
	I don't wish any harm against Mr. Parker.
	I believe he lost his son.
	But I did not kill his son.
	Let's back away from what you think you have a right or not right to do on television.
	Let's just back away from that for a moment.
	I'm just talking as a human being.
	Seeing you do that on video, does that make you feel ashamed?
	I mean, that's what he did on video.
	So that's what happened.
	So the answer's no.
	I've been asked a lot about that.
	The internet, by the time I saw that video of Mr. Parker, who had millions of views, I didn't kill his son, and I didn't laugh like he did.
	And I understand when people are going through grief, they do inappropriate things, and later I understood that and I've said that.
	In April of the following year, so just a couple months later after this video, do you remember there being media coverage about how Trump hadn't responded to that letter asking him to disavow you?
	I do remember the letter now of my parents.
	I didn't remember the specific name of the lady.
	And you remember a few months later some of those outlets like Daily Beast and Guardian and all of those were waving their hands in the air saying, Trump hasn't responded to the letter and won't disavow Alex Jones.
	Do you remember that?
	I do remember that.
	And do you remember just a couple days after that you did a video that you published called Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed?
	Yes.
	And that was in April of 2017, right?
	Yes.
	And that's another video where you kept repeating the things Halbig was saying, right?
	That's a video where I called the media and the lawyers that Live off Sandy Hook vampires.
	Did you repeat the things Halbig was saying?
	I don't remember the specifics of the whole video.
	Okay, let's watch it.
	I'd like to offer now Exhibit 6C. This is entitled Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed.
	It was published on April 22, 2017.
	Can you play us that clip?
	Yeah.
	Hey, Alex.
	The whole Sandy Hook thing is a quagmire because of the way the media and the officials up there were so secret about everything.
	And that's where people started questioning.
	That's the big thing.
	They were saying, anybody who says anything on the internet gets caught with it, we're going to go after them.
	They come out first day, they have the wrong name of the supposed shooter.
	They have his older brother.
	And they have guns that they're calling out.
	Then they're pulling guns out of cars.
	They're finding people in the backwoods that are dressed up in SWAT gear.
	And that's on helicopter footage.
	And they say it never existed.
	And then they later admit it does.
	And then the school was closed till that year.
	And then the videos, it's all rotting and falling apart and nobody's even in it.
	And the kids are going in circles in and out of the buildings with their hands up.
	And then they never called rescue choppers.
	I mean, exactly.
	Yeah, there's a lot of weirdness.
	There's some supposed dash camera footage where the people are smiling and getting their lunches ready, the police officers.
	You think you're going to have smiling police officers at a time when they're supposedly bringing out 20 dead kids, and they're smiling and getting their lunches ready on top of a police car.
	And they had porta-potties being delivered an hour after it happened for the big media event.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, it's...
	I'm amazed that...
	And then, you know, we've never seen...
	There's never been any even blurred photos of any bodies or anything.
	We've seen every other incident where there's dead...
	They sure showed us the nerve gas kids in Syria, didn't they?
	Yeah.
	Oh, yeah.
	Well, we didn't even get blurred images with the dead kids in Syria.
	We got crisp photos.
	We got, you know, UN photos being held up.
	Okay.
	I want to ask you about the things that you and Mr. Deuce said in that video.
	And we can agree there was a list of factual claims made in that video, correct?
	No, I was giving my opinion.
	When you say porta-potties were delivered an hour after it happened, That's not a factual assertion to you?
	I believe they were delivered soon thereafter.
	That's not what I'm asking you, Mr. Jones.
	I'm asking, is that a factual assertion?
	I think it's my opinion.
	Okay.
	So, if you have an opinion, I think a certain person is pretty.
	To you, that's the same kind of statement as, there were porta-potties there an hour and a half later.
	Exactly.
	Those are both opinions.
	Can you play it again?
	Oh, I don't think we need to play it again, Mr. Jones, just to burn the time.
	I'm just asking you if it's...
	No, I'm not trying to burn the time.
	I'm just like...
	Saying the port-a-potty, being there an hour after Sandy Hook, that's a fact.
	They do admit the chemical attacks were fake.
	That's been confirmed now.
	Okay, Mr. Jones.
	Let's start with each one.
	Let's go through each one of them.
	You started the video talking about the wrong name was being given.
	Mr. Dew said that they gave the wrong name of the shooter.
	You remember that?
	That's what he said, yeah.
	Right.
	So Lanza had his older brother's ID on him.
	Why does that support a conspiracy of Sandy Hook?
	Why is that weird?
	I think Rob was explaining why people had questions.
	There was a lot of anomalies.
	That's what I'm asking.
	Why is it weird?
	Why does that make you question Sandy Hook?
	That Adam Lanza had his brother's ID on him?
	That was Rob Dew saying that.
	Okay.
	Why is that?
	You're sitting there agreeing with it, right?
	Why are you all questioning it?
	We were pointing out why people questioned it.
	Okay.
	When they said, Rob said, they're pulling guns out of cars.
	Lanza had a shotgun in his trunk.
	Why does that support a question about whether Sandy Hook happened?
	It was a long time ago.
	They said the AR-15 was in the car too.
	How was that inside if it was inside the Bushmaster?
	Okay.
	And you understand the AR-15 was not in the car?
	Like I said, this is almost seven years ago.
	Okay.
	Actually, this wasn't seven years ago, Mr. Jones.
	This is April 2017. No, I know.
	I'm just saying going back to the time, it all gets, you know.
	Okay.
	You don't use a teleprompter on your show.
	No.
	And in all these videos, you just rattle them off, right?
	You say port-a-potties, Bloomberg email, green screen, helicopters in the woods, school was closed, videos showing it was falling and rotting apart, SWAT team.
	You just rattle them off without a teleprompter.
	I remember a video of the rotting school.
	I remember the helicopter video.
	I remember the chemical attack in Syria being staged.
	That's now public.
	And you were able to do that without a teleprompter.
	But today, sitting in deposition, ever since you got sued, all of a sudden you can't remember anything, right?
	No, I remember seeing the photos and video of the rotting school and the mold and the stains on the floor and all that stuff.
	But if it's specifically in a deposition, then you'll say, well, where is that?
	And then trying to actually pull that very thing up in my head right here.
	I don't have photographic memory of the exact thing.
	Yeah, I've been asking for a year, haven't I? Still don't have it, do I? Correct?
	I just want to be able to answer all that's just exactly right and that's why I can't answer a lot of it because I want to be accurate as much as possible.
	Okay.
	When it says in that video the school was closed until that year, that's false.
	That's not true.
	You're wrong.
	That was a false statement.
	I don't understand.
	How am I supposed to answer that?
	I'm trying to tell you right now, are you going to make this claim in this deposition that Sandy Hook was a closed school, that it wasn't really open?
	I was going off the reports.
	It certainly was a horrible dump.
	It shouldn't have been open to know that.
	It didn't look like an open school.
	Mr. Jones, you know that's not my question.
	You're just wasting time.
	And I'm asking you.
	Are you saying right now that that school was closed or are you going to admit that you said something false?
	I was going off other people's reports that looked credible to me of the school that was so dilapidated that it didn't look like it was open to me.
	I guess I could go find that stuff somewhere and dig it up.
	And you were wrong.
	That is false, correct?
	I may have been covering somebody that put something out that was false.
	Same deal of kids going around in circles with their hands up around the school.
	That is false.
	That is not the truth.
	I'd have to review it again.
	All these things you were saying as fact, you were saying them just a couple months before you were sued, right? - Objection form.
	I believe I said in the tape, I believe it's any hook happened.
	That's what people were questioning is what I'm saying.
	Right, and all these things, this entire list all comes from Fetzer and Halbig, doesn't it?
	I don't know about Fetzer, but it just came from people questioning.
	Can you tell me time?
	1.43.
	Okay, perfect.
	Can we take a little break real quick?
	Let's go off the record for a minute.
	Going off the record at 11.14 a.m.
	We are back on the record at 11.26 a.m.
	Mr. Jones, do you remember in the summer of 2017, you appeared for an interview with Megyn Kelly?
	I do.
	Shortly before that aired, you published a video where you asked her not to air it, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	I'm going to play a little bit from that video from you in June of 2017.
	I'm going to offer Exhibit 6D, What Alex Jones Really Believes About Sandy Hook, published on June 13, 2017.
	Go ahead and play that.
	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 aired.
	Why does the Sandy Hook Elementary School website have zero traffic for four years before the event and show it was closed?
	Why were there several reports of other shooters dressed in camouflage in the woods that fled, of whom the police allegedly detained?
