Deposition of Paul Joseph Watson - November 27, 2019
|
Time
Text
We've agreed to sworn the witness from Austin, correct?
Correct.
Yes, plaintiffs have no objection to having been sworn in remotely.
Okay, would you raise your right hand?
Do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I swear.
- Okay, you can put your hand down.
Good morning, Mr. Watson.
My name is Mark Bankson.
I'm a counsel for the plaintiff in this case.
I'm going to be asking you some questions this morning.
I am currently sitting in Austin, Texas.
Where are you today?
I'm in London, England.
Okay.
You are Infowars Chief Reporter, is that correct?
I've never been designated that title, so I wouldn't describe myself as that now.
Okay.
You are InfoWars editor at large, correct?
That was a title I adopted in 2016, so yeah, that would be correct.
Okay.
You have also been the editor of the InfoWars.com website from 2012 to the present, correct?
One of the editors, yes, correct.
Would you describe yourself as the chief editor of the InfoWars website?
No.
Who would you describe as the chief editor of the InfoWars website?
Alex Jones.
Does Alex Jones day-to-day manage the website in any way?
When it comes to the content that's posted on it and decisions based upon that content, I would say he is the highest authority.
Okay, so when it comes down to, say, articles that are being posted on the InfoWars website, do you have editorial control independent of Alex Jones or does he have to approve everything that goes on the website?
No, I have independent control.
Okay.
Can you tell me, first of all, when did you start working with Alex Jones?
I started working with him in spring 2003. Okay.
From that period in 2003 to the present, can you list for me every job position you have held with Alex Jones Infowars or Free Speech Systems LLC? I'm not an employee and have never been an employee, so I haven't had an official job position.
How would you describe your employment relationship or your working relationship with Mr. Jones?
Contractor.
Okay.
You do the vast majority, overwhelming majority of your work for InfoWars.
Correct.
Not in Texas, correct?
Correct.
You've been to Texas on a few occasions, I assume, correct?
Yes, correct.
But mostly you work across the pond and you work remotely, correct?
Yes.
When you appear on InfoWars, you frequently appear like you're appearing right now in front of a Skype camera with headphones in, correct?
Correct.
I want to take you back I want to take you back to 2013. Specifically, I want to draw your attention to the beginning of that year, which was about a month after the Sandy Hook tragedy happened.
Do you remember this time period?
Not in any specific detail, no.
Okay.
Let's see.
I want to talk about a couple of events you might remember from that time period.
Do you remember an interview that you did with a professor named James Tracy in Florida?
Yes.
You and I both know that Mr. Tracy is an advocate of the assertion that there were crisis actors used in the Sandy Hook massacre.
Do you understand that?
Yes.
You'd agree with me that's his assertion?
Yes.
That's not an assertion you agree with, correct?
No.
Okay.
You would agree with me that when it came to Sandy Hook and covering Sandy Hook, Infowars needed to treat it with extreme caution?
In my own personal view, yes.
Okay.
Mr. Watson, I'd like to show you right now a video clip which we will offer as Exhibit 1. This is going to be a video clip from your interview with Professor Tracy on January 18, 2013. I'm going to have the technology people here bring up the clip, Watson Clip 1. Alright, Mr. Watson, are you still with us?
Yeah.
Okay, what we're going to try to do, unfortunately, is we're going to use a laptop.
Sure.
We're going to use a laptop and put it directly in front of your camera so that you can see the video and then have the audio that you're hearing me over just hear the audio from the video.
So we're hoping that's going to work.
Okay.
Mr. Watson, I'm going to play again Exhibit 1. From your interview with Professor Tracy.
Okay.
Obviously, I believe that this was a horrible tragedy for all the parents involved.
And I believe that some of the people who are asking questions about this, not the professor, but a lot of people on YouTube, have handled it in a rather insensitive way.
Of course, we've had reports about them harassing some of the people who were involved.
And basically, it doesn't do us any favors.
We need to treat it, obviously, with extreme caution because it's a very traumatic event.
And I think one of the aspects of this, which a lot of people have claimed, Professor, is this whole idea that there were, quote, crisis actors who were working with the media to create a fake narrative surrounding this event.
And this is where we probably differ, but just give us your take on the whole crisis actors angle.
Explain what that is.
Alright, Mr. Watson, give me just one second so we can get set up and ask you some questions about that.
Okay.
Okay, there's basically three things I want to ask you about this video.
The first is that this being a month after Sandy Hook, you were aware at this time that the parents were being harassed by believers in the Sandy Hook hopes conspiracy.
Correct.
Second, as we talked about before, you would agree with me that InfoWars needed to treat it with extreme caution, correct?
Correct.
What does that mean to you?
To me it means being able to analyse and discuss the tragedy, but not engaging in any activity which would cause discomfort or harassment to the victims of the tragedy.
Okay.
Third, regarding crisis actors, you said to Professor Tracy, this is where we differ.
Can you, first of all, describe what a crisis actor is and why you don't agree with that?
From my understanding, it's somebody who was involved in the event but was playing a role whereby They may be on the scene of the event but not actually engaged or responsible for perpetrating the event.
That's my understanding of a crisis actor.
Okay.
In terms of the Sandy Hook tragedy and the statements being made by certain people about crisis actors, can you tell me why you disagreed and thought that was not a thing that should be said?
I understand.
To go back, crisis actor means somebody who is apparently, according to reports and statements, involved as a victim of the tragedy, but actually is not involved in the tragedy and is acting.
So, can you repeat the question you just asked again?
Sure.
Why in the context of the Sandy Hook tragedy?
And of the people who were using the crisis actors' allegation, why did you disagree with that and think it was a bad thing to say?
Because I saw at the time the people who were pushing that narrative were not credible people.
Thank you, Mr. Watson.
In January of 2013, another thing that I wanted to know if you remembered Was when you had an email exchange with a Sandy Hook parent.
