All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 26, 2019 - Depositions & Trials
01:43:05
Deposition of InfoWars' Corporate Representative Rob Dew - November 26, 2019
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
We are on the record.
This is the videotaped deposition of Rob Du.
Today's date is November 26th, 2019, and the time is 1.27pm.
Would you please swear in the witness?
To swear from the testimony allowed to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and let the truth say it.
Yes, I do.
Please say your name.
Rob Dew.
Mr. Dew, why are you here today?
You guys have questions for me.
Can you tell us what your understanding is about what those questions are going to be about?
They have to do with the Sandy Hook lawsuit.
You're here as a corporate representative, you understand that?
Yes.
And you've testified as a corporate representative before, correct?
Correct.
As you sit here right now, who are you a corporate representative for?
Free Speech Systems.
I'm going to hand you Exhibit 1. Okay.
Have you seen Exhibit 1 before?
I've seen a lot of these.
Let me just look through it real quick.
And to shortcut this, I can tell you it's the bottom of page 1, top of page 2. Bottom of page 1, top of page 2. Those are the topics.
And...
Sorry, it's double-sided.
Oh, okay.
Got it.
Right, okay.
Which of the four topics listed at the bottom of page one and top of page two of exhibit one are you prepared to discuss today?
I am prepared to discuss A, sourcing and research for the videos described in plaintiff's petition, and B, internal editorial discussions regarding free speech systems coverage of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
What did you do to prepare for your deposition testimony today regarding sourcing and research for the videos described in plaintiff's petition?
Um...
Not much other than speak with my attorney.
Did you look at any documents?
I looked at this document and I think that's it in terms of preparing for this.
Did you talk to any fellow employees?
Other than Alex Jones, I think, no.
You would agree with me there were a number of employees that were researchers or Were involved in the sourcing process of getting Sandy Hook information, correct?
Yeah, I would agree there's more than one employee doing that.
Why didn't you talk to any of them?
Talked to any of the employees?
I'd say most of the employees that were there back then are not there now.
Okay.
Is Buckley Hammond still there?
No.
Niko?
No.
Is Darren McBrain?
He is still there.
Did you talk to him?
We share an office, but we don't...
So I have talked to Darren McBrain.
I don't...
It wasn't about preparing for this at all.
Are you prepared to testify as to the discussions Darren McBreen has had with individuals at Free Speech Systems regarding the sourcing and research for videos described in plaintiff's petition?
Repeat that again?
Am I prepared to...
Do you understand Topic A in Exhibit 1?
Right.
Are you prepared to give testimony today regarding Darren McBreen as it applies Topic A? That depends on what your question would be.
I'm not sure if I have the answer to any questions about Darren McBreen.
What type of information?
What type of research did Darren McBrain do involving the videos and plaintiffs petition?
I wouldn't consider him a researcher.
Has he ever done research?
He has done research.
Has he done Sandy Hook research?
Not that I know of.
He makes graphics and makes things look good on video.
He also does research though?
He does when he does his own stuff, his own reporting.
Did you ask him if he's done research for Sandy Hook?
No, I didn't ask him that.
So you don't know whether or not he's done research for Sandy Hook?
I can't remember any videos he was involved with making.
Right.
That was my question, though.
Because I'm not asking you personally.
I'm asking you as the corporate representative.
And you were tasked with preparing yourself to discuss topic A as it applies to the entire company.
So my question is, are you prepared to discuss the research that Darren McBreen was involved with regarding Sandy Hook?
I would say no.
Okay.
Josh O, does that ring a bell?
Josh O. In what context?
As an employee for Infowars.
As an employee.
There was a Josh that used to work there.
Doesn't work there anymore?
No.
Okay.
Jakari Jackson?
He does not work there.
Melissa Melton?
Does not work there.
Marcos Morales?
He does still work there.
Did you speak with Marcos Morales?
About sourcing and research that he did for videos described in plaintiff's petition.
No, I did not speak with him.
So you would agree you're not prepared to discuss the research that Marcos Morales has done for the videos described in plaintiff's petition?
I'm sure.
Answer?
Yeah.
Okay.
To my knowledge, Marcos Morales did not do any research with regards to Sandy Hook.
Right, but I'm not asking you about your knowledge.
I'm asking you whether or not you prepared yourself to give me an answer on behalf of the company today.
Sure, and what I'm saying is if I know they didn't do anything, I didn't go ask them if they did anything.
Has Marcos Morales ever done any research for Sandy Hook?
Not to my knowledge.
So is that a yes or a no?
That's not to my knowledge that he's done anything.
So you don't know?
- Correct. - I don't know that he I do know that he hasn't made any videos.
He may have been in on a live presentation.
But, like, maybe cut switching cameras, but he's not a...
He's not someone we would rely on for research.
He's someone that is more of a technical operator.
Okay.
So that's why I would never have asked him anything about it.
Has Marcos Morales ever done any research regarding Sandy Hook?
Not that I know of.
Did you ask him?
I did not ask him.
So you don't know?
I think I explained my position on that.
Do you know or not?
Let me clear it up.
Does Free Speech Systems know whether or not Marcus Morales has done research on Sandy Hook regarding the videos in plaintiff's petition?
I don't think he's been involved in any of that.
I didn't ask whether or not you thought.
I asked whether or not Free Speech Systems knows whether or not Marcus Morales has done any research pertaining to the videos in plaintiff's petition.
I can't answer that.
And that's because you don't know?
On behalf of the company?
Well, going back to the best of my knowledge, I do not know.
You understand that when you were tasked as the corporate representative on that topic that you had a duty to prepare yourself to discuss that topic.
Do you know that?
I didn't understand that.
Okay.
Nobody's explained that to you prior to right now.
Prior to right now.
You were under the impression that you were to come in here, sit down and testify as to what you know personally and that's it.
No, that's not what I understood.
I understood that I was the corporate representative, but I did not know I was supposed to go talk to Marcos Morales.
What did you think you were supposed to do?
Well, Marcos Morales didn't have anything to do with any of the production work, so I don't know why.
It's like asking the janitor, you know, if they did any research.
When it comes to sourcing, InfoWars has an email address that it puts out where tips can be sent, correct?
We used to, yes.
You understand that there's a lot of documents that were produced in the Lewis case, correct?
Mm-hmm.
Did Marcos ever answer any of those emails?
I don't know.
I didn't look at all the emails.
Did he ever open them and forward them to other employees of InfoWars or Free Speech Systems?
Oh, okay.
I see what you're getting at.
At the end of a show, there are titles and descriptions that go out, and those might have been sent to Marcos at some time.
My question was a little bit...
But it's not having to do with research.
It's about a show, how you put a show out on the internet.
My question was a little bit different.
Did Marcos ever answer, ever open emails that came in on the information, you know, we'll call it the hotline, the email address that was out that people could send in tips.
Did Marcos ever open those and then forward them to people based on what was in there?
That is possible that he might have done that.
If I forwarded something for the show people to say, hey, check this out for the show, if I forwarded it to, like, a host, then he might have been in on there because he is the director of the show.
I asked you whether or not he personally forwarded it to other employees.
That I don't know.
So you don't know whether or not he was involved with any sourcing regarding the videos and plaintiff's petition.
And I'm not trying to trip you up.
I just want a yes or no.
I don't know.
David Ortiz.
What about him?
Does he still work at Free Speech Systems?
No.
Kristi, K-R-I-S-T-I, no last name.
No.
Lydia, L-Y-D-I-A, no last name.
No.
Do you recognize the name?
I do recognize the name.
But she does not work there anymore?
No.
Travis Knight.
He does still work there.
Okay.
And Travis Knight was involved, at least in part, with some of the Sandy Hook videos, correct?
I think when he first came in, he would have been, at that time, editing the shows, and so there may have been emails sent to him that had Sandy Hook in the title.
He may have got...
I don't know if he was getting tips.
I don't think he was getting any tips through our tip system, because that only went to a few people, mainly the writers.
Um...
But I don't think he would have been involved.
You don't think?
He was or he wasn't?
At an administrative level.
He might have had something pass through.