	Why were port-a-potty sandwiches and fruit drinks and chips brought up and set up for the crime scene in just an hour or so?
	Sandy Hook, and it just goes on and on, an FBI crime stat which shows no murders occurred in Newtown in 2012. Why didn't they let paramedics and EMTs into the building if 27 children were declared dead in eight minutes?
	Why was Adam Lanz's home burned to the ground by the bank?
	Why have they declared all the records totally secret?
	These are questions the public has.
	They're the ones asking it.
	They're the ones demanding it.
	I've said I believe children did die there, but PR firms were involved, admittedly, hyping it up as much as possible, but there's been a cover-up, and Anderson Cooper got caught faking where his location was with blue screen.
	I mean, it's all there.
	We don't know what happened.
	I believe kids died.
	But the same media that's faking a bunch of other stuff and faking war propaganda is saying that I have said things that I never said that have been taken out of context and now won't report when I'm saying don't air the interview on Father's Day to hurt fathers and demonize men and that you edited me out of context and that I don't want it aired.
	Why won't they actually report on what I'm saying?
	I'm Alex Jones.
	This is the Infowar.
	Coming up, Owen Schroyer in the studio for the next 30 minutes.
	Then I'll be back in studio coming up live.
	please spread the word because the truth lives at Infowars.com.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	All right, Mr. Jones, I'm going to hand you what I've marked as exhibit 12. There's a screenshot from the video we just watched.
	And I want to talk to you about these little bullet point list here that was shown during the video that you talked about.
	The first one talking about Sandy Hook School website having zero traffic for four years.
	We've talked about that already, correct?
	That's something we've talked about.
	This is zero hedge.
	This is different.
	When it says among his questions, who is his referred to, Mr. Jones?
	How about me?
	Right.
	These are your questions, right?
	Correct?
	There are questions, as I said there, there are questions the internet is bringing forward.
	In other words, these are things you said on your show, and then Zero Hedge reported on that you said them, and then now you're reporting on it again.
	Correct?
	I'm pointing out what the internet is asking, what people are questioning, as I said in the video.
	Sure.
	These are things you've said on your show.
	These are things that I have questioned on my show.
	Okay.
	Opinions.
	Let's talk about them again.
	The first one, the Sandy Hook Elementary School website having zero traffic.
	We've talked about that already today.
	We've talked about the Wayback Machine, right?
	As I told you, that was one part of us saying that.
	All I was asking is...
	Oh, I need to clarify something.
	When you keep asking me about documents, I don't have any other sources on Sandy Hook, and I'm talking about research or talking about sources of info.
	That's stuff I would have to go out online and look at again and find again.
	So that's not things that I've not produced or given to you.
	Okay.
	Let's try that question again.
	We've talked about the Wayback Machine in this deposition, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Second one is discussions about shooters dressed in camouflage, other shooters dressed in camouflage.
	You remember making that statement?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	There were no other shooters dressed in camouflage, correct?
	The police had reported what they thought was other shooters in the woods and other people taken into custody who had firearms.
	There were people taken into custody that had firearms?
	That was reported that day, yes.
	Okay.
	People were taken into custody that they believed had been armed, yes.
	Okay.
	The next one that says, why were port-a-potties, sandwiches, fruit, drinks, and chips brought and set up for people at the crime scene to eat inside the school?
	That's another thing you got from Halbig, right?
	I believe so.
	Okay.
	You want to take a wild guess right now whether that's true or not?
	I remember seeing news of the stuff set up.
	You think people ate food inside the school at the crime scene?
	That's what you think?
	Well, I don't know about that specific.
	I thought you meant about the porta-potties and food.
	I don't know about the inside the school.
	Okay.
	So that's another thing that you just relied on from Halbig and just put on your show without checking.
	You're saying it's from Halbig.
	I mean, I'm not...
	I thought you just agreed it was from Halbig.
	Well, I mean, I'm thinking Halbig did say some of those things.
	Okay.
	The next one that says, Sandy Hook father Robbie Parker getting into character.
	You stopped yourself from reading this one.
	Because that's not what I'm saying.
	Those aren't my words.
	Yeah, you knew this would be a terrible thing to say.
	No, that's not what I said, so they got that.
	You're going to tell me that you've never on your show accused Robbie Parker of getting into character.
	Well, that's not my word for it.
	The internet saw that clip.
	And millions of people watched it and basically said that, and that isn't an accurate representation of what I was saying there, so I didn't read that.
	I didn't write that.
	Didn't you turn to Rob Dew multiple times on your show and say, Rob, you have a degree in theater, don't you?
	That's getting into character, isn't it?
	I may have said that.
	So you've said multiple times Robbie Parker was getting into character.
	I said it looked like that previously.
	And I have a right to say that it looks like somebody's getting into character.
	Well, I'm saying you didn't say it this time, right before Father's Day when Megyn Kelly's interview was coming out, because you knew it would look really bad if you said that.
	You stopped yourself from saying it, correct?
	I don't know.
	Your next argument about a crime stat which shows no murders in Newtown in 2012, that's not true, is it?
	The FBI did report that and later said it was an error.
	That's not true either, is it?
	What you're saying right now is not true, correct?
	I remember it being on the FBI website.
	Yeah, have you read Ms. Binkowski's declaration about this, about the FBI stats?
	Have you seen what the truth is?
	Your truth?
	I mean, I haven't.
	No, there's no your truth and my truth, Mr. Jones.
	There's a truth, and I'm wondering if you know it.
	Do you know about those FBI crime stats?
	Did you read Ms. Binkowski's declaration?
	I don't remember.
	I really don't.
	Can you refresh my memory?
	I just wanted to know if you read it, Mr. Jones.
	That part about why didn't they let paramedics and EMTs into the building after 27 children were declared dead, that's not true either, is it?
	That's false.
	I remember it being reported that that was a long wait.
	I'm asking you if it's true or not, Mr. Jones.
	I don't have the specifics in front of me.
	You did in March, right?
	You read two different EMTs who went into the building, performed services in the building.
	You read those reports, correct?
	Well, you have to remember they kept a lot of that secret for years.
	It was the longest time anything was ever kept secret, and that was also what contributed to a lot of the questions In the community and around the country was the level of secrecy.
	There were a lot of lawsuits.
	I don't remember all the specifics, but there was a lot of stuff kept secret for years and years.
	Didn't put out an official crime report for a very long line, years and years.
	I don't remember all the specifics, but there was a lot of that.
	I'd have to go back online and refresh my memory and get exactly right.
	All right, let's unpack all of that because, first of all, when you read those reports in your deposition, You acknowledged that paramedics went into the building, correct?
	Start there.
	You showed me documents that had recently come out showing that.
	Recently come out.
	When do you think those documents came out?
	I just know that there was big controversy about most of the case being kept secret.
	Didn't we cover in your testimony last time that those documents were out in 2013 right after the incident?
	Isn't that something we covered?
	I don't remember specifically.
	Okay.
	If those documents were out in 2013, and here you are in 2017, talking about there being no paramedics in the building, it's a pretty bad error, isn't it, Mr. Jones?
	I mean, if that is the case, the New York Times knowing a lot about WMDs in Iraq and killed millions after the sanctions, I would never do that on purpose.
	Absolutely.
	New York Times messed up bad.
	Some people needed to get fired, didn't they?
	No, a lot of people in the New York Times get promoted for lying.
	Yeah, that's bad, isn't it?
	Yeah, it's bad that Carlos Slim, the big corrupt kingpin, pumped all that money into him.
	Look, we can agree.
	Mainstream media messes up all the time, and they do it pretty badly, right?
	ABC put out fake footage from Knob Creek and said it was the Kurds being blown up.
	I would never do that.
	I wouldn't put out fake video of something.
	So you guys, the whole thing is just about that, about finding alternative media and trying to make it the bad guy instead of the corporate media and the establishment.
	Wait, when you say you guys, You think I'm connected with mainstream media?
	You think I wouldn't sue mainstream media at the drop of a hat?
	Is that what you think?
	All I know is that you basically live and breathe Sandy Hook and it was something I barely covered that I got sucked into and I read the articles and see the things where people are constantly saying that I That I won't stop talking about Sandy Hook, and that I want to hurt people on Sandy Hook, and that is not the case.
	And I've been tired of Sandy Hook since it happened.
	I think it's terrible.
	I keep hearing you say you don't want to be known as Sandy Hook man, and you barely covered Sandy Hook.
	But it's true that you produced to me 54 videos of you discussing Sandy Hook, and that's not even all of them, correct?
	I don't know.
	I believe I can try to give everything I could.