Do you remember that?
I don't recall that, no.
Okay.
I want to show you right now what we're going to be marking as Exhibit 2. And we're going to show it to you remotely using the computer.
Okay.
And that is going to be under Tab 1. Are you able to see a document in front of you right now?
Yes.
Okay.
So what I'd like our technology person to do here is to scroll down to the bottom of the email because we'll read it from the top to the bottom.
And so let's start with the first email.
And you see here an email from a gentleman named Lynn Posner.
Yeah.
Are you familiar with who that is?
He's one of the Sandy Hook parents as far as I know.
Okay.
Mr. Watson, I'm just going to read this email for the record and you can read along with me.
Okay.
And Mr. Posner's email states, 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 created these hateful people and they need to be reeled in.
Lenny Posner.
Did I read that correctly?
Yes.
Okay.
And now let's scroll up to your response.
Do you remember writing this response?
Does this bring back that memory?
Now that it's presented to me, yes.
I didn't recall it when you initially brought it up, but yes.
Sure.
Now, do you know, did you do this on your own or was this a collaborative effort among other people at InfoWars?
Do you remember that?
No, this would have been me personally.
Okay.
So, I want to read what you personally said to Mr. Posner.
And what you had written was, Sir, we have not promoted the quote actors unquote thing.
In fact, we have actively distanced ourselves from it.
We have said on numerous occasions that it was a very real tragedy with very real victims.
I hope we can continue to count on you as a listener and I am deeply sorry for your loss.
That's what you wrote to Mr. Posner?
Correct.
Now, it's true that you, being Paul Watson, have, over the course of the past several years, actively distanced yourself from the actors thing, correct?
I would say almost immediately, correct, yeah.
In other words, the opinions that you were holding In January 2013, concerning crisis actors, are still the same opinions that you hold today and have held continuously since, correct?
Correct, I would say yes.
Okay.
When you talk about not promoting the actor thing, over the next several years, that's exactly what happened at Infowars though, correct?
That Alex Jones and Rob Dew Promoted the actors thing over and over?
I would say that that happened, but I would say that the majority of coverage on Infowars.com was related to the fact that the tragedy happened and people died.
Did you happen to watch Mr. Jones's March deposition that was taken in the Lewis case?
I didn't watch the whole thing.
I did see clips.
Not the whole thing, but clips.
Okay.
And we can both agree that in that deposition, there are multiple times when Mr. Jones says that children did not die, that there were clearly actors, and that there were different parents who were faking their reactions and things like that.
Do you recall seeing that?
I don't recall the specific content of the clips, but generally in that context, yes.
Okay.
Did you have anything to do with the production of videos in this lawsuit?
In other words, the collection and identification of different InfoWars videos which were then turned over to the plaintiff?
No.
Did you know that there is an InfoWars video that is titled Crisis Actors Used at Sandy Hook!
Did you know that?
I didn't know specifically, but I accept that, you know, that's a possibility, yes.
Okay.
You would agree with me that people like Mr. Jones, Mr. Dew, Mr. Schroyer and others did not treat this issue with extreme caution?
I'm good.
You can answer that.
I would say no, they didn't treat it with extreme caution, but such statements would be protected under the First Amendment.
Okay.
We'll talk about the First Amendment later, but in terms of what you think is decent and right in terms of covering this story, do you think Infowars always adhere to what is decent and right in covering this story?
Well, it's a subjective term, but from my personal perspective, decent and right, I would not have covered it in that way, no.
Mr. Watson, we're going to show you one more video clip.
This is also from Professor Tracy's interview, and I'm going to set this up for you using the camera again.
This is going to be offered as Exhibit 3, and this is Watson Clip 2 on January 18, 2013.
And I'm going to show you that video.
So asking...
Alright, there we go.
Alright, Mr. Watson, we're going to watch this and I'll ask you some questions.
So, asking questions about an event that has been the fulcrum of the Obama administration's agenda on gun control is only sensible while of course maintaining that respect, that dignity, that sensitivity for the victims.
All right, Mr. Watson.
While you were at InfoWars and covering...
Let me start, let me step back.
Over the past, say, 10 years at InfoWars, there have been a large amount of mass casualty events.
Both in the United States and abroad, that have been covered in InfoWars programming, correct?
Correct.
When you've been at InfoWars for the past 10 years or so, would you say that in covering those mass casualty events, you have tried to maintain that respect, that dignity, that sensitivity for the victims that you were discussing in that video?
I would say...
After Sandy Hook, yes, I would say I'd try to maintain that.
Whether I had beliefs before that that I now completely disavow, that's possibly the case, but I would say Certainly after 2014, as far as I recall, that would be the case.
Okay.
And you talked in that video about how it's important to be able to ask questions about major events.
You'd agree with that today?
Yeah.
Okay.
And in your career, you've often asked questions about events that look suspicious to you, correct?
Correct.
Okay.
On the other hand, if you weren't questioning If you were making certain factual claims, for instance that a parent wasn't real, or that a certain parent's crying was faint, those sorts of things, do you consider that still questioning or are those making assertions of fact to you?
I would consider it offensive, but I would also consider it still questioning of events or facts.
When we talk about maintaining that respect, that dignity, that sensitivity for the victim, that you mentioned that dignity, that sensitivity for the victim, that you mentioned in that video in 2013, for the next five years, InfoWars frequently did not do that.
Not saying you, but other people at InfoWars.
Do you agree with that?
- Thank you, that's informed. - What's your answer? - I would say, generally speaking, that's probably correct, but in terms of the trajectory of how InfoWars covered these events, I would say we moved away from that kind of response after, I would say we moved away from that kind of response after,
2014. And when you say that kind of response, are you referring to things like mocking the parents crying or accusing them of being fake?
Is that what you're talking about?
No, I'm talking about the nature of the event and the immediate assumption that the official story of everything that happened was completely true.