Again, I'm not asking whether he might have.
Does Free Speech Systems know whether or not Travis Knight was involved in research or sourcing of the videos in plaintiff's petition?
No.
Did you talk to Travis Knight preparing for today?
I did not.
Alejandra Gutierrez.
Are you asking if she still works there?
Yes.
She still works there.
She's a lead producer, correct?
She might have been before.
I don't think she's a lead producer now.
Okay.
What's her position now?
She does graphics and edits stuff for social media.
Did you speak with her about whether or not she was involved with any sourcing or research regarding the videos contained in plaintiff's petition?
No, definitely not.
Was Alejandra Gutierrez involved with the sourcing or research in plaintiff's petition?
Not to my knowledge.
Does Free Speech Systems know whether or not Alejandra Gutierrez had any involvement with any sourcing or any research with regards to the videos contained in Plaintiff's Petition?
I don't believe she was...
I don't think she was around for most of that, but I couldn't tell you.
So the answer is you don't know?
That's the answer.
Richard Gaines.
Richard Gaines.
He does not work there.
Wilson Bondeson.
He does still work there.
He does.
And we know at this point that Wilson was involved with tips coming in and sources giving information.
Did you speak with Wilson prior to today about your testimony?
No.
Are you prepared to testify as to Wilson Bondeson, B-O-N-D-E-S-E-N, His involvement with sourcing and researching for the videos and plaintiff's petition.
No, I'm not.
You can show me something and I can look at it and tell you if it was germane or not.
Jerome Corsi.
He was a guest for, I don't know if he, he was hired for briefly for during the election.
Did he have any involvement with any research or sourcing for the videos contained in plaintiff's petition?
I don't think when he was an employee.
When he wasn't an employee, did he have any?
No, he might have.
I don't know.
I'm sure he's on a Wolfgang Howbig email.
I'm asking these as these are all prior employees, but the topic is not Only as to employees.
You understand that, correct?
It's any researching or sourcing for the videos described in the petition.
Oh, I misunderstood with Corsi.
I thought you were talking about when he was an employee.
Okay.
Are you prepared...
Is Free Speech Systems prepared to give testimony today as to Jerome Corsi's involvement with sourcing and research for the videos described in plaintiff's petition?
I guess it would depend on what questions you asked.
Alright, I'll give you an example.
Was Mr. Corsi involved with any sourcing or research for the videos contained in plaintiff's petition?
I think that's still a broad, generalized question.
Right.
Do you have anything more detailed?
You can give me any answer.
If he was involved in any way?
If you know?
I don't know.
Okay.
And you didn't prepare yourself in any way to discuss whether or not Mr. Corsi was involved in sourcing or researching for these videos and plaintiff's petition?
That's correct.
Daria Karpova?
Or Daria?
She still works there.
Is it Daria or Daria?
It's Daria.
Daria.
Has she still been technical director?
No, she's probably moved up to lead producer of the show, of Alex's show.
Did you speak with her about your testimony today?
No.
Is Free Speech Systems prepared to discuss Daria Karpova's Involvement with sourcing and research for the videos described in plaintiff's petition?
You can ask me questions.
I'll tell you what I know.
Was Daria Karpova involved with researching or sourcing any of the videos contained in plaintiff's petition?
Not to my knowledge.
Other than booking guests or something like that.
And again, you answered with not to my knowledge, but I'm asking is Free Speech Systems prepared to discuss whether or not she was?
Involved with resourcing or researching the videos contained in plaintiff's petition.
Whether she was involved.
I don't think she was involved.
And again, I'm not asking whether or not you think she was.
I'm asking free speech systems whether or not she was.
It's a yes, no, or I don't know.
I don't know.
Moving on, Zack Drucker, was he still employed?
No.
Did Zack Drucker have any involvement with any sourcing or research for the videos described in plaintiff's petition?
I don't know.
Did you take any steps to find out one way or the other whether or not he did?
No, he wouldn't have been on my radar to do that.
Why is that?
Because he was more of a technical person.
I understand that.
However, it seems like there were a couple of technical people that we've discussed so far that might have.
You just don't know.
Well, they've had...
A lot of these...
I think when Zach came in, Sandy Hook was not really being reported on.
What year was that?
I think 2014 or sometime.
We stopped...
Maybe 2015?
I don't have an exact date.
You don't have the year, you just know that's when Zach was around.
No, I know when Zach was around, he wouldn't have been involved in getting tipped.
He wouldn't have been on a tipped line or anything like that.
Did he get any sources or do any research regarding Sandy Hook and the videos contained in plaintiff's petition?
Are you considering receiving an email on a giant email blast garnering tips or research?
Is that what you're referring to?
If in any way they relate to the videos...
Because that's what I feel is going on, you're going to ask me.
Let's stop here.
Okay.
He's going to throw stuff at both of us if we talk over each other because he's trying to write down every word.
So if you'll let me finish my question, I'll let you finish your answer.
Sure.
That way we can give him a break on that.
So, yes, I am asking you whether, yes, that my question includes whether or not he received an email that had information that inevitably went into one of the videos contained in plaintiff's I don't know.
Did you take any steps to figure out whether or not he was involved?
No, I did not.
Sam Montoya, is that person still employed?
What does Sam Montoya do?
He edits videos and he's a production assistant on some of the live shows.
Has Sam Montoya done any research for Sandy Hook that is contained in the videos in Plaintiff's Petition?
I don't know.
Did you take any steps to find out?
No.
Harrison Smith He still works there.
What does Harrison do?
He is a fill-in host and he does reports.
Was he involved in sourcing or research for the videos described in plaintiff's petition?
Do you have the list around real quick?
What list?
The list and the plaintiff's petition.
I can just look at the dates real quick on them.
It's possible he was.
Okay.
When you say it's possible, that's just, again, Free Speech Systems does not know one way or the other whether or not Harrison Smith was involved with sourcing or research for the videos described in plaintiff's petition.
That's correct.
Okay.
Andrew Thompson.
Still employed with Free Speech Systems?
Yes, he still works, sir.
What does he do?
He's a video editor and a cameraman.
Was he in any way involved with sourcing and research for the videos described in plaintiff's petition?
I can guarantee he was not.
Okay.
And how do you come to that guarantee?
Because he's only been there for a year.
That may be a year and a half.
Okay.
My next question is, we just went through a list of names of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
Looks like 10 people, at least 10 people, that Free Speech Systems is not aware one way or the other, whether they were involved with researching or sourcing the videos in Plaintiff's Petition.
To follow that is, who was involved in sourcing and researching the information that is contained in the videos described in plaintiff's petition?
That works at Free Speech Systems?
Or...
Anyone?
I would go back to...
Start with you.
Okay.
You were involved.
I was involved.
About Alex?
Alex.
Alex was involved.
And that's Alex Jones?
Correct.
Right?
About Owen Schroyer?
Yeah, I mean, he did that one video, but he didn't come around until after the election.
Or right before the election.
your uncle?
He went to a meeting well after everything occurred.
And I did interview him.
There's a video that references your uncle's beliefs and opinions regarding Sandy Hook, correct?
No, I think his opinions and beliefs were regarding the meeting that was taking place there, and he was told by a lot of his neighbors that he should go up there to that meeting.
That had nothing to do with us.
So when Alex Jones went on the air and said, we've talked to a former FBI agent, retired, and he says all of this is fake, that's not your uncle being involved in sourcing information for these videos?
No, that might have been Alex's interpretation of what I told him.
What my uncle specifically said was that I've never been to a meeting with government people where nobody knows nothing.
That's what he said.
Okay.
And Alex just took that and kind of ran with it in his own words?
You'd have to ask him what he did with that.
But that's, I wrote, you know, I wrote down, I mean, I don't know where the notes are, but I wrote down, because I talked to him in front of a dry cleaner.
So, the video we're talking about involving the information that Alex claims is from your uncle, that's in plaintiff's petition, correct?
I believe so.
And your uncle, at least in part, was the source of some of that information, correct?
He was the source of him going to the meeting and his impressions of the meeting.
Well, he didn't stop there.