	Again, it's a tar baby and I've been sucked back into it, and I don't want to be involved with Sandy Hook.
	I don't care what you want to be involved with, Mr. Jones.
	I care, if you can answer the question, you have covered Sandy Hook in at least 54 videos and hundreds of pages of articles, correct?
	I mean, I think that's what's in the filing, yeah.
	And there's actually more than that.
	You didn't give us everything, so there's more than that, right?
	Do you think that that's barely covering Sandy Hook?
	I think we did find some more videos last night we produced to you.
	Absolutely, that's what I'm saying.
	We've done our best to give you everything that's there.
	It just keeps coming, doesn't it?
	It just keeps coming, correct?
	We did find the footage of the people in the woods, yeah.
	Okay, so you're still, you would admit with me, you didn't barely cover Sandy Hook.
	You covered it over and over and over and over.
	Well, especially since we've been drug into it, I've had to respond to it.
	A few days after this video we just watched, Megyn Kelly's profile on you aired on NBC, right?
	Yes.
	You watched it?
	Yes.
	So you saw her interview with Neil Heslin?
	Yes.
	And Mr. Heslin had some things to say about you and what you had been doing for the past several years, right?
	Yes.
	What did you think about what Mr. Heslin had to say about you?
	I thought it was very, very sad, and I thought he was projecting the grief over his losing his son to Adam Lanza onto me, and I thought that the media and others had basically lumbed onto him and were using him for an anti-gun message, and I thought it was Hollywood-esque to say I dropped my son off with a book bag and picked him up in a body bag, and I was sad to see him being exploited like that.
	Mr. Hasslin directly asked you in that video to stop saying false things about Sandy Hook, right?
	I believe so.
	Yeah, he wanted you to stop.
	You didn't stop, though, did you?
	Well, Megyn Kelly edited that video.
	I said I believe Sandy Hook happened in the video.
	She kept trying to, she's a lawyer, Bringing up, well, what are the anomalies to me?
	Just so they could then edit it to make, and everybody saw the jump cuts, and I was actually saying that I believe it happened.
	Yeah, I know you believe children died.
	I understand that.
	Yeah, but then it got edited into something completely different, exactly what I'm talking about.
	But you don't believe the official story of Sandy Hook.
	We've already covered that.
	No, I do believe, I mean, I think there might have been another shooter, and that's my right to think that.
	And I legitimately really believe the things I said.
	Okay.
	During that interview, Mr. Heslin said, I buried my son.
	I held my son with a bullet hole through his head.
	You remember him saying that?
	Mm-hmm.
	Okay.
	Now, you'll agree with me that a week later, InfoWars publishes a video that says he's lying about that.
	No, that's not what we said.
	Said it was impossible, right?
	No, we said that the coroner has to be lying because he said none of the parents were able to be with their children.
	I mean, that's just not true, Mr. Jones.
	You said that Mr. Schroyer got on that video, said Mr. Hesslin was not misspeaking, and that what he said was impossible.
	That's what he said, right?
	That's not what I remember.
	Did you have the clip?
	No, we can play that with Mr. Schroyer.
	I'm wondering what you know about it.
	In that video, are you denying that Infowars called Mr. Heslin a liar?
	No, I don't remember that.
	Okay.
	I believe, I remember from memory though, we were saying that the coroner's saying that that didn't happen.
	So I believe what Owen said is somebody's not telling the truth.
	And I said, I remember on the video, I said I think it's the coroner.
	I'm going from memory though, so I don't want to...
	Okay, yeah, because that didn't actually happen.
	What I want to ask you about is what you did two weeks later.
	You rebroadcast it, didn't you?
	We broadcast what?
	Mr. Schroyer's report.
	Well, actually, let's back up.
	Mr. Schroyer's initial video segment about Mr. Hesslin, you weren't on that video, right?
	I'm going from memory, but I think so.
	It was just Mr. Schroyer doing his show at that time.
	You weren't featured in the video, correct?
	I don't remember.
	Okay, well, two weeks later, you did play it again, right?
	Do you remember that?
	The video of Owen or the video of Megyn Kelly?
	The video of Owen.
	Do you have the clip?
	No.
	I'm just asking you what you remember, Mr. Jones.
	You're here to testify.
	I want your testimony.
	You know, this all just blurs together.
	I mean, I remember what he said.
	I think it was like a Zero Hedge article or something again.
	It was Mr. Fetzer again.
	Fetzer wrote the article there?
	It was in the Zero Hedge article, yes sir.
	Yeah, do you remember Mr. Fetzer bringing all this up about how Neil Heslin's a liar?
	Fetzer wrote the article?
	Yeah, you don't remember that?
	That Mr. Fetzer wrote that Mr. Heslin's a liar?
	No, I don't.
	No.
	Okay.
	You had said that the stuff you found was that they never let the parents see the body.
	What are you talking about when you said that?
	Objection form.
	I believe...
	I'm trying to go back to the...
	The coroner had said that no one was allowed to see the kids that day, and so he didn't pick them up that day with a bullet in his head.
	And I said, no, they probably did.
	I remember saying, that's why people have questions, because they're saying two different things.
	Mr. Heslin was a parent who asked you specifically to leave him alone.
	Stop doing this.
	We're correct?
	I think that's what you said.
	Yeah.
	And so we know that you didn't, at least of Mr. Heslin, leave him alone.
	You did more videos about him, right?
	After the Megyn Kelly piece?
	It was a big national controversy, and I think Owen was responding to say, this is why people ask questions, see this news article about the coroner says one thing, he says another.
	That's why people have questions.
	Well, from the very beginning, Sandy Hook parents had been asking you to leave them alone, right?
	I don't remember that from the very beginning, no.
	Okay.
	I'll show you exhibit 13.
	Mr. Jones, this is an email that you received, correct?
	Correct.
	Hmm?
	Okay.
	Is that a yes, Mr. Jones?
	Say that again.
	I'm sorry.
	This is an email you received?
	Yes.
	This email comes from Lynn Posner, correct?
	Mr. Posner is a Sandy Hook parent.
	You know that, right?
	He says to you in an email on January 29th, 2013, over six years ago, He says, Alex, I am very disappointed to see how many people are directing more anger at families that lost their children in Newtown, accusing us of being actors?
	Haven't we had our share of pain and suffering?
	All these accusations of government involvement, false flag terror, new world order, etc.
	I used to enjoy listening to your shows prior to 12-14-12.
	Now I feel that your type of show has created these hateful people and they need to be reeled in.
	Lenny Posner.
	That's what he wrote to you, right?
	Uh, yes.
	Okay.
	And then you and Mr. Watson together composed a response, correct?
	I don't remember that.
	Okay.
	- You don't remember saying that you and Mr. Watson did this together? - I remember talking to Watson about it and I remember inviting the guy on the show too.
	There's some email.
	In the response email, you and Mr. Watson write back to Mr. Posner and say, sir, we have not promoted the quote-unquote actors thing.
	In fact, we have actively distanced ourselves from it.
	All right?
	Did I read that wrong, Wade?
	No, you said that He and Mr. Watson wrote back.
	Gotcha.
	Okay.
	So let's do this again because you're unsure whether you had any role in writing this email, right?
	I don't think I had a role in writing this.
	I remember I was talking to somebody else got emails, too.
	I can't remember.
	Okay.
	Mr. Watson writes back, Sir, we have not promoted the quote-unquote actors thing.
	In fact, we have actively distanced ourselves from it.
	Over the next six years, that's not true, is it?
	You didn't distance yourself from the actor's thing.
	You actively embraced the actor's thing.
	I think that's Paul saying this.
	And no, I didn't get into the actor's stuff.
	People brought it up, and I said that's why people had questions.
	You produced a video to me entitled, Crisis Actors Used at Sandy Hook.
	And it has an exclamation point, not a question mark.
	With that video, you'll admit to me, you endorsed this Crisis Actors thing, didn't you?
	Oh, a lot of the videos that we gave you were videos that we were in, but that we did not produce.
	I don't see the specifics.
	Okay, so if Infowars produced a video and uploaded it to YouTube, and it was titled, Crisis Actors Used at Sandy Hook, that would contradict what Mr. Jones, I mean, what Mr. Watson is saying.
	Yes, I mean, I need to see that, but, you know.
	Okay.
	And we can agree that by this time, 2013, six years ago, InfoWars knew parents were getting harassed by people who were believing what you were saying about San Diego.
	I remember Watson, because we were all debating it, saying he thought it happened.
	Let me make sure I get a clean answer here.
	You knew InfoWars had knowledge in 2013 that parents were being harassed.