When do you think, in your mind, that InfoWars stopped calling Sandy Hook phony?
I don't recall any specific time when that stopped.
Okay.
If I was pinned down on it, I would probably say the Megyn Kelly interview, which I don't recall when that was, but I believe it was a couple of years ago, so I would probably say that.
Okay.
That Megyn Kelly interview, I'll kind of bring you up to speed.
That was in June of 2017. Okay.
And do you know when InfoWars was first sued over Sandy Hook?
Yeah, that took place in April 2018, but less than a year later.
Do you have any knowledge sitting here today about what InfoWars was saying about Sandy Hook between the Megyn Kelly interview in 2017 and when Alex Jones was sued in 2018?
I don't have any specific recollection now.
If Mr. Jones, if I was to tell you that Mr. Jones in October of 2017 was calling Sandy Hook phony as a $3 bill, you wouldn't have any reason to dispute that?
I don't specifically recall him saying that, but I wouldn't dispute that it happened.
I want to talk a little bit more about harassment.
And as we discussed that victims were being harassed and that you knew that as early as January in this video, you knew and understood that that harassment went on for years, correct?
That it went on for years afterwards?
I don't know an exact time period as to when it went on, but I do know that it occurred, yes.
Okay.
You know who Wolfgang Halbig is, right?
Vaguely, he worked in school security, that's all I know about him, and obviously he appeared on Infowars.
Okay.
And do you know about his trips to Newtown with a gentleman named Dan Bedondi?
Not specifically, no.
Okay, have you ever seen footage of what Dan Bedondi did in Newtown to the Newtown residents?
Not that I recall, no.
You know who Jim Fetzer is, right?
Yes.
Okay.
Do you know who Jonathan Rike is?
No.
You wouldn't know anything about Mr. Rike's arrest for harassing the Sandy Hook parents?
I'm aware that somebody was arrested for that.
Did not recall his name, but yes, I'm aware that somebody was arrested.
Do you know who Lucy Richards is?
It doesn't ring a bell, no.
Okay.
Let me see if it refreshes.
Did you know that in 2016 a woman was sentenced to federal prison for threatening to kill some Sandy Hook parents?
I don't recollect that.
I recollect the guy arrested for harassment, but not this individual.
Okay.
When it came to people who were harassing these parents who had lost children, That went on.
InfoWars was aligning with these people, correct?
I saw no evidence that we were directly aligning with these people, no.
Mr. Watson, I'd like to show you another document now.
And I would like to show you an email that you sent in 2015 on December 17th.
This is tab 2. Do you see this email in front of you?
Yeah.
We're going to be offering this as Exhibit 4. And I'm going to read this email.
Well, actually, first, let's start at the top of the email.
You have sent this to two different people, one of whom is named Buckley, correct?
Correct.
Buckley Hammond, is that his last name?
Correct.
Buckley Hammond is Alex Jones' cousin, correct?
Right, yes.
And then another...
Infowars personnel that you sent this to is Anthony.
Who is Anthony?
That's Anthony Gucciardi.
Okay, what is his job role at Infowars?
He's one of the managers at Infowars and I believe still is, but I'm not sure if he's still there, but he was at the time.
When you say manager, what does he manage?
I don't have any detailed information.
Buckley was a manager, Anthony was the manager.
Basically, they would be in a position which was above the writers and the contributors as to their exact roles.
I was not in the office anywhere near enough to know specifically, but I would describe them as managers.
Okay, and that's what I guess I'm trying to get at is these are people who manage the writing.
In other words, these are people who have management related to Enthor's editorial output, not people who, say, manage the sale of the supplements and the brain pills and that kind of thing.
With Gucciardi, he was mainly involved in the supplements and the sale and logistics of that.
In terms of Directly, I mean, they would give the writers advice, I guess, but that wouldn't be their sole job description.
So I'd say it was a general manager role.
Let's take a look at this email that you sent on December 17th, 2015. And at the top it says, send this to Alex.
I'm going to make the assumption, you can tell me if I'm wrong, when you say send this to Alex, that means you sent it in a text message?
I would assume so, because I didn't communicate with Alex via email, so I would assume either it would be a direct phone conversation or a text message.
Okay.
I want to read what you sent to Alex.
This Sandy Hook stuff is killing us.
It's promoted by the most batshit crazy people like Rince and Fetzer who all hate us anyway.
Plus it makes us look really bad to align with people who harass the parents of dead kids.
It's going to hurt us with drudge and bringing bigger names into the show.
Plus the event happened three years ago.
Why even risk our reputation for it?
My first question is Let's first talk about who Jeff Rents is.
You know who he is?
Yes.
Okay.
Jeff Rince is a notoriously unreliable conspiracy theorist and rabid anti-Semite, correct?
I don't know enough about him to call him a rabid anti-Semite, but I would say he was a conspiracy theorist, yeah.
Same question for Mr. Fessler.
Again, the antisemitism stuff, I don't recall anything related to that, but if you want to say he engages in conspiracy theories, that would be accurate.
Alright, tell me what you mean.
Well, actually, tell me how you came to the conclusion that these two gentlemen that InfoWars was relying on were batshit crazy.
Um, because they were pushing the notion that nobody died at Sandy Hook, which I thought was not credible and was supported by no evidence, so therefore was a crazy conclusion to make.
So by that same logic, Alex Jones equally batshit crazy?
I wouldn't describe him as batshit crazy.
What kind of crazy?
I would describe it as him commenting on the controversy of the conspiracy theories that were swirling about Sandy Hook at the time.
Okay, so if Jeff Rents or Jim Fetzer starts pushing allegations, That the children aren't real, that the parents are fake, and that the crying's all fake, and it's all an act.
They're batshit crazy.
But if Jones says literally the exact same words on his telephone, his web broadcast, he's just doing a good job as a journalist?
