All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 18, 2020 - Depositions & Trials
42:21
Roger Stone Video Deposition in Corsi/Klayman Defamation Suits, Day 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Okay, we are on the record at 9:06.
This is the continuation of the deposition of Roger Stone.
It is the 13th of February, 2020.
videographer and court reporter can you begin this proceeding with your appropriate statements good
evening
Thank you.
This is the continued deposition of Roger Stone taken in the matter of Clayman v.
Stone. Today is February 13, 2020, and the time is 9:07 a.m.
This deposition is being conducted at 110 Southeast 6th Street, Fort Butterdale, Florida.
The court reporter is Trish Bailey Enten, and the videographer is Leland Olson, both of Empire Legal Reporting.
Will counsel please introduce themselves, after which the court reporter will swear on the witness.
Larry Klayman for himself, pro se, and also for Dr. Jerome Corsi.
Robert Bouchel on behalf of Roger Stone.
Mark Lerner, Dwayne Morris on behalf of Newsmax Media, Inc.
Christopher Ruddy, John Cardillo, John Bachman.
I'm going to place you under oath.
Would you raise your right hand?
Do you swear from the testimony you shall be able to do the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Stone, yesterday you testified that Tucker Carlson is a good friend of yours.
That is correct.
I want to play this video for you.
I want to get you to testify on it.
I want it marked as Exhibit 6. This is an appearance last night by Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch on Tucker Carlson on Fox News.
Yes, sure.
off the record at 9:08.
Turn off the sound light.
The most political prosecution I've ever seen in this country, the more you know about it, the more shocking it is.
Tell us why we should doubt the fairness of these proceedings.
Well, it arises at a Mueller investigation, which has been thoroughly compromised by not only the FISA, but the political nature of the investigators, most of whom were Democrats or Democrat donors.
You also have them investigating Trump for almost two years, knowing the underlying issue, Russia collusion, was a big scam and a big lie.
They knew that from the get-go.
And on the Stone case, you have at least two of the investigators, two of the prosecutors who, quote, resigned from the case were Mueller operatives, who have obviously an interest here.
And so when you have prosecutors in the Justice Department, three of whom, by the way, who resigned, three of those...
We're Democrats, as best I can tell.
Pushing for a sentence that the law doesn't require.
They're talking about putting someone in jail for an extra period of time beyond what the law would require.
That's according to the Justice Department's own filing on Tuesday.
None of these so-called crimes would have been prosecuted if he hadn't been pulled into an investigation that led nowhere.
In other words...
He's being put in prison as an ancillary victim of an investigation that turned out to be fruitless.
It's actually insane if you think about it.
That's presuming that there should have been a charge to begin with.
He called this guy, he threatened his dog.
It was obviously a silly threat.
It wasn't a serious threat.
It wasn't taken seriously by the alleged victim.
He's a dog lover.
The whole thing is a lie.
And these prosecutors go to the court the other day, these Mueller guys.
And tell the court this is all part of the foreign intervention, which was a big lie.
So, you know, there's a scandal at the Justice Department.
It has nothing to do with Bob Barr.
It has everything to do with these prosecutors who are acting like their own little team, independent of the rule of law, to target President Trump, to try to vindicate the Mueller scam, and slap at Trump after his vindication.
By acquittal and the impeachment thing.
This is all about politics.
You're right.
If they send him to prison, they will use the fact he went to prison as a way to claim the Russia investigation was real.
This man needs a pardon before he goes to...
And just quickly...
I'm sorry, we're totally out of time.
Trump to pardon everyone caught up in the Mueller scheme.
I agree with that, but particularly Roger Stone.
Thank you.
Go ahead.
Back on the record at 9:14.
I ask that that video of the appearance of Tom Fitton on Tucker Carlson tonight, February 12th, that we just played, be embedded into this video sequentially of the deposition.
If it can't be put in sequentially, then just attach it as Exhibit 6. Before that interview occurred last night, you spoke with Tucker Carlson, did you not?
I did not.
Someone on your behalf spoke with Tucker Carlson.
No, they did not.
Michael Caputo spoke with Tucker Carlson.
You have to notice of that producing.
That's false, to be clear.
We'll be deposing Tucker Carlson.
Good. And you'll find out the same thing that I just told you.