	No.
	No, I don't know that.
	Remember in your last deposition we watched a video of Mr. Watson saying exactly that in 2013?
	Do you remember that?
	Was it 2013?
	We watched a video in March of Mr. Watson saying in 2013 parents are being harassed.
	Do you remember that?
	I remember a video.
	I don't remember it was from then.
	I think it's fair to say that in terms of trying to count on what happened or what the truth is and relying on your memory, your memory's not very good.
	Do you agree with me with that?
	You played a lot of videos and a lot of short and a lot of edited ones, so it was a blur.
	Yeah, and you took that video and you ended up playing it on your show, right?
	And you had a lot to say about it.
	Right?
	Which video?
	The video of you giving a deposition in March of this year.
	I don't think I heard the whole video.
	Okay.
	There were times when Sandy Hook parents had been successful in getting YouTube to remove videos about their children.
	Correct?
	I believe so.
	You didn't like that.
	Correct?
	I didn't like some of the videos getting taken down that we'd produced, and then things being said about what was in the videos that wasn't accurate, because then you couldn't show what was actually in the video.
	Well, you didn't like this foundation Mr. Posner was running.
	You didn't like that, correct?
	I don't remember the specifics of that.
	You said on your show you didn't like it, right?
	What did I specifically say?
	You called them bullies.
	Didn't you remember that?
	I don't remember that specifically.
	You said you were going to fight back.
	You remember that?
	Well, I remember, I don't know if it was those guys, but some of them, like, saying I said nobody died in Parkland in Florida, and saying, Jones is saying no one died again, and then getting me to a platform, and we were able to show the videos on our platform, and YouTube put us back up and took the strikes off, because I didn't say nobody died at Parkland.
	You said the Sandy Hook parents were stirring up a hornet's nest, right, by coming after you?
	I don't remember the specifics of that or what was happening, but You told the Sandy Hook parents you're not a guy to mess with, didn't you?
	I don't remember those specifics.
	On your show you showed maps and addresses used by a parent who complained because in your mind he was running an anti-free speech foundation, right?
	I did not show that footage.
	What do you mean you didn't show it?
	Aren't you the...
	you run Infowars, right?
	We showed, I think, a U-Haul empty parking lot to debunk a thing that the guy has using a false address, and we said that's normal to use an address when you're a public figure.
	I remember, like, when you said that, I remember going and trying to find it, and I was like, this is us saying it's a parking lot in a U-Haul.
	We're not showing what this guy's house is.
	Yeah, that's where he picks up his mail.
	It's a U-Haul store.
	Get a post office box there, right?
	You said we were sending people to their houses and stuff.
	That wasn't true.
	I'm not...
	I've certainly never said that, Mr. Jones.
	Well, that's what they were saying.
	That's what the media was saying.
	All I'm asking you...
	Never sent anybody to their houses.
	Never done that.
	Never said people need to harass them.
	That's not true.
	All I'm asking you...
	I need to slow down.
	All I'm asking you, Mr. Jones, is you showed maps and addresses used by a parent who complained against you.
	That's what you did.
	No, that was not the intent of that.
	I'm not asking what your intent was.
	I'm asking it happened.
	You showed maps and addresses used by a Sandy Hook parent who complained against you.
	That happened.
	No, we showed where his foundation was supposedly set.
	People were saying it was fake.
	And we said, that's not proof that something's fake.
	Okay.
	I want to show you a video of you and a Sandy Hook denier talking about YouTube complaints about videos involving Sandy Hook children.
	We're going to offer right now video Exhibit 6E. This video does not have a title known to us, because you didn't upload it to YouTube, and it doesn't exist online.
	But its date is February 12, 2015. We have titled it for the purposes of this deposition, Infowars Video Relating to Honor Copyright Claim.
	Can you play that video?
	That is video 6E. Before we could even investigate it, there were videos with tens of millions of views bringing up the anomalies.
	There's been a real move to shut those folks down.
	What do you think of us being censored?
	What's been happening to you?
	I can tell you lots about Lenny.
	This man is something that you've never seen before.
	He's got a group of trolls, and if you don't mind, I'll just go ahead and call them out.
	These people would be keeping...
	Well, listen, hold on.
	I don't want to give these people any attention.
	I'm going to have to get with lawyers on this and deal with this.
	But I understand that...
	I mean, if they're trying to shut us down when we're just investigating it and looking at all sides, it must be horrible for folks out there that vehemently think this is staged.
	So just specifically, what have you gone through?
	I can't even put up a video showing that he has put up a copyright strike against me without him copywriting striking that.
	They had taken my information and they had they gave it to one of his trolls in his network And they went and they looked up all my information and put up a whole blog post about me and my daughter Is what these troll network has done these people are Filed and Lanny if you're listening your day is coming my friend.
	It is coming.
	Wow, I'm I mean, this sounds like a war is going on.
	I think they made a major mistake involving us because we were basically showing both sides and getting criticized by both groups for it.
	Oh, I totally agree.
	They don't know what they bit off.
	Go after them, Alex.
	Crush them.
	Well, I mean, I just wanted to leave the First Amendment alone.
	But, I mean, it does show that how would they claim it's a Fox News copyright violation?
	There's no Fox News on there.
	It's a news article.
	I mean, how do you do that?
	It's just, it's amazing.
	They have two different email addresses they used.
	I noticed you said that for this claim they used the honor at gmail.
	The other one that they used, I won't say it, but I'll tell you off air if you want to know what that one is off air.
	Well, I'm not somebody to mess with, and I understand that they can use children or whatever and then say the First Amendment's bad, but I've got to defend the First Amendment, and it's just wild to get into this subject.
	We got all this stuff happening worldwide, all these moves against the First Amendment going on.
	It's pretty hardcore.
	So we're gonna have our news director in here with our news anchor to talk about this because they're trying to shut us down.
	Considering how the past year has gone, you still think it was a major mistake for these families to involve you?
	I don't have any opinion on that.
	Okay.
	Right after this video is when you sent Dan Badondi to Newtown to start doing some reporting, correct?
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	Okay.
	Because according to you, you didn't know anything about Dan Badondi going to Newtown.
	He wasn't going there as an Infowars reporter, right?
	I'd have to look at the timelines and all that.
	I told you that I didn't like the job he was doing.
	I told him to stop doing it in our name.
	Okay.
	Can you tell me how much time we have left?
	Okay.
	I would like to show you a video that we're offering as Exhibit 6F.
	This is entitled, Retired FBI Agent Investigates Sandy Hook Mega Massive Cover-Up.
	This was aired on July 7th, 2015. And Mr. Jones, this is a long video.
	So again, I'm going to caution you to pay close attention because this video is over five minutes long.
	We're going to watch a very long clip.
	Alright, can we play this video Exhibit 6F? We have been warned.
	We have been warned.
	We have been threatened.
	We have been told through official channels, unofficial channels, threats, you name it, stop investigating Sandy Hook.
	Now, when this first happened a few years ago, I didn't come out of the gate saying it was a false flag.
	And I got criticized by a lot of our listeners who were smart folks and who went and really investigated that, hey, Alex, you need to look at this again.
	All I know is that the official story doesn't add up and that when retired state police officers and school investigation experts and school safety experts and others began to investigate it, they were threatened.
	No emergency helicopters were sent.
	The ambulances came an hour and a half later and parked down the road.
	DHS an hour and a half later with a time stamp put up signs saying sign in here.
	They had porta potties being delivered within an hour and a half.
	It looked like a carnival.
	Looked like a big PR stunt.
	Came out that Bloomberg a day before sent an email out to his gun control groups in all 50 states saying prepare to roll.
	We're a major operation coming up.
	That came out in the news.
	We have the emails from city council back and forth and the school talking about it being shut down a year before.
	We have the school then being demolished and the records being sealed.
	We have videos that look just incredibly suspicious, where people are laughing and everything, and they start huffing and puffing and start crying on TV, which is pure acting method.
	You've got a degree, Rob, in theater.
	I mean, this is something that even laypeople notice.
	So I began to investigate.
	They had a weird anti-terrorism unit from the state nearby with men in the woods, which were on video from helicopter.
	Then they said that didn't exist.
	And so we'll recap some of the history of this.
	But now, your uncle, John Do, Navy SEAL, retired FBI agent, works for a successful security company.
	I had missed this episode of the Nightly News back on June 4th.
	And then again last week when you did an update.
	And then I heard you talking about it yesterday.
	I knew that we'd sent our reporter, Dan Badandi, there for days to cover the city council hearings about it and the fact that they're sealing everything.