Well, to kind of combine this with your previous question, I would say the description of them as batshit crazy would also involve Things that they've said in the past unrelated to Sandy Hook, maybe about UFOs or alien abduction or holograms on 9-11, which I think was FETS's big thing for a while.
They had a previous of engaging in very obscure conspiracy theories which would contribute to that description of batshit crazy.
Do you think that their history of doing that is any different than Alex Jones?
No, but again, they had the right to engage in that speech under the First Amendment.
I'm not, look, Mr. Watson, at this point, I'm not asking you who had the right to do what.
We'll all figure that out.
What I'm asking you is, Alex Jones and his crazy conspiracies about shadow interdimensional governments and alien-fish hybrids, things like this, there's no difference.
There's qualitatively no difference in how they covered conspiracy theories, correct?
That's your view.
I wouldn't necessarily agree with it.
Alright, so in your view, people like Rince and Fetzer are bad, but Mr. Jones not in the same way.
I would say not in the same way because I would say Alex was covering the controversy of Sandy Hook, which was circulating before he engaged in the same kind which was circulating before he engaged in the same kind of conspiracy theories.
In terms of Fetzer, as was shown in the email, he was antagonistic towards me personally, so I had a bias against him, which was a factor in that email.
Tell me about the conflict you and Mr. Fetzer had.
I don't remember very specific details about it, but it was a long time ago and it was something to do with Me not agreeing with a conspiracy that he had postulated and he responded by attacking my character.
I think that's what it was related to, but it was a very long time ago.
Okay.
In this email you say it makes us look really bad to align with people who harass the parents of dead children.
Can you explain to me what you mean by that?
To share their narrative of what happened, given that I did not think they were credible individuals, that would harm us.
That's what I meant by that.
Okay.
When you talk about drudge in this email, it's going to hurt us with drudge.
That's Matt Drudge you're talking about, correct?
Correct.
Matt Drudge runs an internet website where he collects links from news around the web and collects it for people, correct?
Correct.
And it was Infowars desire at this time to be featured on Drudge and to have some of the traffic that Drudge would create, correct?
Partly, but partly also.
Drudge is seen in conservative news circles as a credible news source, so to be on Drudge was to give you an element of credibility.
And it's true that if Alex Jones kept going on Infowars and saying things like the parents are fake and the school was actually closed, things like that, it was going to be difficult for people like Drudge to promote him.
Correct?
You'd have to ask Matt Drudge on that question.
I don't know what he would think.
Well, you say it's going to hurt us with Drudge.
What did you mean by that?
That being seen to associate with people who I thought were pushing beliefs and viewpoints that were not credible would have a backlash of making us less credible amongst more credible news sources like Drudge.
That's exactly what happened, isn't it?
There has been a considerable amount of backlash over Sandy Hook.
I wouldn't say with Drudge because he didn't stop linking to our articles on his website.
Okay, but in general, InfoWars has faced Significant backlash over its coverage of Candy Hook.
As a result of the lawsuit and the Megyn Kelly interview.
You don't think people were upset about this before that?
Not to the same degree.
Okay.
Now, It has bothered you personally.
To be associated with the kind of tasteless things being said about the parents on Infowars, correct?
Well, it obviously bothered me at the time because of the content of that email.
Correct.
And it continued to bother you, right?
So long as the same narrative was being pushed, yes.
Okay.
Let's be honest about this email.
In 2015, Mr. Jones didn't listen.
Correct?
on this topic.
Whether he toned it down, I couldn't say, but...
I mean, if you want to say he didn't listen to me in that instance, you could make the argument, yes.
In fact, looking back retrospectively, Mr. Jones has said that you're right.
Did you know that?
- I'm aware of his deposition where he brought up the fact that we had disagreements about it, yeah. - Okay.
Mr. Jones, I wanna show you another document at this point I want to show you a document from an email exchange that you had On November 18, 2016. This is going to be Tab 3. We'll be offering it as Exhibit 5. OK. Can we scroll to the very bottom of this email exchange?
That'll be right there at that paragraph.
Fantastic.
All right, that's great.
Mr. Watson, you see here that there is an email from the communications manager At a place called Quantcast.
Do you know what Quantcast is?
Yeah.
Okay.
Am I correct that Quantcast can basically place rankings on websites on how much traffic they receive?
Yes.
And this email here is telling you that there was a traffic surge at InfoWars and so as for a routine measure, they're just going to place a temporary hold on the ranking system.
Have you ever seen an email like this before?
I mean, it's possible that I saw it at the time.
I don't recall it specifically.
Okay.
If we can scroll up to the next couple sets of emails here, right there is fine.
And you'll see that an email was sent to you, and you said, thanks, I will pass this on, and send it, as we scroll up, keep scrolling up, to a person that we talked about before, Buckley.
Go ahead and scroll to the top of this email that we can see.
Alright, do you see here where it has your email address to buckley at infowars.com?
Yeah.
Okay, let's scroll off the header so we can actually see the full email.
Right about there is fine.
When you sent this email, Buckley made a joke, and I want to read it to you, okay?
It said, But no, surely it's a conspiracy theory that they are trying to suppress our popularity so that lizard people can return to the ascension pad at Sandy Hook and feast on sacrificed crisis actors.
Buckley here is making a joke about the craziness of those theories, isn't he?
You would have to ask Buckley.
I can't speak for him.
When you get an email in your day-to-day business that's talking about lizard people going to the Ascension pad at Sandy Hook and feasting on sacrificed crisis hackers, what did you take that to mean?
Well, obviously I would presume that it's dark humor.
Dark humor about what?
What's he joking about?
About...
The notion that at the time we were being widely suppressed in terms of censorship or blocking our traffic, I guess.
What's this stuff about lizard people?
What is that about?
I mean, lizard people is a David Icke conspiracy theory that the rulers of the world are actually shape-shifting lizards, as far as I understand it.
What is an ascension pad?
I don't know what an ascension pad is.
I guess it's like a Star Trek beam me up kind of thing.