Well, maybe he'll tell the truth.
Who knows?
If you want to keep attacking me, your deposition is going to end rather quickly.
You can go...
Running off to the judge and do whatever you like.
Relax, relax.
If you want to ask intelligent questions, if you keep attacking me, I'm just going to keep attacking you.
And it's unfair to attack a person who's not in the room.
You just accused, you just said that Tucker Colson will probably lie.
My statement stands for itself.
He said maybe he will tell the truth.
Yes, it does.
I have just told the truth.
You have no evidence to the contrary.
The night before you were convicted, There was also a piece on Tucker Carlson that was highly favorable to you, was there not?
Yes, Tucker Carlson is a friend of mine.
What does that have to be?
And in fact, the prosecutors in your criminal prosecution made reference to that after you were convicted in terms of asking for your incarceration.
That's inaccurate.
Objection. Completely false.
Change your line of questioning.
we're not talking about this as you know.
Tom Fitton.
Yes. He obviously appeared very engaged emotionally in your court on that video, correct?
Yes. Okay.
And you did say yesterday that you met him.
On one occasion, that's correct.
On one occasion, but couldn't remember what you discussed.
Because it was non-substantive.
It was, how are you?
I'm fine.
Great to see you.
It was non-substantive.
Have you ever talked with Chris Farrell of Judicial Watch?
I have not.
Anyone on your behalf?
No, no one on my behalf.
James Peterson, anybody on your behalf?
I don't know who that is.
Paul Orfinitas?
Don't know who that is.
Any other employee?
I've had no communications with anyone at Judicial Watch, as I've told you.
Now, Judicial Watch, you are aware, filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to get documentation from the Justice Department and the FBI with regard to the raid.
I did read that, yes.
For your residence.
Yes, I did read that.
Now, I take it someone's been in contact with them to see what documents they got.
Objection of form.
I'm allowed to ask a leading question.
Repeat the question.
I take it someone has been in contact with Judicial Watch to see what documents they've obtained with regard to their Freedom of Information Act lawsuit about the raid.
Objection of form.
And you asked that yesterday.
Just to be clear, what I read was...
That no documents were forthcoming and that a lawsuit was filed.
Beyond that, I don't know the progress of that lawsuit.
To answer your question specifically, no, no one who represents me, no one that I know has been in touch with Judicial Watch.
Judicial Watch
You told Kuck Carlson at some point.
That I was ousted from Judicial Watch because of a sexual harassment complaint that he'd go ask Fitton, correct?
You have no evidence of that whatsoever.
I'm asking you the question.
The answer is no, but these wild conspiracy theories of yours are really getting wary.
That is false, categorically false.
It was kind of disingenuous to show me that you sued Fitton yesterday, but not that Fitton sued you and actually won a judgment.
You didn't mention that in your colloquy.
I also didn't mention that I won a judgment against Judicial Watch for defaming me.
I've not seen any such judgment.
Well, you can go back on the internet and figure that one out.
He's not even a lawyer and he's kicking your ass.
I'm glad that you're so supportive of Tom Fitton.
I think he does an excellent job.
Apparently he's supportive of you.
He's entitled to that.
It's called the First Amendment.
You may not be familiar with it.
You're aware that Fitton's testified that I never was ousted from judicial watch because of a sexual harassment complaint?
No, I'm not aware of that.
Perhaps you will become of that in the course of this case.
I doubt this case will get very far because it's a conspiracy theory based on no evidence.
Conspiracies happen, don't they, Mr. Stone?
They do, but in this case, it's a fantasy.
Can you ask a question that's relevant to your lawsuit?
You're delusional.
You're deeply delusional.
Are you saying I'm mentally unstable?
That's not what I said.
I said you're delusional.
Stop. Ask a question a lawyer would ask, please.
I am a lawyer.
You could fool me.
Mr. Klayman, please.
Now... You remember when you were, as you put it, a political consultant working on my Senate campaign?
Vaguely. It was quite a while ago.
You remember that there came a point in time when I was going through the airport at Dulles with cats.
Yes, I do.
And that I was detained at Dulles.
As I recall it, you were detained because you made some joke about the cat.
Not having a bomb.
Right. Now, you were my campaign consultant at the time.
Yes. Right.