He then relayed those impressions to you, who relayed them to Alex, correct?
I actually called my uncle.
Right.
He relayed those impressions to you, and you relayed them to Alex, who put them on the air, correct?
Yes.
Is it your understanding that that is his involvement in the sourcing of the information in these videos?
I don't think I was questioning whether he was a source or not.
I was questioning whether...
Whatever you said didn't sit right with reality.
Okay.
Let me ask you a question.
What does the word sourcing mean to you?
I guess, well, there's many ways to get, there's many ways that you would get a source from I thought you could either get it from a piece of video, an article, an email tip, eyewitness testimony, security camera footage,
receipts, interviews, receipts, interviews, Instead of giving examples, let me just ask you this.
Is your understanding of sourcing, sourcing is where the information comes from.
Is that fair?
That's fair to say.
Okay.
Who were, earlier you mentioned writers, correct?
And you said that those were mainly the individuals who would come into possession of tips on the information email address, correct?
Who were the writers that worked on Sandy Hook?
Adan Salazar.
Paul Watson, Aaron Dykes, Is that E-R or A-A-R? A-A-R. We've got Adan, Paul, and Aaron.
and anyone else?
Those are ones that I know that definitely wrote articles What about David Knight?
I wouldn't consider him a writer, but he's probably done something.
What about Nico?
No, he was just a producer.
Jonathan Rappaport.
Rappaport didn't work for us.
He was a contributor, I guess you could say.
We've probably republished his articles.
Okay, so he would be considered a writer for Sandy Hook Information that you published.
Kurt Nemo?
Yes, but he doesn't work there yet.
He does not work there anymore?
Correct.
But what was his position with Free Speech Systems?
He was a writer, and at one point he was the webmaster.
The webmaster?
Yeah, at one point, but I don't know when that was.
It was probably even before I got there.
Why doesn't he work there anymore?
It's kind of personal.
I think he just wanted to move out of the state of Texas.
Okay.
That's because that's what he did.
Dan Badandi.
And is it whether he does not work for us anymore?
Correct.
My question is, was Dan Badandi writing It's possible we put an article which contained a video under his byline.
But that would be, I don't know if he actually wrote an article.
Today you're tasked with having sourcing and research for all the videos described in plaintiff's petition.
How many videos are there?
I'd say upwards of 30. What are they?
I couldn't name them all right now.
Are you prepared to discuss each one and how they were sourced and researched?
If you could give me the name, I could then tell you about it.
The one I have the most familiarity with is why people don't believe Sandy Hook is a hoax.
Okay.
Maybe I do have it.
Okay, let's start with there.
Why people think Sandy Hook is a hoax.
What steps did you take to prepare yourself right now to speak on behalf of Free Speech Systems about the sourcing and research involved for this video?
I scanned through the final video because that's what we have.
Okay.
Who was tasked with researching this video?
It was Alex and myself.
No one else?
If anybody was ancillary involved, it was me and Alex who put the project together.
And I'm not asking who put the project together.
I'm asking who researched the story and brought information in that was ultimately used in the project.
Right.
And...
Unfortunately, I couldn't go back and tell you who might have handed Alex an article or who might have brought him a video in terms of that detail, but it was the stuff me and Alex sat down and went through and looked at the different pieces and we laid out how we were going to make that video.
Okay.
The source of the information, who was in charge of sourcing that?
Like I said, that would have been Alex and myself.
Alex would have had ultimate editorial control.
Was it you or Alex who originally found the video and noticed what was later claimed by Mr. Jones to be blue screen?
I remember somebody sent that in to us that morning or the day before.
And somebody had just emailed it in?
They emailed it in and said, look, it looks like it's blue screen, and they sent a horrible video that was blown up on YouTube.
And I do specifically remember looking for the original, finding the best source we could find on that, because CNN did not have the video on their website, and I do remember it was a different website that wasn't CNN that had the video, and it was the best looking quality.
What website was that?
I couldn't tell you.
I couldn't tell you to this day.
But it was a website that was grabbing news feeds.
They were like an aggregator.
I don't remember the name.
I grabbed the video and then we had the video.
Who sent in the original source?
I'm sure it's in one of those emails.
I don't know.
I don't remember.
But it would have been an email that I clicked on that came through, I don't know, the TIP system.
I don't know if it was, I don't remember if it was directly addressed to me or if it was through the TIP system.
What steps did you take to prepare yourself today to speak on behalf of Free Speech Systems as to who was the source of the video from Sandy Hook, from why people think Sandy Hook is a hoax?
I told you I scanned through the video and looked at it.
So you just watched the video?
A lot of it brought back the memories of what I remember putting it together.
Right.
And again, you're here on behalf of Free Speech Systems.
And you had a responsibility today to be prepared to discuss the source of the information in that video, correct?
Sure.
And I think I'm telling you everything that I'm That I know and that would happen.
It's not everything you know Mr. Do, it's everything Free Speech Systems knows.
So if there is an email out there that you claim has been produced to us, who's it from?
What date?
What's it say?
I don't know.
Did you look for it in preparing for today?
No, I did not.
Why?
I don't know if our system goes back that far.
That would have been sometime in What, January maybe?
Of 2013?
So if I just looked at an email from January 27, 2013, the system definitely goes back that far, right?
I don't know if I have access to all my emails back that far.
So you're only checking your emails when you were preparing for today?
You weren't checking the emails that are in the possession of Free Speech Systems who you're currently sitting here as?
That's correct.
Do you believe, sitting here right now, that you're prepared to discuss the sourcing and research that went into why people think Sandy Hook is a hoax?
Yes, I do, because I've edited the video.
Okay.
Who was the source?
I don't know.
It was probably an anonymous person.
I can tell you this.
The video they sent me is not the video we used.
I didn't ask that.
I asked who your source of the information was and you don't know who that was, correct?
Well, I could say I'm the source because I went and found the original video.
Okay.
From where?
I don't remember the name of the site.
So you don't remember the name of the source?
That had the video.
They probably don't exist anymore.
Probably, or they don't.
I don't know.
Right.
And what I'm saying is you're not prepared to discuss whether or not they are.
When you grab...
I mean, I can see why it makes a difference in your case, but when we were making the video, it did not matter where the source came from because we had the actual video, and it was Anderson Cooper and, I believe, Neil...
Not Neil Heslund.
The Posner...
Mr. Posner's ex-wife.
You don't know her name?
Veronica or Veronique, something like that.
Okay.
And I'm aware that at the time that you were getting this information, no one at Infowars cared where it came from, but you were tasked with finding out where it came from and you weren't prepared for that, correct?
I don't think you could find out.
Why?
I'm sure the source doesn't exist anymore.
You're sure?
I myself am sure.
For free speech?
No, I don't know.
Okay.
What type of research did you and or Alex do to determine whether or not there was a blue screen behind Anderson Cooper?
What type of research?
I think looking at whether something is a blue screen or not comes from years of doing blue screen work and Alex, I'm not speaking for Alex, but I was in the room when he looked at it and he said, that's blue screen.
Have you ever seen Alex work with a blue screen?
You have a blue screen at the studio.
We have a green screen at the studio, but he's worked with blue screen at Access Television.
How do you know?
Because I've seen him there and he told me he did.
And I've seen his shows many years working in Access.
And have you seen his nose disappear?
Alex's nose?
I don't think I've ever seen his nose disappear.
So it was Alex's expertise on the blue screen, not yours?
Correct.
So all the research would have been done by him?
And he didn't really do any research.
He just looked at it and said, well, I've never seen that before, so it must be a blue screen.
You'd have to ask him on that, but yes.
I mean, I was there when he said it.
He said, that's blue screen.
Well, I'm asking you because you're sitting here today on behalf of the company, and it's your job to know what research he did.
And then later he said he's looked at thousands, or he's done, maybe he said hundreds of hours of blue screen video at Access Television.
I don't know what that means.
Well, when you've got the blue screen behind you...
Oh no, I know what you meant.
I don't know how in any way that was...
Well, I guess from his experience is what he was drawing out that he determined that that was blue screen.
And again, I'm not asking you to guess.