I don't know.
Okay.
And sacrificed crisis actors.
Have you ever heard of any I mean, we talked about Crisis Actors.
Do you know anything about the sacrifice of Crisis Actors?
No.
Okay.
The one we know is a little caricature of a man who's wearing an undershirt and missing a lot of teeth.
Do you have any idea what that's about?
I have no idea what the image is about, no.
I have some idea about the hand sign, but not the overall image.
Alright.
Tell me what that hand sign is.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump would make the same hand sign while making a point, so it became a thing amongst his supporters to do the same hand sign.
See, I thought, and maybe I'm wrong about this, you might be able to clear this up, I thought there was some sort of thing going on on 4chan where a bunch of weird neo-Nazis were saying, hey, we can do the okay sign, and since it kind of has a plausibly benign explanation, you can use it as a crypto-fascist symbol for white supremacy.
Have you ever heard of that?
I've heard of that but I would say that whole thing happened after 2016.
I think that started in 2017 when they began that meme.
Are you aware that this caricature here, this man, that that's a popular meme on 4chan?
I have no recollection of this being a meme at the time, no.
I have recollection of the hand sign being a meme in 2017, but not this particular cartoon.
Okay.
Do you remember right around after the time of the election, there was There were some articles about how Alex Jones had said on his show that Trump had called him after the election to thank him.
Do you remember that?
I remember him making such statements, yeah.
Okay.
And then do you remember a few days after that a woman named Erica Lafferty writing an open letter to the President asking him to disavow Mr. Jones?
I don't remember that, no.
Do you remember on the day of this email that we just looked at, November 18, 2016, do you remember Alex Jones publishing a video that you recorded called Alex Jones's Final Statement on Sandy Hook?
What was the date of the email?
November 18, 2016. I thought it was November 8. Is it 18?
It's 18, yes sir.
Can you repeat the question?
Sure.
Do you remember on that date, Mr. Jones publishing a video?
Are you familiar with the video, Alex Jones' final statement on Sandy Hook?
I'm aware of the title of the video, not the content, but the title, yes.
Do you remember during Mr. Jones' deposition, a clip being played from that broadcast in which Mr. Jones said, I've seen soap operas before, and I've seen actors, and I know when I'm watching a soap opera and when I'm watching something real.
Do you remember that quotation?
Um, I don't remember the specific quotation.
Do you remember Mr. Jones doing a mocking imitation of Robbie Parker crying?
Um...
I remember questions about whether his crying was genuine from Alex Jones.
I don't remember specifically an impersonation.
Okay.
During that final statement on Sandy Hook...
Let me scratch that, go back.
At the very time that you were writing these emails with Buckley, on November 18, 2016, Joking about crisis actors.
Were you aware that Mr. Jones just a few hours earlier had been on Infowars accusing the parents of being actors?
I don't think I joked about crisis actors in that email.
Wasn't that Buckley that used the term crisis actors?
Okay, let's rephrase the question.
Were you aware that in that email exchange you were having of Buckley, where he joked to you about crisis actors and the outlandish nature of crisis actors, that at that same time, a few hours earlier, Mr. Jones was on his show accusing the parents of being actors?
Were you aware of that?
No.
No, I have no recollection of that.
How do you feel about that, Mr. Watson?
I feel that he was completely inaccurate in making that claim.
Not something you're proud of at Infowars, correct?
I mean, I understand you're a media person who's seen a rather meteoric rise in the last few years, and you have a brand.
Doesn't it bother you on some level that this ridiculous behavior of Jones and others of InfoWars has somewhat tarnished your brand and made it more difficult for you?
Projection.
I would say that I had my grievances at the time and I think the whole culture of the organization slowly started to change afterwards, so I did what I could at the time.
Okay.
It wasn't enough though, right?
Mr. Jones didn't listen to you.
Well...
I think that he listens more now.
You threatened to quit over Sandy Hook, correct?
I don't recall any specific conversation threatening to quit.
I mean, it's possible, but I don't recall it.
Okay.
The reason I asked is Mr. Jones said you threatened to quit.
I was wondering if you had any reason to dispute that.
Maybe in the heat of a private conversation, but I don't specifically recall the exact details of the conversation.
So you've had private conversations with Mr. Jones about Sandy Hook?
Yes.
So in addition to the written messages you sent him warning him of his conduct, you've had private verbal conversations as well?
At the time, yes.
When you say at the time, what do you mean?
From the period 2013 to 2014. And then we saw a 2015 email.
Do you believe you were still talking to him about it in 2016, 2017?
I have no recollection of talking to him about it in those years.
It's possible, but I thought that the subject had died down by that point.
Do you recall having any conversations with him about his Megyn Kelly interview in 2017?
Yeah.
Okay.
Do you remember his Megyn Kelly interview?
Do you remember the things he said?
I remember that he was grilled by her.
I don't remember his specific response.
Would you have any reason to disagree with me that during that interview Mr. Jones again repeated several false claims about Sandy Hook?
I don't recall the specifics of the interview, so I couldn't say.
Let's go back.
You know, we talked about the First Amendment for a second, so let's put a pin in it.
And we had talked about things like decency and sensitivity.
But I believe one of your answers was, no matter how indecent, no matter how upsetting, that this is all conduct protected by the First Amendment, correct?
Correct.
And you've...
Okay, you're a...
You're a foreign journalist but you're involved in an American media company, correct?
I wouldn't consider myself a journalist.
You don't think you do any journalism?
I have done journalism but the vast majority of what I do I wouldn't consider journalism.
Can you tell me what is journalism to you?
What does that mean?
To me it would be Going out on the streets from a first-person perspective and either talking to people involved in news events or being on the scene of news events, I would consider that journalism, which I have done, which I have done, but the vast majority of what I do is not that.
Okay.
As a person who has worked with an American media company, even though you're foreign, you have familiarity with the First Amendment, freedom of speech, those sorts of concepts.