	And then you just said, oh, yes, and that's why I'm trying to get my uncle to tell me more, because he's been in John Gotti hearings and been involved in huge cases, a pretty prominent FBI agent before he retired.
	And in his words, he said he's seen the most secretive mafia stuff ever, and he's never seen people more closed-lipped.
	He's never seen something where it basically stinks.
	And we'll use his words, but the headline here is retired FBI agent investigating Sandy Hook.
	I mean, that was just amazing to me that so much goes on around here that I miss some of what's happening.
	Next time a former Navy SEAL FBI agent, I don't care if it's your uncle, You know, is investigating something like this.
	We want to hear about it.
	I want to try to get him on.
	I know he's going to get heat probably, and they'll probably try to threaten him, but really kudos to him.
	I mean, you told me that he went and investigated it because other insiders said, you need to go look at this.
	I guess people currently in the FBI aren't allowed to.
	But man, the fix is in.
	So Rob Du, tell us about your uncle.
	Tell us about all this.
	I wish we'd have gotten more than a two-minute interview with him, with Badandi.
	Badandi did a great job.
	I just wish I'd have known about this.
	I would have gone up there.
	Halbig tried to get me to go.
	I just am trying to launch the TV network and the new website and everything else.
	But, I mean, this is just so big.
	And the more we look at Sandy Hook, I don't want to believe it's a false flag.
	I don't know if kids really got killed.
	But you got green screen with Anderson Cooper, where I was watching the video, and the flowers and plants are blowing in some of them, and then they blow again the same way.
	It's looped.
	And then his nose disappears.
	I mean, it's fake.
	The whole thing is just...
	I don't know what happened.
	It's kind of like you see a hologram at Disney World in the haunted house.
	You know, I don't know how they do it, but it's not real.
	When you take your kids to see the haunted house and ghosts are flying around, they're not real, folks.
	It's staged.
	I mean, a magician grabs a rabbit out of his hat.
	I know he's got a box under the table that he reaches in and gets the rabbit.
	I don't know what the trick is here.
	I got a good suspicion.
	But when you've got Wolfgang Halbig, who was the top, I mean, 2020, CNN, I mean, ran the most successful school safety course in the country, got the contracts for Columbine, making millions of dollars a year.
	He believed it was real.
	People called him.
	He went and investigated.
	No paperwork.
	No nothing.
	It's bull.
	And now, an FBI retired agent who retired, you know, with decorations.
	I mean, dude, this is just unprecedented.
	I can't believe I missed this.
	Recap what happened.
	We've got some of the questions from Badandi, but he told you a lot more.
	Well, just tell us what he said.
	Okay, Mr. Jones.
	One thing I noticed you said in that video about two minutes in is that I knew we sent our reporter Dan Badandi there for days to cover it.
	That's what you said in this video.
	I'll tell you I was trying to date straight, yeah.
	Okay.
	So, if you've testified in the past that Badandi was not working for InfoWars when he went to Sandy Hook, that's not accurate?
	No, that is accurate.
	I told you I don't remember the dates.
	Some he was, some later he wasn't, and sometimes he was doing it on his own.
	I told him to stop.
	That was the last time you ever went to Sandy Hook.
	He never went to Sandy Hook after that.
	What was the date of this?
	It was just in the summer of 2015. I don't remember that.
	I remember saying, tell him that he doesn't report for us.
	Yeah, he did that a year later when he went to a Trump rally and caused some problems in Rhode Island.
	Had nothing to do with Sandy Hook, did it?
	That's not what I remember.
	Well, it's strange to me because didn't you have your staff go and find the exact invoices and emails to Dan Badondi?
	I told them to try to go find out what happened.
	I mean, I... Yeah, and didn't they find out that...
	We have a guy, you employ a guy named Darren, right?
	Darren McBrain, yeah.
	Darren McBrain.
	Yeah, he sent messages to Dan Badondi.
	You asked your staff to go get him, right?
	I remember saying, go look at him and find him.
	If I really remember correctly, all the dates played together.
	I mean, the truth is, you didn't have any problem with what he was doing at Sandy Hook.
	He said he did a good job.
	Well, I had only seen this report.
	As you see in the report, I didn't even know he was up there doing that.
	I'm like, wow, what's this?
	Because I saw a thing with his brother, his uncle, that was good.
	The other stuff I saw, I guess, later didn't like him from putting together watching all this.
	Well, you didn't fire him for it.
	You kept him around for another year, didn't you?
	No, he wasn't.
	I don't think he was being paid then, no.
	Well, the truth of the matter is, you didn't have a problem with Sandy Hook.
	You had a problem with him embarrassing you at a Trump rally.
	One thing you're right about is I do need to, I guess, spend time and burrow into this war.
	It's just because it's like, I mean, I remember a lot of it.
	I remember what happened.
	And I think if I go dig even deeper, I can get the specifics.
	But I remember telling them to try to find out the specifics.
	You've now, this is your second deposition in a Sandy Hook case.
	You've got more going up in Connecticut.
	You've had discovery in Connecticut.
	You've had discovery three times in Texas.
	And you're telling me you think you need to go burrow in and figure out what happened?
	Well, now that I get these kind of questions, I don't think you're asking me these exact questions last time.
	I was very much asking you about Mr. Badondian when he was terminated in the last deposition, wasn't I, Mr. Jones?
	I don't remember this video.
	Did you show me this last time?
	I did not show you this video.
	That's not what I asked, is it?
	I asked you.
	I asked you.
	And I went and I guess tried to get invoices or something, I guess you're saying.
	Actually, Mr. Jones, your document production in this case shows you did that in May 2018, right after you were sued.
	The truth of the matter, Mr. Jones, is you knew immediately after being sued that Dan Badondi was going to be a liability for you, didn't you?
	No.
	When you say at the beginning of this video, "retired state police officers have been threatened," who are you talking about?
	Thank you.
	I forget how big was one of them, and there was another state police guy that went up there.
	When you say- Will you take a quick break?
	I haven't been drinking so much water.
	Yeah, we can take a break, Mr. Jones.
	We are back on the record at 12:15 p.m.
	Mr. Jones, before we break, I asked you about your statement about what state police officers were threatened, and you told me Mr. Halbig and maybe somebody else.
	Correct?
	Then you said that school investigation experts were threatened.
	Who was that?
	It wasn't just Halibut.
	I remember there was some other groups and people asking questions and some other professors other than Fetzer's.
	I wasn't really going off what Fetzer said.
	Okay.
	And then you said that in addition to those two groups that some school safety experts had been threatened.
	Who was that?
	I think I was talking about Halibut.
	Right.
	I mean, all of these are talking about Halibut, right?
	No.
	Okay.
	You said in that video, ambulances came an hour and a half later.
	That's not true, right?
	I don't have a timeline in front of me.
	Are you going to claim in this lawsuit that those ambulances came an hour and a half later?
	I'm going to have to check that.
	Well, I asked you to check it.
	Did you?
	I asked you in Discovery to check it.
	Did you?
	I'm going from memory.
	I believe there's conflicting reports.
	I'm not asking what your memory was.
	I'm asking if you checked it.
	I think I did check it.
	I don't...
	What were the results of you checking it?
	I don't have that in front of me.
	And whatever it was, you didn't give it to me either, right?
	In discovery?
	Oh.
	Correct?
	Oh, I thought that was rhetorical.
	No, I don't ask rhetorical questions, Mr. Jones.
	I want testimony.
	Oh, I don't have that in front of me.
	I can't speak accurately to that.
	You said in that video that DHS, which I imagine means the Department of Homeland Security, correct?
	Is that what you meant by DHS? I don't know the specifics.
	Okay, so you don't know what you meant by DHS. You said DHS? Yeah, I'm just asking you what those initials meant to you.
	Department of Homeland Security, I believe.
	Okay.
	So you said that Department of Homeland Security, an hour and a half later, put up an electronic sign saying, check in here.
	Correct?
	Remember that?
	Did I say that?
	Yes.
	You don't remember seeing that on the video?
	I said put up a sign here.
	Put up a sign saying check in here.
	That was on that video?
	Yes.
	Oh, wow.
	I guess that means you can't meaningfully testify about it, right?
	I'll take your word on it.
	I just didn't remember that.
	Okay.
	You remember again saying about Mr. Bloomberg sending an email the day before saying get ready to roll?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And we've already talked about that, right?
	Earlier.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	You said there are emails between city council and the school talking about it being shut down a year before.
	Where did you see those emails?
	I'd have to go check for memory.
	Okay.
	And again, during discovery, you were asked what is your source on saying that there are emails between the city council and the school.