You said, I guess that was his.
You were tasked with knowing.
Right.
And that's what he said later, that he had done hours in access television in front of a blue screen and he knows what it looks like.
But that was after the video went up?
Yeah, that was probably after the video, yes.
Okay.
Well, before the video went up and you put this out there as fact.
He looked at it and said that that was blue screen.
And that was enough for you?
That was enough for me.
And that was enough for free speech systems?
The reason there is a free speech system is because of Alex Jones.
You didn't answer my question.
My question was, free speech systems is okay with Alex Jones looking at something, saying it to be the gospel, and then putting it up on the internet for millions to see.
I think it's his free speech right to say that that's what he thinks it is.
And my question was, free speech systems is okay with that.
Correct.
Do you have any journalistic principles in writing for everybody to review and adhere to before they put content up for millions to see?
I think with Alex, he puts up what he feels he wants to put up.
I'm not sure.
It depends on when he's got the journalistic hat on or when he's a commentator.
He's being a pundit.
There's different hats he wears and I think he changes them out frequently.
Okay.
You remember when I deposed you a few months ago?
We had a conversation about free speech systems and what their roles are generally.
You remember that?
Yeah.
And I asked you whether or not, what portion of free speech systems was journalism and what portion was not, and you said, the majority of what we do is journalism.
You remember that?
Yeah, because we're presenting the news of what is going on in the world.
We're either showing videos or reading other people's articles or When you're presenting the news, there's a responsibility that a company has for that, right?
Yeah.
What responsibility is that?
To get the truth as best you can.
As the best you can.
Are there steps in place to ensure that you do get the truth out there?
That you don't make a mistake?
Well, I don't think anybody's infallible of not making a mistake.
I think mistakes have been made in the past, and we've owned up when we've made mistakes.
Which mistake is that?
I'll give you some examples.
Okay, give me some examples.
Mistake or not mistake?
Anderson Cooper was in front of a blue screen.
The only reason I would say it's not 100% is because somebody asked him if he was there and he denied being at the funeral.
You know that's not true.
No, there's video of it.
There's video of a guy asking him during a taping of a show.
He said, hey, were you at the funeral?
And he goes, no, I wasn't.
Right.
He wasn't at and inside the funeral.
You understand that You've been a corporate representative for free speech systems and other lawsuits in Texas, correct?
And I'm involved with those, correct?
I'm sure you are.
You understand that an expert who has decades of service in the FBI in video forensics determined that that was not a blue screen but was simply video compression.
Did you know that?
I've heard people say stuff.
You know, the FBI also said they put photos of two guys who supposedly bombed the Boston Marathon and said they didn't know who they were when they'd interviewed them.
So the FBI lies a lot.
Okay, so you don't trust the FBI? I don't really trust much in the government.
Okay.
That comes out of the government.
Do you trust anonymous sources on 4chan?
I don't know if I've ever used an anonymous source on 4chan.
Do you know that's where the picture of Marcel Fontaine was?
Was found and used?
Who's Marcel Fontaine?
You don't know who Marcel Fontaine is?
He's the poor individual that lives in Massachusetts that Infowars randomly put up his picture saying he was responsible for the Florida Parkland mass shooting.
So we're talking about a different case now?
Absolutely.
Oh, we are?
Okay.
Well, I didn't put that up, but from my understanding...
I'm not asking you whether you put it up.
up, I'm asking if Free Speech Systems is okay trusting an anonymous source that is completely unverifiable and using that information, but not trusting the FBI.
Is that what you're testifying to?
What I'm testifying to is that it's been our experience that the FBI has lied many times to cover up, cover their own ass, essentially.
And, um...
Did you tell your uncle that?
Yeah, I told him that.
I told him I don't like how they go find poor guys and set them up and like, hey, you want to go bomb something?
Here's a bomb.
We're going to do this.
I don't agree with that.
I think that's not the way to have a world that works.
Okay.
Earlier you mentioned that you broadcast information as it comes in, right?
Sometimes, yes.
Sometimes it's live.
What are the sources that you do trust for information that you put out to the public?
Well, I mean, I would say sometimes we've used CNN, but we also think CNN lies.
But we've taken, in CNN, we've looked at their videos.
And early on, when, say there's an article on some site, you go to the link, you click to the source, and you go down and find it.
Okay.
Dan Badandi's articles that were republished.
You trusted those, right?
It depends on what you're...
I'm talking about every article related to Sandy Hook that Dan Badandi submitted that Infowars republished.
You trusted all of those as reliable sources, correct?
I think we republished videos.
I'm not sure that Dan Badandi wrote actual articles, although he may have had a name on the byline.
Okay.
You trusted all the videos that he made, which are just videos of him talking.
That was a reliable source to free speech systems, but the FBI is not.
True?
No, I'm not going to say the FBI is wrong in all cases.
I think there's a lot of good people in the FBI. But we've also seen that they like to cover their own ass.
Who at Free Speech Systems is in any way qualified to break down an FBI investigation and determine whether or not it's true?
What, do you have a degree to break down an FBI investigation?
No, I'm just asking you who's qualified to do all of this.
Because to be in the FBI, yes, you do have to have a degree.
I don't think I understand your question.
Yeah.
Name someone at Free Speech Systems is qualified to break down an FBI investigation and determine that it's wrong.
You can start with just one name.
This is getting slightly uncomfortable.
Is it?
Just start with one name and then we'll go to see if you have two.
Okay.
Well, I think Alex Jones could break down an FBI investigation and look at it and figure out whether it's true or false.
And I think he's done that in the past.
Has he ever gotten it wrong?
About anything?
About an FBI investigation that he says was not true that turned out it was.
Well, sometimes it takes a while for these things to come out, but I think we just heard that the gas attack on the Syrian Kurds, that I don't know whether the FBI had anything to do with it, but that it was done and we had to go invade Syria, and then it came out, no, somebody made it up.
There was no chlorine gas found at all.
So these things do happen.
And so when we see them, we don't always take everything at face value for what comes out.
Sure, but I wasn't asking about that.
I was asking about the FBI. I know, but we went to the Parkland shooting, too, for a second.
So, I mean, it seems like we're going all over the place.
Right.
But the FBI is the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and they only have jurisdiction here.
Sandy Hook happened in 2012. In 2013, we had the Boston bombing just a few months later.
And they showed pictures up on the TV and said, we don't know who these guys are.
You need to help us find them.
And one of the guys was someone they had interviewed twice, and they had interviewed his mother.
And the Russians had even contacted the FBI saying, hey, this guy's traveling to Turkmenistan or something and getting training under assumed name.
And so, for the FBI to get up there and say, we don't know who these guys are, when they do, is dishonest.
And they put a whole city in a panic to do that.
You took the report from the Boston bombing that the FBI did, and you broke it down and determined what?
What are you saying?
I'm saying when they showed the pictures of the two boys that they had on camera, And they're saying they didn't know who they were, they were lying.
They didn't know who they were.
Okay.
That's what I'm saying.
And you understand at times, matters of national security can allow lies to...
Oh, that's right.
There's always that.
Yes, I understand.
Okay.
There's always national security, I know.
I was making sure we were on the same page there.
April 9th, 2013. Video, Obama gun grabbing PSYOP, speech of evil.
Does that ring a bell?
Can you describe what the video looks like?
Some of these we don't have anymore because they've been taken off YouTube.
Sure.
The video had to do with an employee of Free Speech Systems warning the viewers that recent mass shootings were actually a government operation and Sandy Hook was an inside job.
Who did the research for that information?
Do you have the video?
Is there somebody talking on it?
Yes.
His name is Alex Jones.
Okay.
So then it was his.
That's what he determined.
Where did he get that information?
I think from years of looking at government operations.
At the time, that's what he felt.
What I'm asking is, what are the sources of information that he relied on to come to that conclusion?
I think he relied on articles that they were going to use.
When he saw the script of, hey, now we have to start going after the guns, we have to start going after the guns, which happens pretty much after every shooting, there's a call to take and disarm American citizens.
And so, as stewards of the Second Amendment, we feel it is our duty to stand up against those And Obama did want to go after guns.