And you released that story, did you not, to Jim DeFede, D-E-F-E-D-E of the Miami Herald, after we stopped working with each other.
I most certainly did not.
Michael Caputo did that, didn't he?
I have no knowledge of that whatsoever.
And you have no evidence of it.
These are more of your picking things out of thin air.
Why would anybody make a statement, a joke about a bomb while going through TSA?
Shows me a lack of judgment, in all honesty.
Particularly somebody running for the U.S. Senate.
You haven't shown a lack of judgment with regard to your conviction?
Not compared to you.
That comment is not a question.
Not compared to you.
And not a question.
How come you can't practice in the Southern District?
Why won't they let you practice there if you're Mr. Ethical?
I can practice in Southern District.
Only if you attach the judge's order.
I have a case right now.
Stop. In fact, you're aware that I have a case right now.
I'm not aware that you have a case right now, but I doubt it.
Go do some research.
Very good, Mr. Klaims.
Stop swatting at flies.
Can you ask a question, please?
You're making wild assertions for which you have no evidence whatsoever.
Now, you also released that story to Al Kamen of the Washington Post.
Absolutely, completely false.
You have no evidence of that.
It's defamatory.
Stop defaming me.
You know that I have a following on a conservative.
Stop defaming me, Mr. Clayton.
Mike Caputo was working for me as press secretary, correct?
Yes. Okay, he released it.
Absolutely not.
Categorically not.
You're making baseless charges because you have nothing.
And you also released a story to Mark Caputo of the Miami Herald at the time.
About Tony Fabrizio and the issue of his—this was after we stopped working, of course, correct?
Objection of form, no foundation.
Wild assumptions that are false, for which you have no evidence whatsoever, and you will get no evidence.
Go depose all those people.
You can't get over the fact that you lost a Senate seat?
I mean, this is absurd.
It has nothing to do with whether I lost or won.
It also has nothing to do with the six lawsuits that you filed.
Well, it's a pattern of conduct.
If anybody wants to talk about pattern of conduct, look in the mirror.
When you worked for me as a consultant, you had a fiduciary duty to keep what I told you confidential.
And you have no evidence that I did not do so.
Objection. None whatsoever.
And there's no basis for a fiduciary duty.
What are you, the judge?
You didn't pay me a dime.
You owed me money, as a matter of fact.
And your staff left with equipment that I paid for, correct?
Prove it!
No one believes you.
You have no credibility.
Ask a question.
I'm going to show you what I'll ask the court reporter to mark as Exhibit 7. Did you provide this in the response to requests for production?
It was taken off of the Internet yesterday by Dr. Corsi.
He did not have it in his possession until he found it yesterday.
So all documents in support of your lawsuits, he found yesterday.
Well, I'll tell you what.
We'll litigate it in court.
Excellent. You can lose again.
Hold on one second, everyone.
I'm just going to mark this.
Just give me one second.
Hold on.
Just give me one second.
Okay. Jerome Corsi's apparent scam cancer fundraiser exposed by a conservative website.
It states, the conservative Daily Caller investigated a cancer surgery fundraiser run by Roger Stone, associate Jerome Corsi, and found that it doesn't appear to be what he claimed.
Over the summer, Corsi raised $25,000 for 33-year-old Thomas Strickler.
An Alaska man, he said, needed the money to get experimental surgery by an Israeli oncologist named Dr. Elliot, E-L-I-A-T, Mendelssohn, M-E-N-D-E-L-S-O-H-N.
The only problem, the caller revealed, is that Mendelssohn does not appear to exist.
In his regular testimonials and fundraising messages on his YouTube channel, Corsi claimed Mendelssohn maliciously cured a relative stage 4 cancer, and after raising tens of thousands of dollars for Sickler, S-I-C-K-L-E-R, said the oncologist cured the younger man too.
In both...
Open-source record searches and exchanges with institutions where the oncologist supposedly works.
Reporter Chuck Ross wrote that the Tucker Carlson-founded Daily Caller could not find any trace of the Israeli oncologist's existence.
Furthermore, Sickler is the owner of the Mendelssohn Consulting Group website that Corsi linked to and the LLC of the same name.
Phone number on the Mendelssohn Consulting Group website also forwards to Sickler.
The caller reported.