Yeah.
You would agree with me.
The First Amendment doesn't cover falsely accusing someone of a crime that could severely damage their reputation.
you agree with that um well that would that would be a a lawsuit process It depends the nature of the accusation.
I mean, that's why we have defamation laws and libel laws for that to be pursued after the fact.
Correct.
So, in other words, it may not be covered by the First Amendment if you falsely accuse someone of a crime that could severely damage their reputation.
Under my understanding, if that was the case, then no, it wouldn't be covered under the First Amendment.
Okay, so if you accuse parents of being fake, if you say they're not real, they're crisis actors, That means they're giving false statements to police.
It means everything they're doing is a lie.
A giant fraud.
Maybe one of the most massive crimes conceivable in American history.
You would agree that those people have suffered damage.
They have been falsely accused of something. - An objection for them. - I'm not aware that Alex Jones directly accused a parent of not existing, Not to say it's not possible, but I'm not aware that that happened.
So, let's go ahead and make an assumption for me, just for the purpose of this question, that if Alex Jones said something like, at first I thought they killed real children, but they didn't kill any children, and everybody's clearly an actor.
If he said that, he crossed the line, didn't he, Mr Russell?
I would compare it to other news organizations who have made claims about events such as the Iraq war where CNN and others reported that babies were being thrown out of incubators by Saddam Hussein's military and people who questioned that would be seen as being Very offensive to claim that babies weren't thrown out of incubators,
but that was later proven to not have happened, so I think it's extremely important to question the nature of major news events, no matter how offensive that may be.
Okay, so let's go to this babies and incubators thing.
This is an InfoWars thing I hear a lot.
Who, if there was a lie, so my understanding of this is there was a lie Made by the media, certain parties of the media, that babies were being thrown out of incubators in Kuwaiti hospitals.
Is that correct?
As far as I understand it, yeah.
Okay.
Who is being accused of doing that?
Who is being accused of throwing the babies out of the incubators?
As far as I know, it was Saddam Hussein's military.
Okay, so I guess in that case, if individual military members who were assigned to that hospital wanted to sue those American media companies for defamation, that's something they could do, right?
Well, from your question, my understanding is that would it be covered under the First Amendment to question whether that event was happening?
I would say it was covered because it was a major news event.
No matter how offensive that may be to question such a horrible tragedy, I believe that in some cases it's vital to do so because the wider tragedy that Could evolve from that is far greater.
As to whether Iraqi military soldiers could sue individuals, I don't know the law on that, so I couldn't say.
Okay, well what about, for instance, you know who Tom Arnold is, right?
The actor?
Yeah, Tom Arnold.
Yeah.
And you know who Jack Posobiec is?
Yeah.
You remember not too long ago, Tom Arnold made some comments on Twitter basically implying that Jack Kosovic had some sexual proclivities that involved children?
Yeah.
And at that time you wrote, That Jack Kosobiec was perfectly entitled to sue Tom Arnold and that Tom Arnold is subject to a lawsuit because the First Amendment doesn't cover falsely accusing someone of a crime that could severely damage their reputation.
Do you agree with that?
In that case, yes.
Okay.
And Mr. Arnold, he's a public figure, right?
Yeah.
People know who he is, right?
Yeah.
In fact, you understand the distinction in America that when you have a public figure, the media might be more entitled to talk about that person or speculate on that person than if they were a private individual.
Are you familiar with that concept?
Well, yes, you would hope.
It's not how the media behaves now, but yes, in principle, yes.
Okay.
So, if Tom Arnold, a public figure, And Jack Posobiec, another public figure, if there can be a defamation suit there, then surely if a media organization accuses a parent of being fake in the context of the death of their child, that is equally actionable.
Wouldn't you agree?
As far as I understand it, the Sandy Hook parents were public figures given that they Given interviews and statements to the media, and whether they wanted to become public figures or not is a different matter, but I would consider them public figures.
Okay, well, let's leave that for the courts, in which I'm not sure if you're familiar with any of that, what that's happened.
But assume for me, for the moment, that those Sandy Hook parents are private individuals.
Do you believe Infowars needed to exercise a certain level of care to make sure that they weren't making false accusations against them?
Yes, but I'm not aware of any direct false accusations that were made against any individual person.
Not to say it's not possible, but I don't recollect any.
Can we have a bathroom break?
We absolutely can.
Can we have five minutes?
Okay.
Five minutes, okay.
Five minutes.
All right, ready to go?
Yeah.
Mr. Watson, can you tell me what you did to prepare for your deposition today?
I spoke to Robert Barnes and Wade Jeffries.
Okay.
Did you review any documents?
No.
When did you speak with your counsel?
Sunday evening my time and this afternoon today.
Okay.
How long did you spend talking to Council?
Um, total both conversations probably like 30 to 40 minutes.
Okay.
When it comes to the Sandy Oak tragedy, how did you determine it was a real event and not something?
I just didn't believe the notion that it was a wider conspiracy.
Why is that?
Personally because the explanation that it was a conspiracy to push further gun control didn't make sense to me because after the event further gun control did not really happen under the Obama administration from my perspective.
So I couldn't see a motive.
Okay, so you knew, you came to that realization during the Obama years that it was a real event?
Yeah, I would say so, yeah.
Let me ask you about the First Amendment again.
One of the things that you have testified to is whether certain things are or are not allowed under the First Amendment.
First of all, can you tell me, can you first tell me what your educational background is?
I went to school, I went to college.
I don't have a higher education degree, so that's my background.
Okay, so you attended a college but have no degree?
No, in college, in the UK, college is different.
It means the period after high school, so it's A-level.
So I attended college to get A-levels and then I went to a university afterwards for a year and then dropped out.
Okay.
Do you have any education in journalism?
No.
Do you have any education in United States law?
No.
When it comes to what is or is not allowed under the First Amendment, you really don't have any qualifications to say, do you?