You're a steward of the Second Amendment?
And while he says that, while he's sitting there crying over those kids, he's also bombing children in other countries with drones.
So we were just pointing that out.
You used that information to say that Sandy Hook was an inside job?
Based on what?
I think at the time, they were being...
I don't know how old you are, but when this stuff was coming out, there wasn't as many sources on the internet to...
Twitter wasn't very big.
They weren't putting out a lot of information.
And the state government of Connecticut was not putting out a lot of information.
And they were going after people.
They were saying, at least, I don't know if they were going after people, they were saying, if anybody puts out wrong information, we're coming after you.
And to us, that was a red flag.
Isn't that a good policy?
It depends on what's...
That would be a good policy if that was their real intent.
I'm not sure.
I think their real intent was covering up something that they felt went wrong and they didn't want anybody to know about.
Okay.
Sitting here today, we have all the reports and you've had plenty of time to go through it.
What was it?
What did they get wrong?
What were they hiding?
Or are you going to sit here like Mr. Jones has said and say, yeah, we got this one wrong?
See, we're going back and forth.
In the present day, I believe kids were shot and killed.
Which part of the story?
And I believe kids were shot and killed in the beginning.
And if you look at our articles, we always talk about the victims.
We were never disparaging towards the parents.
You've seen the video of Mr. Jones mocking Robbie Parker's father by mocking him crying as a grieving father, surely?
Robbie Parker's father?
I don't know if I've ever seen a video of Robbie Parker's father.
I mean, Robbie Parker.
Excuse me.
You've seen the video of Mr. Jones mocking Robbie Parker about crying over his dead son, right?
I don't know if I've seen that video.
So you're not prepared to talk about that video that's listed in plaintiff's petition that you had a duty to prepare for today?
I'm not prepared to talk about that video of Robbie Parker crying over his son.
Oh no, of Mr. Jones mocking Robbie Parker crying over his son.
I'm not.
Okay.
What about the video that you and Mr. Jones are in where you throw up maps related to where Lenny Posner lives?
I don't think he lives in a U-Haul storage facility.
I think it's like a mailbox place.
Right.
You put up a photograph and map to all your viewers of where Mr. Posner picks up his mail.
I don't even know if he picks up his mail there.
That's something you're saying.
If you weren't targeting Mr. Posner by doing that, why else would you put it up?
At the time, I believe, this is what I believe, Mr. Posner was getting videos pulled off YouTube.
For whatever reason, you'd have to ask him what his reasons were.
And then I think it listed the owner network and we were showing where the owner network is located.
Why?
That it wasn't a building, it was a P.O. box place.
And on that show you told your audience that you knew the leader of the owner network is Mr. Posner, correct?
I think we even got a YouTube takedown notice and it had his name on there.
Any of the YouTube videos that were taken down, were any of them true?
I'd have to look at the video.
But I believe the information we were putting out was accurate at the time.
I'm not asking you if it was accurate at the time.
I'm asking if the video, actually, we'll back up.
The videos that the Honor Network had taken down, were those true?
Sitting here today.
I'd have to see the video to know whether, standing here today, whether I think it was true.
Okay.
I think a lot of it he pulled down just because they were giving him carte blanche to pull down whenever he wanted.
And you're just making that up.
You have no evidence of that, correct?
I have no evidence.
Okay.
And I just wanted to make sure, again, we're sitting here as you make up information and spread it.
As I make up information and spread it.
Okay.
April 16, 2013, shadow government strikes again.
Mm-hmm.
Who did the research for that video?
I believe Alex Jones did.
Why do you believe that?
Can you describe what was in the video?
No, it was your job to be prepared to discuss it.
Okay.
Who did the research?
Excuse me, why do you believe Alex Jones did the research?
Because it sounds like a video that he would have titled.
What was the source of the information?
Probably hundreds of articles.
I'm not asking you probably.
As Free Speech Systems, what specific sources were relied upon to make that video?
I don't know if we have that video in our possession anymore.
Not an answer to my question.
Yes, no, or I don't know.
The sources used to make that video shadow government strikes again.
I don't know.
Okay.
March 14, 2014. Sandy Hook, comma, false narrative versus the reality.
Who did the research for that one?
I don't know.
What steps did you take to find out?
Since we don't have that video, I don't know.
I'd have to see the video to jog my memory of what's in it.
Okay.
What was the source of the information in that video?
I'll refer to my previous answer.
You don't have this video as your testimony.
And by you, you mean Free Speech Systems.
I didn't have it in any of the searches that I made.
Okay.
Where'd you search?
Actually, some of these I actually went on the internet to see if people had reposted them and I didn't find anything at the time because that's usually how we find stuff that got erased.
people repost our stuff.
How long did you spend looking for the sources or the video or the researcher for Sandy Hook False Narratives Versus the Reality?
Yeah.
For that particular video, maybe 15 minutes.
Are you aware that in this case you produced this video to me?
Okay.
Yet you're not prepared to discuss it.
The problem is, and I think I discussed this in the last deposition, The titles that you're using, you're referring to YouTube titles, and those aren't always what the video file is named when it gets uploaded.
Mr. Du, you gave me this video.
Free Speech Systems produced this to me, not YouTube.
I understand that.
So you have it in your possession, correct?
I don't know if I have it in my possession.
How on earth could free speech systems produce a video to me and it not be in your possession?
One, you had it and then you spoliated it, which is the destruction of evidence.
No.
Or two, you never had it yet somehow magically produced it to me.
Which one of those is probably more accurate?
Or three, you're just not prepared to discuss it.
I'm not prepared to discuss it.
May 13, 2014. Sandy Hook massacre was a DHS illusion, says school safety expert.
Who did the research for this video?
I would imagine Wolfgang Halbig did the research for that.
Again, I'm not asking you to imagine.
Okay, I'll say Wolfgang Halbig, school safety expert.
That was Wolfgang Halbig.
How do you know he did the research?
Did anyone else research any of the information that went into this episode?
That is most likely an interview between Wolfgang Halbig and Alex Jones.
You don't even know what's in this video, do you?
No.
Okay.
We'll just skip to the next one then.
Okay.
September 25th, 2014. Connecticut PD has FBI falsified crime statistics.
Who did the research for this video?
Actually strike that.
What's this video about?
Without guessing.
Without guessing.
That video is about the FBI not including the murders in Newtown.
Okay.
In their crime statistics.
Who appears in this video?
Alex Jones.
Anyone else?
I couldn't tell you.
Were any of the writers involved in any of this information?
I think one of the writers probably brought that information to Alex.
Again, I'm not asking probably.
I'm asking what Free Speech Systems knows or doesn't know.
And if so, which writer?
I don't know which writer, but that's how Alex would have gotten that information for that particular video.
Okay.
So I believe there's an article based on that too.
So you don't know anybody else that would have appeared in this video?
In the last year, have you seen this video?
Uh, no.
Okay.
December 27, 2014. Lawsuit could reveal truth about Sandy Hook massacre.
It's kind of an ironic title, right?
Who gave the research, or excuse me, what was the source of the information in this one?
I don't know.
Do you know what information is in this video?
No.
Are you prepared to discuss the research that was in the video, which you don't know what it's about?
No.
Okay.
December 29th, 2014, America, America, the false democracy.
You ever seen this one?
I'd probably know it if I saw it.
Okay.
Sitting here, have you seen it in the last year?
No.
All right.
Did you do anything to prepare where the information came from in this video that you don't know what it's about?
No.
Is it fair to say you don't know who the source of the information is that's in this video?
That would be fair.
Okay.
January 13th, 2015. Why we accept government lies, government spelled G-O-V apostrophe T. Do you know, have you seen this video in the last year?
I have not seen it the last year.
Are you prepared to discuss the research that went into the information that was put in this video?
No.
Are you prepared to tell us the source of information for this video?
No.
Okay.
March 4th, 2015. New bomb show, Sandy Hook Information Inbound.
What's this video about?
What was the date again?
March 14th, 2015. March 4th, 2015. That probably has to do with...
Again, not probably.
I'm sorry.