A Twitter account Corsi linked to the supposing oncologist, at Dr. Mendelson, tweeted at both the Stone associate and Sickler, has a photo of a doctor who appears much younger than a reportedly elder surgeon and also posts about the pro-Trump, Q-U-A-N,
QAnon conspiracy theory.
When the caller contacted Corsi about the discrepancies, he insisted that Sickler fundraiser was legitimate.
Quote, unquote.
Quote, if I was misled or I was bamboozled on that, he said, Quote, I honestly think Tommy Sickler was a cancer survivor, unquote.
Corsi also defended his claim that Sickler was, quote, healed, unquote.
In an August video posted before he was subpoenaed by Special Counsel Mueller and subsequently went on hiatus, Corsi claimed that Mendelssohn cured his wife's cousin's cancer, quote, she was treated in Israel by Dr. Mendelssohn, quote, unquote, he said on August 2nd,
unquote, and I think she looks better than she has in maybe two years, unquote.
When the caller asked him about the claim, Corsi refused to comment.
"That's all I'm going to say," he told the website.
"It's a personal matter." Corsi denied that he took any of the funds from the Sickler campaign and challenged Mueller and his team to investigate the funds.
"If they want to accuse me of running a fraud to raise $25,000 for Tommy Sickler..." They can go ahead and accuse me of that if they want to, unquote, he said.
Exhibit C, where is the source of this exhibit, whatever the exhibit you just read?
It was taken off the website.
I don't know what the source is.
So you just put something in front of the witness?
Don't get argumentative with me.
You're going to have a chance to cross-examine Mr. Buschel?
Yes, indeed.
We're looking forward to that.
I'll be there.
I hope so.
Many questions for you.
I hope so.
You may be imprisoned by then, but maybe they'll let you out.
You'll be disbarred by then.
Mr. Klayman.
The clock's ticking faster on you than me, pal.
Mr. Klayman.
These barbs that you're doing?
No, he barbed me.
Okay. You're a lawyer, sir.
I'm responding.
You can't cite the sort of...
Mr. Stone, I'm asking you questions independent of this.
You arranged with Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller to release this story through Chuck Ross concerning Dr. Tommy...
Tommy Strickler and Dr. Mendelsohn, correct?
Categorically false.
Categorically false.
You have no evidence of that.
Tucker Carlson owns the Daily Caller, correct?
That is correct.
Is that just a coincidence that this happened?
If you have some proof to the evidence, put it on the table.
You've got nothing.
You're fishing.
I've never discussed this with Tucker Carlson or Chuck Ross, but I do note that Jerry Corsi is described here as a Roger Stone associate.
So, so much for that accuracy.
And my objection for the record is that none of this line of questioning has any relevance to any of Mr. Corsi's lawsuits.
Well, yes, there is reference to the Chuck Ross incident and the Daily Caller incident in the lawsuits.
go back and read them.
I'll show you what I'll ask the court reporter to mark as Exhibit 8. Is Exhibit 8 provided?
I'm not going to answer your question, so you can deal with it later.
Hang on.
I'm telling you, these documents were pulled off by Corsi yesterday off of the Internet.
Hold on.
Let's say that on the record, please.
These documents were found by Dr. Corsi yesterday on the Internet.
And yet they were supposed to be provided in response to a request for production?
He had no obligation to go on the internet to look for documents.
Except he wants to use them as supporting his case, and he needs to do that since that's what the request is.
You make the argument to the court, my friend.
You've already said several false things to the court in the course of this case.
No one more than you, sir.
I take exception to what you're saying.
And this is not the proper way of doing it.
Make your argument to the court.
He has no obligation to search the internet.
He produced what he had in his possession.
He needs to produce exhibits that were meant to support his case.
He just found them yesterday.
He just waited until after the request for production.
You could depose Dr. Corsi and find out what happened.
I'm sure we will.
Okay. This is a tweet from Chuck Ross.
Chuck Ross at Chuck Ross D.C. tweeted,"Dr.
Eliad Mendelson, who Corsi claims cured patient Thomas Sickler, appears not to exist.
The Israeli hospital where Corsi claimed Mendelson works said he does not work there.
Sickler, the purported patient who Corsi says he met, is the registered owner of Mendelson's clinic.