No, but a lot of what I do is related to free speech, so although I don't have any academic qualifications, I would like to consider I have a reasonably good grasp of it.
Let's talk a little bit about journalism.
Have you ever heard the phrase, journalistic integrity?
Yeah.
What does that phrase mean to you?
It means reporting the facts as you see it in a non-partisan neutral way.
Okay, do you think that a news organization, a media organization, It owes any obligations to exercise any measure of effort to ensure that its statements about people are factual and true.
I would say that's very much dependent on whether the organization presents itself as a middle-of-the-road, nonpartisan, journalistic outlet and not a commentary-slash-opinion outlet.
So a commentary-opinion outlet.
One that may be partisan in nature.
you feel has an obligation to ensure that the things that it's saying are accurate or true.
No, because it will always be skewed by a bias to one side or the other.
If you present yourself as a CNN or an ABC, I believe you have the The duty to, you know, play it straight down the line and be nonpartisan.
Not that that happens, I believe in today's society, but in terms of wearing your bias on your sleeve, I think people understand that an outlet that doesn't present itself as being nonpartisan is always going to be bias in one direction or another.
Okay, well let's take a claim such as, I'll give you an example.
A claim being made that no paramedics were allowed inside Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Can you tell me how partisanship or commentary would allow you to say that without regard to its accuracy, but a journalist, a nonpartisan organization, has a different obligation?
Can you explain that to me?
I would say if you believe, if you've seen information to suggest that was the case and that's what you believe, then you will present that as your opinion.
I'm not sure as to the exact nature of where that came from, but...
What if it came from one of those batshit crazy people like Fetzer or Rince?
Well, personally, I wouldn't amplify what they were saying.
One of the reasons you wouldn't amplify what they're saying is because if you have somebody with a track record of being batshit crazy and unreliable, it would violate the sense of journalistic integrity to promote what they it would violate the sense of journalistic integrity to promote what they are saying as Yes, if you were a journalistic, middle-of-the-road, non-partisan, non-commentary outlet, which I don't believe in followers is.
So Alex Jones is allowed to do that.
Other people who claim to be journalists can't, but Alex Jones can do that.
Under their own journalistic ethics, they wouldn't.
Alex Jones would because he's an opinion commentator.
And he has no journalistic ethics, correct?
Well, he's not a journalist, so no.
He doesn't abide by those ethics because he's not a journalist.
Thank you, Mr. Watson.
You know who Rob Dew is?
Yeah.
He's been, for many years, producing the InfoWars Nightly News, correct?
When that was a show, yeah.
He has been sort of described, I don't know if this is formal or informal, but he's been described as InfoWars News Director.
Were you aware of that?
Yeah.
Did you know that Mr. Dew testified that the majority of what InfoWars does is journalism?
No, I haven't seen his testimony, so I was not aware of that.
Do you disagree with that assertion?
In terms of on the ground reporting, there is a journalistic aspect to it, yes.
I wouldn't say what Alex Jones does is journalism, but we do have people who do what you would call reporting, yes.
Are you familiar with journalists like, say, Chris Wallace on Fox News?
Yeah.
He doesn't go out on the street, does he?
I don't know.
I don't know if he has.
Sorry?
He sits behind an anchor desk, just like Alex Jones, right?
Mainly, yeah.
So, if you don't have to go out on the street, if you're sitting behind an anchor desk reporting facts, you're doing journalism, aren't you?
No.
I would say people like him and Sean Hannity on Fox are opinion commentators, not journalists.
Okay.
Can you tell me in your mind, because we've been talking today a little bit about Infowars having opinions versus assertions of fact.
What's the difference between a fact and an opinion?
An opinion is your viewpoint.
We live in a world where facts are very subjective, unfortunately.
One side has a set of facts which they agree on, and the other side has a set of facts which they agree on.
So it's a very vague concept in 2019. I mean, you can have an opinion on facts that skews one way or the other, so it's very difficult territory.
So that's all I would say on that.
Well, you'd agree there's certain things, like if I was to say, this person is beautiful, right?
That's subjective.
It can't be proven ascertainably true or false.
It's totally subjective.
You'd agree with that?
Yeah.
But something like the Sandy Hook School was not an operating school, that could be proven true or false, correct?
Well, it could be proven, but it's then based on whether you believe the proof that's presented I mean, I believe that it was an operating school, but it's based on the proof that's presented, whether it was or not.
Correct, and you can find out.
If you have the right evidence, you can find out, correct?
I mean, you could make a judgement based on that evidence, yeah.
When InfoWars does something like that, takes evidence and makes a judgment, does it have any responsibility to be accurate?
In the context of opinion commentary, I mean, you could say there's a, you know, you should strive to be accurate, but in terms of journalistic ethics, I think it's a different ballgame in terms of The level at which people are held based on whether they are opinion, commentary, or down the line journalism.
Okay, so you should be held to a lower standard than perhaps other media organizations.
Is that true?
Yeah.
I want to go back to your email with Buckley and Anthony.
Do you know how Buckley felt about the Sandy Hook coverage?
I don't have any recollection of any conversation with Buckley besides from the content of that email which you showed me.
No direct recollection of conversations with Buckley about Sandy Hook.
Was there any particular reason you chose those two people to send this message to as opposed to any of the other employees at Infowars?
Yes, because I saw those two as the most senior managers at Infowars.
Okay.
Do you know what Anthony thought about the Sandy Hook coverage?
Not specifically, but I presume that he had the same feelings as I did.
Can you identify for me everyone at Infowars who had the same feelings you did about the Sandy Hook coverage?
I can't identify everybody now because I didn't speak to everybody about it.
Can you identify anybody at InfoWars who had the same views as you?
I presume Anthony and Buckley from the content of that email and my recollection of Anthony's viewpoints.
Do you recall ever having any discussions of anybody say in the past two years at InfoWars?