I am not prepared to talk about it.
You can't tell us sitting here today what that new bombshell was.
It was probably information that came out of one of those meetings.
Again, not probably.
I want to know what it was, what it was not, or you don't know.
I don't know.
Okay.
July 7th, 2015. Government is manufacturing crises.
Do you know what this video is about?
From its title, I would suggest that the government is manufacturing crises.
It's about the Hegelian dialectic.
Okay.
When was the last time you saw this video?
Probably when I made it.
And I'm not asking probably, I'm asking when.
Did you review it preparing for your testimony today?
No.
And when you were preparing for your testimony, you knew that you'd be responsible for discussing the sourcing and research that went into the videos described in plaintiff's petition, such as this one.
Correct?
I'm not sure if I ever had a meeting on that.
No.
I'm not asking if you had a meeting.
I'm asking if you did anything at all to prepare yourself to discuss this video and the source and research that went into it.
That video?
No.
Okay.
July 7th, 2015. A retired FBI agent investigates Sandy Hook mega-massive cover-up.
Do you know what the source of all the information was that went into this video?
I couldn't tell you everything, but I would say the primary source was the interview I did with my uncle.
Okay.
When was the last time you saw this video?
Probably when it was made.
Are you prepared to discuss the sourcing and research that went into it?
Parts of it I can discuss.
Okay.
What all is in this video?
We'll actually back up.
I can break this down into easier questions for you.
The ambulances came an hour and a half later.
What's the source of that information?
That might have been Wolfgang Halbig.
Again, not asking might.
I want definitive answers.
One, I know.
Two, I don't know.
Do you know?
I don't know.
Okay.
Speaking of Wolfgang Helbig, you and I can agree, probably not the best source of information, right?
At the time, I don't think we made...
We looked at his past and determined that he was credible.
Right, but hindsight's 50-50.
Sure, hindsight's 50-50.
Hindsight's 20-20, whatever you want to say.
But what...
I think what gave...
What garnered Wolfgang credibility is when the Florida State Police went to his house and told him to stop asking questions.
And this is a red flag.
Right, because when a police department goes to somebody and says, stop harassing these people, that's a red flag.
At the time, I don't know if he was harassing people.
I think he just had his 13 questions or whatever he had.
Which I don't think it had anything to do with the family.
Again, with regards to Wolfgang Halbig's involvement with the families, we spoke in depth our last deposition together about Jonathan Reich.
I don't remember speaking in depth about Jonathan Reich.
Alright, let's do it now.
But I remember you asking about him and I didn't know who he was.
Do you know who he is now?
No.
Have you done any research to find out all of the people that were harassed by Free Speech Systems and their affiliates?
all the people that were harassed.
No, I didn't do any research into, because we weren't ever advocating harassment of anybody.
Really?
In your last deposition...
I don't think we ever said harass anybody.
In your last deposition, you told me that Wolfgang Halbig, or excuse me, that Dan Vadandi, another affiliate, was fired because of what he did in Sandy Hook, right?
Remember that?
He was, I think he was fired before Sandy Hook.
Before Sandy Hook happened?
I know he was gone, I'd have to look at his employment records, but the Boston bomb, he was gone for a while, and then when he was in Delaware during the Boston bombing, someone mentioned that he was close by, so Alex had him go report on what was going on.
And then quickly after you saw what he did to those people, it was uploaded to the internet, and it had InfoWars tag on it.
Surely after y'all saw it, that's when you said, Badandi needs to be disassociated from us completely, right?
When he came, I think when he went to those meetings and then was going after the people outside of the meeting, from...
Anything we told him to do was never to go harass people.
It was to go cover what was going on in the meeting.
Right.
But you could see in the videos that he was giving you that he was harassing people.
And in fact was doing very little investigative journalism.
The only video I saw him harassing was a lawyer.
You understand that Mr. Badandi is also a semi-professional wrestler, correct?
A professional wrestler was the governor of Minnesota.
Okay.
I mean, what does that have to do with it?
Just asking whether or not you were aware that Mr. Badani was a semi-professional wrestler.
Okay.
Okay.
So does that disqualify him from asking questions?
No, not at all.
In fact, it gives me my next question.
When you saw the video of him harassing that lawyer, did you think he was being more of a journalist or more of a semi-professional wrestler?
I wouldn't say I'm more of a semi-professional wrestler.
I mean, he was asking him questions.
But shortly after that video, he was fired because of what he was doing to those people.
He was doing contract work for us, and we would either accept or not accept his reports.
And after that, you stopped accepting all reports and stopped responding to him, according to your deposition testimony last time we spoke.
I'd have to look at the dates for everything, but yes.
That sounds right.
So it's weird that we were produced in this case for the first time in email that you're involved with that has Dan Badandi being fired for how he was acting at a Donald Trump rally in 2016. Fun fact, right?
That is a fun fact.
Alright, let's get back to this list of videos that we're not going to be able to discuss.
November 18th, 2016. Final statement on Sandy Hook.
You remember this one?
That was after Hillary Clinton brought it back up into the purview that Alex Jones was running around talking about Sandy Hook all the time.
Right.
Now, you understand that prior to this, Alex Jones had been speaking about this.
He'd spoken about this five months before that.
And prior to that, 38 separate times, and that's just the ones we know of.
Mm-hmm.
Okay.
In how many years?
What was it?
Six years at the time?
I'm going to tell you that it was almost four years.
Almost four years.
Who did the research on that video?
What was the video again?
Final statement on Sandy Hook.
That was something that me and Alex put together.
So we did the research on it.
What were the sources that you all used?
News articles and video.
From where?
Probably from previous videos that we had done.
Again, not probably.
I'm asking for specifics because you have a duty sitting here today to be very specific with me on what free speech system knows, okay?
What news articles did you rely on?
I don't know.
What news articles do you read that you find reliable if you don't trust the FBI's reports?
So you're saying the FBI has never lied to us before?
Not at all.
What I'm asking you is, where do you even start looking for reports if they're not videos that you can see and dissect?
But if it's just a written report, who do you trust?
Who do I trust?
And that's Free Speech Systems, I'm asking.
I think we have pointed out that some Some outlets are reliable at certain times, and they're not.
Even the FBI can be reliable.
Okay.
Who gets to cherry-pick when an outlet is reliable?
You or Alex?
Alex Jones makes that editorial decision.
Okay.
Do you ever question him?
I think I've questioned him a couple times.
How'd that go for you?
I'm still working.
All right.
I think it's a good time to take a break.
his hands have got to be tired.
Going off the record at 2:41 p.m.
We are back on the record at 2:53 p.m.
I'm going to hand you Exhibit 2. Here's a copy.
Exhibit 2 is an email from you to Tim Flores?
Let's say it says Melinda Flores.
Melinda Flores and Tim.
Correct?
Yeah.
And that deals with...
Free Speech Systems informing David Badandi to stop representing himself as a reporter after an incident at a Trump rally in Rhode Island.
Correct?
Yeah.
That's what it says.
That was not in 2013 or 14. That was actually halfway through 2016. On your last deposition that you had with me, you were tasked with talking about the employment of Mr. Badandi,
and you told us under oath, swearing to God, that he was fired because of his actions and conduct related to Videos of him related to the Sandy Hook in Newtown, Connecticut.
Right.
But when I read this email, it sees that you actually fired him well after that date for something related to Donald Trump and his campaign.
Fair?
Well, there's several people in InfoWars who have been fired and hired at different times.
I don't think we ever considered him fully an on-board employee.
He was more of a contractor, because we were paying invoices to a contractor.
Right, and we talked about that at your last deposition, and that's exactly what you said, except you told me that he had been fired immediately after that video of him harassing those people in the lawyers at the courthouse in Newtown.
Remember that?
Mm-hmm.
Okay.
That wasn't exactly true, was it?
Well, and then he came back after...
I think what happened is he got some congressman to tell him to...
I don't know if he told him to shut the F up or something like that, and he had video of it, and it was during a gun Second Amendment legislation going through Delaware.
And so I think he got brought back on in that...
Capacity to allow for him to produce reports for us again.
But he was never hired back in terms of...