	And your sources haven't been produced, correct?
	Do you have the discovery?
	Yeah, I do, but I'm kind of curious that you signed it like days ago, and you don't know what's in it?
	Well, when we were reading back over it, like the helicopter stuff, I said, I know I've seen that footage, so we were able to find it.
	Yeah, I know you found this helicopter stuff well after the deadlines.
	I'm asking you, when you did your discovery, did you go and look for emails between the city council and the school saying it was shut down?
	I don't have it in front of me.
	Okay.
	We saw here you talking about multiple videos of parents crying, which you called pure acting method.
	What parents are you talking about?
	Well, I think you know that that's what people thought it looked like, acting method, with Mr. Parker.
	Right.
	I know you've talked about Mr. Parker.
	Who else?
	I'd have to go back to the time.
	That was like four years ago.
	I think you said the video's wrong.
	You stand by that, the idea that there are multiple videos of parents crying that are pure acting method?
	I'm saying that's what they appeared like, and my point is that then you'll release this video and say that I did it again for publicity, and that's not a very nice thing to do.
	I'm sorry.
	I don't mean to be not nice, I just...
	No, I mean, but you'll say Jones has done it again and released the video.
	I won't say that again.
	Let's make an agreement between you and me right now.
	I won't say that.
	How about that?
	Does that sound okay?
	But the meatlet your surrogates will when you release this video.
	Yeah, I think people are going to be interested in talking about this video.
	Yeah, no, that's fine.
	Yeah, I'm just saying...
	It's you that keeps bringing it up and releasing it and doing that.
	Yeah, I mean, we were seeing you were doing the same thing right up until you were sued, right?
	When people brought it up, my listeners did not like hearing about Sandy Hook.
	Alright.
	In that video, you talked about Mr. Halbig.
	You said he ran the most successful school security company in the country.
	And that he was making millions of dollars a year in school security.
	That's what they said on the news.
	They said it was very successful, one of the biggest ones in the country back at the time.
	You really thought Wolfgang Halbig was making millions of dollars a year?
	Well, that's what he represented.
	You've done Skype calls with him on your show, right?
	I think so.
	Yeah, you've seen the inside of Wolfgang Halbig's house from on those Skypes, right?
	I don't really remember the details.
	In other words, if you wanted to try to figure out for yourself, just off of basic knowing about who Mr. Halbig is, what his living conditions is, it's pretty clear he's not a multi-millionaire, isn't it?
	There's no way to answer.
	I don't remember what his house is.
	I've never been in his house.
	I'm also curious, why are you so hell-bent on sort of boosting his credentials?
	It seems to be something you do a lot.
	I mean, are you in a position where you still feel like you need to defend Mr. Halbig?
	I don't know how big years ago said I was covering up Sandy Hook.
	Like four or five years ago, because I was saying it probably happened on air.
	Let me show you a video from this same episode.
	I'd like to show you what we're going to offer is video exhibit 6G.
	It is titled Government is Manufacturing Crises, and it was published on July 7, 2015.
	Go ahead and play that video for me.
	Rob Dews, Uncle.
	Uncle.
	He's now investigating Sandy Hook, former FBI agent, retired.
	That's got to really freak him out.
	And I'm not going to put words in his mouth, but he said he's never seen something that looks this fake.
	It's because it is, folks.
	I don't know if they really killed kids.
	I don't know.
	But we got emails and memos.
	That school was shut down a year before.
	They tore it down.
	They covered it up.
	No rescue helicopters, no ambulances.
	Within an hour and a half, they had a sign saying...
	Check in here.
	It was a media event.
	If they did kill kids, they knew it was coming.
	Stocked the school with kids, killed them, and then had the media there.
	And that probably didn't even happen.
	I mean, no wonder we get so many death threats and so much heat and so much other stuff I'm not going to get into behind the scenes when we touch Sandy Hook because, folks, it's as phony as a $3 bill.
	Okay, Mr. Jones.
	I want to ask you about this statement.
	If they did kill kids, they knew it was coming, and stocked the school with kids, and had the media there, and that probably didn't even happen.
	My question is, you basically have two versions of the Sandy Hook conspiracy.
	One where kids are killed, and it's a government conspiracy, and one where the kids are fake, But in either case, it's phony.
	Is that correct?
	Like the declassified Operation Northwood's plan, where they would either kill people for real, including children, or they would stage the airplane and say it didn't attack theaters and shopping malls to blame it on the Russians and the Cubans, or the babies in the incubators that weren't thrown out and had their brains bashed out that launched a major war that killed millions, or the fake chemical attacks they now admit didn't happen in Syria that were blamed, and the kids, actually the kids in the fake attack have testified.
	And so, yeah, that's why people start questioning those types of deals.
	Or Jussie Smollett or, you know, saying the Covington kids attacked people when they didn't.
	And then the Gulf of Tonkin to get us into the Vietnam War was a staged attack on the ships.
	So that's why people question.
	Objection, non-responsive.
	Today, which version of that conspiracy do you hold?
	That the kids were killed or the kids were fake?
	No, that was basically almost five years ago.
	I believe that the children died there and I believe that a lot of the anomalies that were brought up have been disproven and I believe that before I ever got sued.
	They were disproven a long time before these 2015, 2016, 2017 videos.
	Would you agree with that?
	No, it was a lot of the police reports and final reports and things didn't come out until just a few years ago.
	In fact, I think...
	So your answer sort of depends on the fact that you believe the final reports of Sandy Hook didn't come out until recently.
	I don't remember all the specifics of the reports, but I just remember it was like early 2018 when the reports came out, the big one.
	I had to pull that up.
	I don't have it in front of me.
	Yeah, the reason you don't have it in front of you is because there wasn't a final report in 2018. Isn't that correct?
	Do you disagree with that?
	I don't know if that's correct.
	That's what I said.
	I said I have to look it up.
	Okay.
	Let me show you another little video from a little bit earlier that year.
	We're going to offer Exhibit 6K. It's a video entitled, Why We Accept Government Lies.
	This is January 13, 2015.
	Can you play that video?
	Yeah, when you're trying to decipher cloak and dagger, dirty tricks, it's pretty hard It's just that when you, then you learn that they were funded by Western funding.
	Then you learn that it was the same Amarillo-Lawaki connection, underwear bomber.
	Then those are big red flags that they were patsy provocateurs.
	The classic MO has been followed.
	And then, yeah, it kind of becomes a red herring, you know, to say the whole thing was staged.
	Because they have staged events before, but then you learn the school had been closed and reopened and you got video of the kids going in circles in and out of the building and they don't call the rescue choppers for two hours and then they tear the building down and seal it and they get caught using blue screens and an email by Bloomberg comes out in a lawsuit.
	Where he's telling his people, get ready in the next 24 hours to capitalize on a shooting.
	Yeah, so Sandy Hook is a synthetic, completely fake, with actors, in my view, manufactured.
	I couldn't believe it at first.
	I knew they had actors there, clearly, but I thought they killed some real kids.
	And it just shows how bold they are that they clearly used actors.
	I mean, they even ended up using...
	Photos of kids killed in mass shootings here in a fake mass shooting in Turkey.
	So, yeah, or Pakistan.
	The sky is now the limit.
	I appreciate your call.
	Shirley in Louisiana.
	You're on the air.
	Welcome.
	All right, Mr. Jones.
	You're not questioning anything here.
	You're saying they clearly used actors, right?
	I have to see the full context of that video.
	I've tried to find the full context.
	Maybe you have it.
	Do you have the full context of that video?
	Yeah, and you gave it to me.
	Well, that's the clips that are online.
	I'm trying to find the full clip.
	Yeah, you gave me that video.
	I know.
	That's the clip that's online, the clip that's been used on the news.
	But you have it.
	Well, you asked for all the Sandy Hook videos we could find.
	A lot of that stuff's online, so we even gave you stuff that was online.
	I'm not denying that I have thought things are staged because so many things are staged.
	America thinks that Epstein did not kill himself.
	Are you going to sue all of them?
	We'll get to that.
	I promise you we will.
	I absolutely promise you.
	My question before we do that is you're not questioning anything here.
	You're saying they clearly use actors.
	That's all I'm saying.
	You're not asking a question.
	My opinion in that vein is that I could start thinking that it was all staged because I'm trying to suss out.
	That's what I see what I'm saying there.
	Look, it's false.
	What you said there is false.
	The kids, there are real kids who died.
	I believe now that the kids died.
	My opinions have gone back and forth.
	And when you screw up and report false facts about the death of my client's son over and over and over again, you're responsible for that, aren't you?