HTTPS, twitter.com, Chuck Ross D.C. status, etc." You've seen this tweet before, have you?
I object.
It assumes fact's not in evidence.
It doesn't look like a tweet.
It's a bunch of letters and words on a piece of paper that you just provided first time today.
All right.
Well, you can have your own characterization at the right time in the right place.
You've seen this before, haven't you?
I have not.
At least I have no...
Let me say I have no memory of having seen it.
me.
I'll ask the court reporter to mark as exhibit nine this
document.
Again, an exhibit that was not provided in response to requests for production.
I have no obligation to give you my exhibits before this deposition.
This was pulled off by court.
Dr. Corsi yesterday off the website.
I have no obligation to do that.
This, once again, has no source on it.
You do?
Because we ask very specifically all documents and exhibits you support.
We can argue over it legally.
I'm happy to go to a hearing on this, okay?
I'm happy to do it.
So, you file a motion.
Jerome Corsi's Apparent Scam Cancer Fundraiser Exposed by Conservative Website by NOR, N-O-O-R-A-L-S-I-B-A-I, December 15, 2018.
This again references Chuck Ross's writing for Tucker Carlson's founded Daily Caller, does it not?
It does.
It appears to be exactly identical to the previous piece you gave me.
You've seen this article before?
I have not.
And it has no source on it, so I have no idea where it came from.
It does, once again, call Jerry Corsi and associate apply.
I'll show you what I'll ask the quarter quarter mark is Exhibit 10. Same objection.
There's no citation to where this came from.
It wasn't provided in response to the request for production.
And it appears, I don't know, it could be it says James A. up top.
I don't know if it's Mr. Corsi wrote this or not.
And same response on my part with regard to Dr. Corsi finding it yesterday on the internet.
It's titled Post Tags Chuck Ross December 13th The Daily Caller DC founded by Tucker Carlson of Fox News Published an article claiming that Dr. Jerome Corsi helped raise $25,000 for a doctor that didn't exist.
I will direct the reader to the articles.
There's a link so as not to take credit for their work and to avoid redundancy in repeating the same claims.
Without going through the allegations which speak for themselves in this article, you've seen this article before, haven't you?
I have not.
I'll ask the court reporter to mark as Exhibit 11 this document.
I'll ask the court reporter to mark as the court reporter to mark as the court reporter.
It's the same objection.
No citation to the link to the Internet.
It was not given in response to the request for production.
Same response.
Statement on behalf of Dr. Jerome Corsi concerning recent article by Chuck Ross of The Daily Caller.
You've seen this before, have you not?
This story?
Yeah, this one here.
Oh, hold on.
I'm not sure whose statement this is.
No, I haven't seen this before.
At least I have no memory of seeing it before.
I'll show you what I'll ask the court reporter to mark as Exhibit 12. Mr. Stone will not be commenting on anything relating to his criminal case.
You can mark this exhibit and leave it at that.
Well, I've been asked a question that's relevant to this case.
Okay. Exhibit 12 is a Fox News story by Greg Rhee.
Roger Stone's jury foreperson's anti-Trump social media post surfaced after she defends DOJ prosecutors.
Greg Rhee is G-R-E-G-G, last family name, R-E.
Have you ever spoken with Gregory?
We're not answering questions about this article.
It has to do with his criminal case.
I can ask whether he's spoken to Gregory.
All right, fine.
No. Do you know who Gregory is?
Other than seeing his byline here, no.
This article, which makes reference to alleged conflicts of interest of jurors in your case, was...
Furthered by Tucker Carlson, was it not?
We're not talking about it.
Next question.
I'm instructing you not to answer it.
Certify it.
Now, you testified yesterday that you produced all the documents that you were required to produce with regard to Dr. Corsi and me in the course of this case, correct?
I believe that could be the case.
I'm going to ask the court reporter to mark the following document as Exhibit 13. This document shows communication with Joel Gilbert.
On or about October 20, 2016.
You know who Joel Gilbert is?
Yes, I do.
Yes, I do.
Who is Joel Gilbert?
Joel Gilbert is a brilliant filmmaker in Los Angeles.
Right. And he writes to you on October 20, 2016, I know longtime Clinton tormentor, Attorney Larry Klayman, he might be the kind of guy who would take this case for three, should I talk to him.