He was never hired back in terms of full-time employment.
Right, but you contracted with him.
After you told me that you cut ties completely with him in a text message, that's what you testified to under oath, swearing to God.
Right, and at the time we had cut ties completely with him.
Yeah, but at the time I asked you that question, you'd also re-contracted with him all the way up until December of 2015. And paid him in January and then also sent him messages all the way up through June of 2016 regarding him being a contractor for Free Speech Systems.
But none of that was in your answer, right?
I'm not sure what the answer or what the question was at the time, but from what I remember is that Dan Benondi would go in and out of...
The good graces, because I don't think he was even hired.
He was even there at the time of Sandy Hook.
And then he came back, and then he was gone again.
And that's all with Alex's purview.
What do you mean, the time of Sandy Hook?
Well, there's this massive time since 2012 where...
Through when?
I would say maybe...
2015. I mean, I'm not saying we didn't do any videos after that.
I'm saying somebody might have called and done it, and then when Hillary Clinton brought it back up on the campaign trail, I think Alex saw the lawsuit attacks that were being set up.
Okay.
Let's break down that answer.
Earlier this year you told me that you terminated him completely and disassociated yourself when he harassed the lawyers at the courthouse in Newtown, Connecticut.
However, today you told me that Well, that was disgusting and we disassociated ourselves at the time, but then he came into our good graces because he got a congressman in Delaware to curse at him.
That's the credentials that allows you to get back into the good graces of Infowars?
Well, it depends on what the context is, but that could be all it takes.
And this context was the Second Amendment, right?
And you said earlier that you consider yourself a Second Amendment steward.
Are you in a well-regulated militia?
I don't think you have to be in a well-regulated militia to be a Second Amendment steward.
Right.
I was just asking which part of the Second Amendment you were a steward of.
That the right to bear arms should not be infringed.
And bear arms is not the animal, but it's actually the ability to bear arms and protect yourself against tyranny.
What do you mean the animal?
Have you ever heard of bears?
Yeah, I've heard of bears.
Okay.
I just wanted to make sure that you weren't confused, because we've had a lot of confusion in this room today with our questions.
I've gotcha.
with the we'll get back to the topics that you're prepared for or were supposed to be prepared for today July 7th or excuse me November 18th, 2016. Final statement on Sandy Hook.
Remember that one?
And that video was a compilation of a number of videos we've already gone through, correct?
Correct.
So it's safe to say you have no idea who researched or sourced that information.
Well, Alex and I researched and sourced the information.
From prior videos, correct?
And we just went through all those prior videos and you don't know who researched or sourced those, so the information may have been compiled by you to make this, but the source of that information is unknown to free speech systems as we sit here today, correct?
Correct.
Okay.
Now, fast forward four months, April 22nd, 2017, after the final statement, that was our last video, is Sandy Hook vampires exposed?
Do you remember that video?
I do remember that video.
Who researched the information for that video?
I would say myself and Alex did.
What were your sources?
I believe a Megyn Kelly interview.
Any others?
And then I believe previous videos that we produced.
Are you aware that on April 22, 2017 that the Megyn Kelly interview hadn't even happened yet?
No, it hadn't happened yet.
Okay.
Fair to say that you're not prepared to discuss this video?
I must be confused with another Sandy Hook vampire video.
Okay.
Fair to say you're not prepared to discuss the one from April 22, 2017, yes?
Correct.
Okay.
Let's go to June 13, 2017. It's the 55th video.
Media refuses to report Alex Jones's real statements on Sandy Hook.
Who researched the information on this video?
Alex.
How do you know that?
Because I think by that time, Alex had apologized several times to the families.
And what was the date on that again?
I don't know if that was right around, we did a video right around Father's Day.
June 13th, 2017. So I'm not sure if that was Father's Day or not, but he did put out a special Father's Day message around that time.
To the families.
Apologizing for whatever, I don't know, however many time it was he apologized.
Who else from Free Speech Systems researched for that video?
Yeah, it would have just been me and Alex.
Earlier you said it was only Alex, now it was you and Alex.
Well, I put the stuff together, so I would consider I would consider what I was doing sourcing other videos.
Okay.
And were those other videos the ones that I've described already?
Yes.
Some of them were.
I'm sure some of them might have been from a different name or something.
Okay.
Have you produced the ones with different names?
What do you mean?
Well, you said some of them would be.
Well, I'm sure some of those would have been on the list that we talked about.
I'm sure there's others on the list that we didn't talk about that are in your possession that we might have pulled video from.
Okay.
And you're sure they're in my possession?
You know, Most of our video library got wiped out with YouTube, and so whatever is left is still around, and whatever is not is not.
Okay.
However, June 13, 2017, you said that you compiled and sourced this video from other videos.
At least the videos we've gone through today that were involved in that, you don't know the source of that information, correct?
Correct.
And October 26, 2017, JFK assassination documents to drop tonight.
Okay.
You remember that video?
Um...
No, I don't remember that video.
It's fair to say that then you're not prepared to discuss the source of the information related to Sandy Hook in that video.
Correct.
It's fair to say that you're also not prepared to discuss the research that went into the information in that video relating to Sandy Hook.
That's correct.
All right.
Let's move to the second topic that you were tasked with being prepared to discuss.
Topic two is internal editorial discussions regarding Free Speech System LLC's coverage of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
What did you do to prepare yourself?
Spoke with my attorney.
Anything else?
And let me cut you off there.
If there's any information that In your answer that regards the conversation you've had with your attorney, I don't want you to disclose that to me.
Okay.
Then that is all.
Did you review any documents?
Just a couple of, I believe, the one I looked at earlier.
I don't know if this is the one.
Did you review any emails?
No.
Did you review any text messages?
No.
Did you review any memorandums?
I don't think we'd have anything from that.
Did you speak with any of the employees that are still at Infowars that may have been related to Sandy Hook in any way?
No.
Did you speak to Paul Watson?
No.
We know that from your answers related to the videos and not knowing the sources of the information or any of the researchers, that any discussion that would have been involved those people that did that, you're not prepared to discuss that, correct?
That's correct.
Okay.
Outside of that, what does the term editorial discussion mean to you?
Well, an editor is someone who determines what's going up on a website, either fixing, either verifying a fact or fixing the context of something or making sure it's grammatically correct.
Okay, and I apologize.
My question was a little probably confusing, but I didn't ask what an editor was.
I asked what an editorial discussion was.
Well, those are discussions that people who are Who are making editorial decisions, those are the discussions they would have.
What's an editorial decision?
Saying...
Looking at...
So an instance of an editorial decision would be...
We can go back to the green screen thing.
Looking at it and going, I believe that's green screen.
We're going to do a video on this saying that's green screen.
So at that time, Alex made an editorial decision to create that video.
Other than that editorial discussion that you were involved with, are you prepared to discuss any editorial discussions that you were not involved in?
Not that I was not involved.
Did you take any steps to prepare yourself to discuss whether or not there are any editorial discussions that were had between anyone at Free Speech Systems outside your purview?
No.
Okay.
Just an idea.
All right.
With regard to an editorial discussion that leads to an editorial decision, if someone at Free Speech Systems comes and says, I want to go on air and say Sandy Hook Elementary School was actually shut down And wasn't an operating school at the time of the shooting.
What discussion would have to happen?
Excuse me.
How would that person then be able to actually put that on air?
What has to happen?
I think what you're referring to is Wolfgang Haubing.
And Alex doesn't do pre-interviews with people.
So if somebody comes on and says they have...
A bombshell to drop or whatever.
So a lot of the headlines are written after the interview is done.
So we don't go in and say, oh, we got Wolfgang, he's going to present this information.
So I'm not sure how, in terms of that, that sounds like that came from Wolfgang Halbig.
Okay.
Do you believe that Wolfgang Halbig is a good source of information?
Well, at the time, I think we did believe he was a good source of information.
What time was that?
I think the Sandy Hook period, from the time of the incident to when we stopped having him on, which I don't know the exact date.
So 2013, 14, and summer 15, you thought Wolfgang Halbig was a good source of information.