	I'm not responsible.
	I'm not responsible for his son dying.
	And I'm not responsible for them suing the dead teacher or the school or Remington or anything else.
	And I legitimately think a lot of events are staged, and a lot of events are staged.
	That's my First Amendment right.
	That's not what I'm asking you, Mr. Jones.
	And I don't know why you don't want to answer my questions today.
	But all I'm asking you is when you screw up and you report false facts about my client's son's death, You are responsible for that.
	I'm not saying your client's name or son's name on that video.
	I'm saying that I believe a lot of events are staged and I've gone back and forth on that because so many of them are.
	Like babies in incubators having their brains bashed out and an actress telling Congress she saw it and then millions died.
	Millions I didn't kill.
	I did not kill those children in Iraq.
	My client's son died at Sandy Hook, didn't he?
	Yes, he did.
	And you just said on that video, kids didn't die at Sandy Hook, didn't you?
	I said that I'm actually talking about it there, that I've gone back and forth, and I'm talking about that vein, and it's my right to say it.
	And I did not say your client's name, you did.
	Right, but my client's kid died at Sandy Hook.
	So when you say, no kids died at Sandy Hook, that means Jesse Lewis didn't die at Sandy Hook, doesn't it, Mr. Jones?
	Well, that is my opinion at the time that I was saying how my mind felt.
	I'm even saying in the video, I've gone back and forth.
	And there's a move to make it Questioning the received knowledge, whether you're right or wrong, is what the country's fundamentally founded on and there's an assault on that now.
	Look, all I'm saying is when you screw up in your reporting and you report false facts, do you stand by that or do you just think you're not responsible for it?
	That's me as a talk show host talking to a caller.
	Yeah, it is.
	You're right.
	And then giving my opinion.
	And if I said the moon was made out of cheese as an opinion, whether I'm on a radio show or on the street corner, I'm allowed to.
	Legitimately, looking at all that stuff, have gone back and forth on all of this.
	Yeah, you said false things and then you said things that were true, right?
	No, I have had opinions and I've had different views on things.
	Okay, but let's just go ahead and use your word opinion, even though we all know that's not an opinion.
	Your opinion is false.
	Objection.
	Kids died at Sandy Hook, right?
	And I didn't kill them.
	Do you see me anywhere in this deposition saying you killed children?
	Well, Remington didn't kill them.
	Do you think you're here?
	The dead teacher didn't kill them.
	You think you're here because you killed children?
	That's the accusation?
	No, but it is like I'm Adam Lanzen or something, and it's all just...
	I'm just asking you.
	You're a journalist.
	Do you feel like you're responsible for the things you report?
	If I put out a journalistic report and said this is fact, then that would be that.
	But when I'm on a show talking about how I feel I'm allowed to have my feelings and to say at that point, I even say I've gone all over the map.
	I'm there talking about my emotions.
	This isn't journalism?
	Absolutely not.
	It's me talking about my feelings.
	And you're totally immune for any responsibility for that?
	You don't feel any sense of responsibility for this kind of awful, vile stuff?
	I'm not saying anybody is immune from anything.
	I'm here right now with you because people don't like the things I've said in the free speech.
	Misrepresenting what I've said about Sandy Hook and using it has been used against the First Amendment in general.
	I'm very, very sorry for that.
	I obviously have gotten a larger perspective on things.
	Let's talk about Epstein for a minute.
	Been wanting to talk about that.
	I think maybe, and I'm going to take a guess here, but I think one of the things that you and I agree on is that large segments of the ruling class of this country, and indeed the world, are psychopaths and criminals.
	Yes, I agree with that.
	Okay.
	And in fact, because of that, when these really, really strange happenings with Epstein happened, when Epstein killed himself in his cell, allegedly, when he was supposed to be under watch by federal officials, that looks suspicious, to say the least.
	Correct?
	Yes, sir.
	In fact, I think a lot of people in this country think it's most likely true that there was foul play, that Epstein was killed.
	A lot of people think that, right?
	Yes.
	And now, Epstein's a massive public figure.
	He's been in the news a ton, right?
	Yes.
	Partially because of something called the Lolita Express, right?
	Yes.
	And we in this country get to talk about public figures, wouldn't you agree?
	Yes.
	So, like, let's take George Bush, for example.
	I think it's fine if you want to get on TV and say, George Bush did 9-11.
	That's something you're allowed to do, right?
	Well, I said that they definitely covered it up.
	Yeah, right.
	And let's just say for a moment that you were right.
	George Bush did 9-11.
	Or maybe you were wrong and George Bush didn't have anything to do with covering up 9-11.
	Either way, it's not illegal for you to say that, right?
	Well, I believe that it's been sussed out and proven that they had prior knowledge and stood down.
	And they wrote in PNAC, they did it so they could invade the Middle East.
	I think that's wrong.
	Well, let's talk about Epstein for a minute.
	There's nothing illegal.
	For you saying, I think Epstein probably killed himself.
	Or I think, excuse me, let me do that again.
	There's nothing illegal about you saying, I don't think Epstein killed himself.
	I mean, if I believe there was foul play, probably the evidence points towards it, that's why I talk about it.
	I could be wrong.
	Come out, he did kill himself.
	And if you did, that's okay too, right?
	Because he's a public figure.
	We're allowed to talk about him.
	Right?
	Yes, and Sandy Hook was a big public event that was then projected onto American gun owners, and so they didn't like being blamed for something they didn't do.
	All right, well let's talk about, let me give you an example.
	Let's say that there is a security guard at that federal penitentiary, and his name's Bob Smith.
	If you wanted to get on TV and say, Bob Smith killed Jeff Epstein, and you were wrong, Should you be held responsible for that?
	A private citizen like Bob Smith had no involvement in trying to get on the news?
	Is it okay?
	I mean, if there were issues and anomalies and I questioned whether it was whether Bob was involved or not, then no.
	No, what I'm asking Mr. Jones is you just flat out say Bob Smith killed Jeff Epstein.
	Is that okay if you're wrong?
	Or does Bob Smith, do you have some responsibility to Bob Smith to make that right?
	Not if I did it out of believing it was true.
	So as long as you believed it was true, you can say anything you want?
	Well, I mean, I'm not trying to hurt people's feelings and do mean things for the fun of it.
	It's dangerous to question official orthodoxy.
	I think that sometimes in my life, I did basically see almost everything as staged, because so many things were staged.
	And I've gotten more sophisticated about that, and I've admitted that.
	But I legitimately looked at these things and saw what was going on, and thought it was probably staged and went back and forth the whole time, looking at both sides.
	And that's from a real place that I legitimately have said, I bet this Covington kid thinks staged, and it turned out it was.
	I bet the Smollett things, I was the first one, I said the Smollett staged, it was staged.
	I mean, my God, almost all of it stays.
	I've learned, though, that some stuff's real, even if it's unbelievable that somebody would go kill all those kids.
	That's just unbelievable.
	But it really happened.
	And so I would not ever do that.
	No one I know would do that.
	So it's hard to believe that.
	And so people get in denial.
	That's well known that that happens.
	You know what question you were answering?
	Well, you wanted me to elaborate.
	I mean, you were asking me a large question about just, I mean, that's a big question, and that's what the whole thing's about, and that's what it comes down to with New York Times versus Sullivan and the whole nine yards, and I've never intentionally gone out and tried to hurt people by questioning big public events, but we need to question public events.
	That's what it is to be an American, and if we don't, we're in North Korea.
	I asked you, sir, would you be responsible to Bob Smith?
	And I told you that it would be the specifics, that there was reporting and information, and there were questions about it, and Bob was the only one that could have had access.
	And then I questioned, and it turned out Bob was innocent.
	If I wasn't doing it intentionally to go hurt Bob, no.
	I mean, Bob was there, he's working there, someone's died, and so around any crime or event, people are going to always look, it's like a clue or a whodunit, there's five people at the dinner party, there's seven people, and the lights go off and somebody's got a steak knife at them, everybody is implicated and looked at.
	You know who Richard Jewell is?
	You ever heard that name?
	Yes.
	Okay, and you're familiar about accusations made against him in the 1996 Olympic bombing, correct?
	There's a big movie coming out about a Clint Eastwood's making it.
	Yeah, Clint Eastwood's making it, I saw that.
	It's unfair what happened to Richard Jewell.
	You agree with me?
	Um, yes.
	He was innocent, right?
	I think that's been proven.
	And a lot of people in media said he wasn't innocent.
	Said he committed the bombing, right?
	And there, because a lot of the evidence looked like that, and that's what the FBI thought.