Were you discussed with a fellow employee your opinions on the Sandy Hook coverage?
I don't have any recollections.
It's possible, but I don't recollect any direct conversations.
Okay.
When you got that email from Lenny Posner back in 2013, did you let Alex know that happened?
Um...
From what I recall, no.
It's possible that I told him, but I don't recall a conversation when I told him.
What I'm trying to figure out is if you got a communication from a Sandy Hook parent letting you know they were very distressed about what was going on, would you have passed that on to the owner of the company?
Not necessarily, no.
All right.
I mean, we had conversations about it and whether it was a part of those conversations, it's possible, but I don't recall exactly if it was.
Okay.
I have heard you say in the past before, and I don't know if you still believe this, but I'm wondering if you believe the idea that but I'm wondering if you believe the idea that That libertarians who claim false flags never happen are almost as stupid as conspiracy theorists who claim every event is a false flag.
Is that something you still believe today?
Yeah, I would agree that there are some conspiracies that do happen, but that doesn't mean that everything is a conspiracy, so yes.
Okay.
I want to talk a little bit about Alex Jones and what he thinks is a false flag.
So you're aware that Alex Jones has said 9-11 is a false flag, right?
I'm aware that he said that, yes.
You're aware he said that Columban was a false flag?
Yeah.
You're aware he said Oklahoma City was a false flag?
Yeah.
You're aware he said the Aurora shooting was a false flag?
Yeah.
You're aware that he said the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords was a staged mind control operation?
Yeah.
He said the Boston bombing was a false flag.
Correct.
He said there were tweets from Infowars on Twitter saying that the Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida was a false flag.
Correct?
I don't know about the specific term, but yes, generally speaking, yes.
The November 2017 church shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas, Mr. Jones said that was a false flag.
I don't recall him saying that, but I presume it's possible, yes.
The Las Vegas mass shooting, Mr. Jones said was a false flag.
Yes.
Can you give me an example of a US mass casualty event, like a mass shooting, a bombing or the like, that Mr. Jones didn't say was a possible?
I would say the most recent ones post Las Vegas massacre.
Maybe the Dayton, Ohio shooting, the El Paso shooting.
Again, I don't know for sure, but I think after the Las Vegas one, he was more reticent to call them false flags.
After I sued him, right?
I don't know when you sued him.
April 2018. So in the past year, Mr. Jones has stopped saying some of these things, correct?
I wouldn't say he's stopped saying them, but I would say that there's a tendency to not directly say that after the event.
Because in the past he would say it within hours of an event, correct?
That it was a false flag?
Well, yeah, that happened, yeah.
You know who a darn Sourzor is, right?
Yeah.
He wrote articles claiming that Leonard Posner's son didn't die, right?
I don't recall the specific article.
You certainly recall though that Adon Salazar was heavily in that camp of pushing Sandy Ho conspiracy theories on Infowars, correct?
I'm aware that he wrote articles to that effect, yes.
You know who Owen Schroer is, right?
Yeah.
Do you know about Owen Schroer's video in 2017 when she claimed that what Neil Heslin said on Megyn Kelly was impossible?
I don't recall that exact video, no.
All right.
Are you proud of InfoWars' coverage of Sandy Hook?
Um...
No, I disagree with it from the start, so I can't say I'm proud of it, no.
You didn't stop it though, did you, Mr. Lawson?
Well, I aired my grievances, but I don't control InfoWars, so...
Correct.
You aired your grievances in an email that we see, But then after that email in 2015, you just kept working for the company that was doing this, didn't you?
Correct.
You had no objection to taking a paycheck from the man who was leading a five-year harassment campaign against these Sandy Hook parents.
Isn't that true?
Objection form?
I don't believe that he led a harassment campaign against Sandy Hook parents.
Really?
That's not something you believe today.
Tell me what steps you took to stop it.
Because what I want to get at is that I see an email, I see one email that was produced for us and we asked all documents relating to San Yorke and I've got one email from you raising your complaints.
And you say you remember a personal conversation with Mr. Jones.
I don't remember details, I remember there were some conversations, yeah.
What else did you do to try to put a stop to this?
Nothing.
I just had my grievances that I thought we shouldn't be covering it from that angle and said my piece and that was it.
Mr. Watson, do you have any remorse over what InfoWars did to these parents?
I don't believe InfoWars directly did anything to these parents.
I believe that the people responsible for that harassment, which was We're not influenced by Infowars because it was already happening before we heavily covered the subject.
So I don't think that Infowars was responsible for telling anybody or instructing anybody to harass Sandy Hook parents.
Well, Infowars published a map to where Lenny Posner picked up his mail, said he was trying to destroy the First Amendment and that we needed to fight back.
You understand that?
I don't recall that, but I mean, it's possible that it happened, yes.
That's not good, is it, Mr. Watson?
It's not good, no.
And when Infowars found out that Mr. Posner was running a group, a charity, to try to help these Sandy Hook parents get content removed from YouTube, Infowars reacted by leading a campaign against these complaining parents, correct?
I don't recall that.
I have no knowledge of that.
You know Mr. Posner has had to move seven times, you know?
I'm aware that he had to move, yeah.
Yeah, you know that some of these parents can't even go to the graves of their children anymore.
You understand that?
I understand that and that's horrible.
Do you understand that InfoWars played a role in that?
I haven't seen any evidence that InfoWars played a role in that from my recollection.
So sitting here in 2019, looking back at the past seven years of what InfoWars has done, your testimony here today is you don't have any remorse or feelings about that.
I think it was the wrong approach to take and I think it was very offensive and Wrong to do so and I had my grievances at the time.
Do you think Mr. Jones has any responsibility to these parents now?
Do you think he should stand behind what he said and be held responsible to them?
I think he's retracted what he said and apologized and that was the right thing to do and that's what he did.
So you think that's all he has to do?
Because that's just an apology now, seven years later, is all that he owes these parents?