Did anybody at Free Speech Systems voice concerns about Wolfgang Halbig being crazy?
Not to my knowledge.
Would that have been an editorial discussion?
Yeah, I think that would have been an editorial discussion.
What about Mr. Fetzer?
Jim Fetzer?
Yeah, I don't know if we ever had Jim Fetzer on the show.
He definitely relied on his information, correct?
A multitude of times.
I don't know.
Fetzer didn't like Alex, as far as I know.
It's fair to say that there were definitely editorial discussions that were had about Fetzer's reliability as a source, correct?
I don't know if Fetzer ever came into the picture at that time.
If there are discussions out there within free speech systems, documents that were produced in this case that have editorial discussions in there, That's something that you should know about, correct?
If you're saying I reviewed every email that was sent around the office during those time periods, no, I didn't do that.
You didn't review any emails prepared for today?
That's correct.
Right.
Do you think you should have?
I was relying on the advice of my attorney.
With how this deposition has gone so far, do you think you prepared enough?
I'm not going to answer that.
Okay.
I want to ask you, with your testimony that you gave me earlier this year versus, it was in March, versus with your testimony that you gave me earlier this year versus, it was in March, versus the testimony that you have given me today, versus
Yes.
I think maybe except for some of the miscommunications on What we consider employment status with Dan Badondi.
So if we go back and read that transcript where the nice court reporter in March was writing down every word, and it was clear that we were talking about contractor work with him.
Do you still stand by the statements you gave to me in March?
Well, it's possible that they were...
I didn't have all the information in front of me at the time.
Do you understand that back in March, as well as today, you have a legal duty to be prepared to discuss the topics that I give you?
Do you know that?
Sure, but I don't know if that means...
I don't have every question you're going to ask me.
Right, but you know the topics.
I don't know if Dan Badondi was a topic in any of the documents that I saw.
You know that Dan Badondi was a source of information regarding Sandy Hook, at least to some extent, correct?
In terms of after going up there and reporting on those meetings.
In terms of that?
In terms of sending emails in?
In terms of having back and forth discussions with people from free speech systems, you understand that Dan Bedondi was a source of information and specifically that was a source of information that you and Mr. Jones used to make videos and spread that information to millions of people.
In some small part he had a, I wouldn't consider him a major I think we've made some mistakes and I think we've acknowledged
those mistakes.
But we never told anybody to go after anybody's families.
We never wanted to hurt the families.
We see events like these, and it happens even today.
When these events happen, The next thing that comes out of a politician's mouth is we've got to start grabbing people's guns.
But as a journalist, don't you have the duty to be right and not first?
Well, and we're not always wearing journalistic hats.
Sometimes we're commenting on something.
So when you're commenting on something, you can just make it up and it doesn't matter.
No, you can say your opinion.
In any way, is that differentiated on air?
Does Mr. Jones say, here, I'm just going to make stuff up.
Here, you should trust me because we're truth in journalism.
Does he do that?
I think he doesn't play devil's advocate as much anymore because of instances like these, where we're at today.
Did you know that a woman in Florida was inspired by Infowars?
To harass one of my clients to the point she went to federal prison?
I mean, somebody was inspired by Bernie Sanders to go shoot a bunch of congressmen.
Did you know that?
No, I've heard of the case, yeah.
I don't remember her name, but...
Do you take any responsibility for that?
No, I'm not responsible for what someone else does.
If someone relies on the misinformation that you have spread over the course of six years to the point where they believe you because you keep telling them over and over again that you're the truth in journalism and they take what you have as the truth and they act upon it, you don't have any responsibility for that?
I don't think we were covering Sandy Hook as much as you'd like to think we were.
I just ripped off 61 videos spanning from 21 minutes to over three hours long.
Okay.
And I bet that three hour long video, we're not talking about Sandy Hook the entire time.
We also do three hours a day, every day, and two hours on Sunday.
Plus, we're doing an hour live every night.
And then there's the multitude of other live videos that are going on.
There's a lot of video content that's being produced.
And you're looking at a very small percentage of it.
Right.
I don't even know if these are all your Sandy Hook videos.
These are just the ones that I could find.
Well, you can thank YouTube for that.
You can thank YouTube and Facebook and everybody else.
Okay.
Answer the question.
You don't even know if I'm talking about all the videos, do you?
I don't think anybody knows.
I don't think God knows all the videos because they're gone.
They don't exist anymore.
The three hour video that you just mentioned, we probably weren't talking about Sandy Hook the whole time.
You don't know because you didn't review it to prepare for today, did you?
No, I did not.
So you don't know.
That's just you making something up and spreading it to me.
No, that's not what I'm doing.
Then what are you doing?
The same thing you're doing.
I'm asking questions.
Oh.
What are you doing?
When you say something and you're not sure if it's true, but you sit here under the penalty of perjury and swear to God that it is the truth, what is that other than lying?
I'm not lying.
Then what is it called when you make up something that you aren't sure of when you've sworn to tell the truth and the complete truth?
What is that called in your mind?
I'm not lying.
You're asking me questions, but we're also having back and forth on a multitude of topics.
We are having back and forth on a multitude of topics.
I'm just asking you questions and expecting you to answer them truthfully.
And like I said at the beginning, and like I said at the beginning of the last time you and I spoke on the record, don't guess.
Because one, It's not fair to anybody in this room.
And two, there's no journalistic integrity in doing it.
Okay?
My last question is, sitting here today on behalf of the company, are you proud of the work that you did, that Free Speech Systems did on Sandy Hook Elementary School and the shooting that happened in December 2012?
I think our reporting stopped what was going to be a lot of anti-gun legislation coming down.
You didn't answer my question.
My question was, are you proud of the information that you spread about Sandy Hook from 2012 to 2017?
As a company, is that what you want to be remembered for?
I don't think we're going to be remembered for Sandy Hook.
What do you think you're going to be remembered for?
I know that's what you want.
I know that.
Simple question.
I can repeat it if you'd like.
What do you think Infowars and free speech systems is going to be remembered for other than the Sandy Hook misinformation that was spread over the course of over half a decade?
I think we'll be remembered about a lot more than that.
Other than having a few people on that said it didn't happen.
I mean, I don't think I ever questioned that kids died at that location.
I know that you said you're proud of stopping some legislation that was never Well, I mean, we didn't kill those kids.
We didn't cause the situation to happen.
We were just actively looking at it and looking at a bunch of different angles, and some of those angles were wrong.
And I'm not going to sit here and say that We're bad people because we didn't make this thing happen.
We didn't cause it to happen.
We didn't give the kid the drugs.
We didn't give the kid the access to all the stuff.
I think a lot of this would have been solved had they put out security footage showing the guy even entering the building.
They never did that.
And they go, well, we didn't have it.
We saw it in Columbine.
When you see red flags like that, you start asking questions.
And I'm not ashamed of asking questions.
And I don't think anybody should be ashamed of asking questions.
Even yourself.
If any of my clients were in the room right now, would you apologize to them?
I would apologize for the loss of their kids.
Yes, I would.
You wouldn't apologize for spreading a bunch of information that was wrong about the circumstances of their kids' death to millions of people for years to the point where some of them had to move.
You wouldn't apologize to that?
Well, we didn't turn it into a media spectacle.
It was already turned into a media spectacle.
We were just talking about it.
Are you going to ask these people who were, you know, the cameras that were, people that were sticking cameras in their faces, every time they turned around and sneezed in all the interviews they were doing, they made themselves public figures.
That's what they did.
I'm absolutely, if I get the opportunity, I'm absolutely going to ask those people if they're sorry.
But I'm asking you right now.
Are you?
I'm sorry for the loss of their kids.
Definitely am.
I would never want that to happen to anybody.
And again, are you sorry for spreading a bunch of lies and impacting their life over a decade after they had to experience the one thing no parent should ever have to do?
At the time, I think what we were putting out we thought was correct information at the time.
And you were wrong, correct?
On some instances we were wrong.
And are you sorry for that?
Am I sorry for being wrong?
No.
People get things wrong all the time.
Okay.
I appreciate your time.
▲
Export Selection