	But I don't think the media lied and said they thought he was guilty on purpose.
	You don't think the media was careless in that case?
	No, I think they went with the authority of the FBI and others, and the way it looked that a lot of times somebody that finds a bomb before it goes off, generally in the criminology, has a lot of times staged it.
	So I think that, you know, that's the thing about justice is that it's not perfect.
	Humans aren't perfect.
	So the media has no responsibility to Richard Jewell?
	I'm not saying the specifics of it.
	Quite frankly, I saw the trailer for the movie the other day.
	I have to refresh my memory to it.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	But what I'm trying to get to you, Mr. Jones, is do you agree that there's a difference between an internationally recognized famous person and a person who spent millions, if not billions, trying to influence our country, like Jeff Epstein?
	And a private citizen just minding their own business.
	There's a difference between those two people, right?
	There is a difference.
	There is a difference in journalistic ethics and how you have to treat those two people, isn't there?
	I think there is.
	And at the end of the day, with a private person, you would agree with me that InfoWars needs to take appropriate steps to make sure it isn't reporting false things about private people.
	Most of what we do is punditry and opinion, and when parents and others become public figures and go out with a political mission to restrict gun ownership, then they have stepped You know courts disagree with you on that though, right?
	I don't know your interpretation of courts.
	Well, you are involved in a lawsuit with Leonard Posner and Veronique De La Rosa.
	Are you familiar with that lawsuit?
	I know about it.
	Yeah, you know the Texas Court of Appeals came back and told you they're not public figures, correct?
	And I know that that's a Democrat court.
	I'm sure they'll be delighted to hear that.
	Well, I mean, the Supreme Court's reversing the Ninth Circuit and all that stuff, and that's just what goes on.
	Let's see, Mr. Jones, we've got about ten minutes left.
	Let me take a quick break and confer with co-counsel.
	I might be done with questions for you, but I might just have a couple more to finish up.
	It's going off the record at 12.40 p.m.
	We are back on the record at 12.46 p.m.
	Mr. Jones, did you have a question?
	I really need to clarify something because I don't think you understood what I said earlier, so I probably mumbled through it.
	You can clarify my earlier testimony.
	You kept asking about sources and where these sources are.
	When we have articles and things, most of it is links.
	I've given you, to my knowledge, everything we've got.
	We'll do another search, but 90% of things is links to other sources that are online and then over time those links die and it's very hard to find that stuff.
	So anything that we haven't given you is outside of my office and not in my office.
	When you say a source, that would just be newspapers and archives and TV reports that are outside of my office on the internet.
	Sources for things that I'm thinking about from memory that I need to go out and find.
	So I must have misunderstood what you meant by sources.
	I'm sure.
	Okay.
	You'd agree it's not general practice, it's not part of your operating protocols to save corroborating information underlying InfoWars' news broadcasts.
	Well, we save some of it, but then over time, it gets, you know, over time, we just, like, piles of articles, news, folders with information, yeah, but it tends to get thrown away.
	Okay.
	But most of what we have is articles with links, and then that's where people can go look at what we're talking about.
	And the links go to outside websites and outside TV stations and networks and things.
	And so when I talk about, you keep asking about sources of info, where I got something, where I bought something, I need to go back to those original articles that you've been given, but then follow the links through that are on there.
	I understand Mr. Barnes, Robert Barnes, is no longer representing you?
	No.
	Is he still employed by the company?
	No.
	So he's not general counsel in any way?
	No.
	Okay.
	While he was there, did he have any managerial responsibilities?
	No.
	Okay.
	Did he have any director positions at the company?
	No.
	Did he at one point serve as general counsel?
	If that's the name you call it, he was trying to manage some things.
	When does that mean, he was trying to manage some things?
	He was trying to get the cases organized.
	Okay, so he's practicing law?
	Yes.
	Okay, thank you.
	If...
	Let's say after this deposition, I go to the media and I tell them, You're Bill Hicks.
	You faked your death, and you're a liar.
	Is that my opinion, or have I defamed you?
	That's your opinion.
	Okay, so people are allowed to do that in your mind?
	I mean, I think they are, but I don't sit there and knowingly get things wrong.
	Okay, no, I guess I'm asking you, Mr. Jones.
	If I accuse you of being an imposter, If I say that you're a liar and that you're not really who you say you are, have I damaged you in some way?
	I haven't sued anybody that calls me Bill Hicks.
	So the media can report that and that's totally fine in your mind?
	And that's the...
	No, citizens have a right and pundits have a right.
	People have the right to opinion.
	What if I said that this court reporter is Bill Hicks and that he's lying and he faked his death?
	I'm not saying that.
	No, I'm saying it, Mr. Jones.
	I'm saying it.
	Have I done anything wrong?
	If I get on TV and say that?
	That's up to him, his view.
	No, I'm asking you.
	I'm not a court reporter.
	I'm not asking you if you're a court reporter.
	I'm asking you have I done anything wrong.
	That's a moral judgment and I'm not speaking for the court reporter.
	I'm asking you to make a moral judgment for yourself.
	Is it wrong?
	I've not said he's somebody else.
	I did.
	I did, right now.
	I just said that.
	Is it wrong?
	If you believe that, then you might be, you know, just have a mental problem or something.
	If you did it to hurt him, then that would be different.
	So it doesn't matter how incompetent I am when I make that accusation.
	As long as I believe it, no matter How wrong I am?
	How bad I am at my job?
	No, when you have a giant train of media-staged events, ABC News saying, here's footage of a Turkish town being blown up of Kurds, and they know it's fake.
	The public gets to the point where you can't believe anything, basically, anymore, and that's totally natural and normal.
	We've all reached that point.
	And lawsuits like this by the establishment don't stop the public from questioning the system.
	Let me get this straight.
	It would be natural And normal for me to accuse this court reporter of being Bill Hicks and having fake dissent.
	No, no.
	But it would be normal when you see ABC News saying, here's Trump allowing a city to be blown up to go.
	That's probably not true.
	This probably isn't.
	I know you guys probably don't know about that, but you know, it's getting here about ABC News and the fake city being blown up.
	When you say we're the establishment, what do you mean by that?
	Just people that by the party line just believe whatever they're told.
	That's what we are, me and Mr. Ogden?
	I mean, it's okay to have my opinion, right?
	Sure.
	Okay.
	That's your opinion, though?
	I mean, I mean...
	This is just a witch hunt by the establishment.
	Oh, the establishment isn't all behind you?
	Is it backing you?
	Oh, I know the establishment doesn't like you, Mr. Jones.
	I understand that very well.
	I understand that very well.
	I'm asking you, do you believe this lawsuit, us here, that we're involved in some sort of conspiracy against you?
	Or do you think I just found a good case?
	Well, two people agreeing on something as a conspiracy.
	So I don't know.
	Are you saying that?
	Sure.
	Am I in a conspiracy with the establishment?
	Is that what you think?
	Well, I think you like publicity and stuff like that.
	And you're casting yourself as the good guy or whatever.
	That's fine.
	That's what you're doing.
	When you say I like publicity, you see me on TV? Yeah, with Megyn Kelly and all that.
	Yeah, about a year ago.
	Maybe a year and a half ago.
	You ever see me on TV again?
	I've seen you talk in the press and trying to go on television.
	I don't think I've been on television, Mr. Jones, but maybe that's not important.
	Okay.
	Let me ask you this.
	I had asked you earlier in this deposition.
	It seemed like you didn't feel any shame about the things you were saying.
	But I want to ask you, now looking back on this, are you sorry?
	You know, I did all this from a good place in my heart, and I'm really sad the establishment has lied so much and done so much that the public doesn't believe what they're told anymore.
	There's been a real loss of confidence in the system.
	Everything I've done has been from a place of really trying to get people to think and trying to find out the truth.
	And I've certainly been wrong about things, but it came from a place of really trying to do my best job.
	And so I'm overall proud of getting the public to be skeptical and getting people to think for themselves.
	Let me get this straight.
	These videos we just watched today, you're proud of those videos?
	I'm proud of the compendium of my work, not small clips taken out of context.
	And I'm a good person.
	And I pioneered exposing Epstein 13 years ago.
	Said they'd fly around on aircraft for the Clintons and kidnap children.
	And it's been proven right.
	Everybody comes up and shakes my hand and apologizes in Austin now.
	The liberals do it.
	They go, we're sorry.
	And we were wrong about you on a bunch of other stuff.
	So in some ways, you're a victim.
	Well, let's just say time's running out for the establishment.
	Epstein didn't kill himself.
	All right, Mr. Ches, thank you for your time today.

▲