What case was that?
There was an effort.
To prove the paternity of Danny Williams in Arkansas, and I wanted an Arkansas-based attorney to represent the young gentleman, and I was prepared to finance his suit because I believe he's telling the truth.
At that time, I had the resources to do so.
And you wrote back to Mr. Gilbert,"Over My Dead Body." Correct.
That's referring to me, correct?
Yes, correct.
Absolutely. Okay.
You didn't produce this, did you?
I don't know whether I did or not, but it may have slipped through.
I certainly stand by my comment, though.
Shea, I'll ask the court reporter to mark as Exhibit 14. I believe so.
We have them all in advance.
Yes, it is 14. Exhibit 14 is an email from you,
players02@gmail.com, to Roger Stone, players02@gmail.com, which you sent to Joel Gilbert, and it's referring to Dr. Jerome Corsi.
It says this is what Mueller's hit squad demands Corsi recant, which he refuses to do.
You didn't produce this document either in this case, did you?
I'm not really sure.
I don't recall seeing it previously.
I would, however, stand by everything it says.
I'll ask that the court reporter work as exhibit 15. An email of November 25,
2018 at 11.52 p.m. from you.
It was sent to Joel Gilbert.
It was provided to me by Gilbert.
And it says, why is Mueller poised to indict Jerry Corsi for failure to lie?
You didn't produce this document either, did you?
I'm uncertain.
Now, throughout the course of this deposition, you've made reference to various bar proceedings concerning me, correct?
I think they were referenced in yesterday's comments, yes.
Yes. And in fact, you played a role with Pete Santilli in filing a bar complaint against me in the district.
I specifically denied that yesterday.
Objection to form and asked and answered.
It's already been answered.
In fact, you've been paying Santilli's lawyers legal fees, haven't you?
Completely and totally false.
You have some evidence of that producing.
You have no such evidence because it is entirely false.
Are you aware that I've asked them whether that's the case and they refuse to answer?
I'm not aware of that, but it's not true.
And you have no proof of that.
This is another one of your fantasies.
Most of your lawsuits are based on fantasies.
As it regards me, that is.
Now, yesterday you testified that you were fired from the Info Wars when you were in the...
Terminated is the word I think I used.
Fired equals termination, correct?
Kind of like you at Judicial Watch.
Okay. Now, in terms of...
By the way, how did you come to the conclusion that I was fired at Judicial Watch?
Are you still there?
Who walks away from an organization they founded and controlled?
Did I hire you to run for the Senate?
Yes, you did.
Was that what I left Judicial Watch for?
No, that's what you chose to do after you left Judicial Watch.
We'll get into that in your deposition very deeply.
Don't worry.
In fact, you've learned this from Fitton.
This is what he's told you.
Categorically false.
I've only had one conversation with Fitton, and I've already explained it.
Beyond that, I've had...
No communications with Fitton whatsoever, as I've said repeatedly.
Why do you keep asking the same question when it's already been answered?
Why are you wasting my time and the court's time?
Is that the way you feel about your criminal prosecution?
Stop doing that.
There'll be no questions about my criminal.
Stop doing that.
We've got to be up in New York arguing with the bar about this bar.
Mr. Klayman, stop doing that.
Now, you've had appearances on Infowars since you were terminated, correct?
A very few times, but yes.
And how many times have you been on Infowars?
I could not tell you.
I don't exactly remember.
Once or twice, perhaps three times.
Discussing matters not pertaining whatsoever to my criminal case.
Did you do those appearances in person in Texas?
No, I did not.
During the course of those, or prior to those interviews, did you have discussions with Alex Jones or Owen Stroyer?
Only about the logistics, perhaps, but I doubt it was probably with their producers.
You've discussed with them the fact that they've been sued over comments that you made about Corsi and me on Infowars, correct?
A baseless assertion for which you have no evidence whatsoever.
You've had conversations about that with them, correct?
A baseless assertion for which you have no evidence whatsoever.
Answer the question.
The answer is no.
The answer is no.
I may have told them that you're suing me, but that would be it.
It's a public matter that you're suing them.
been reported.
Yesterday you testified about...
A Judicial Watch donor list, correct?
Yes. I'm not going to get back into the testimony, but you're aware that you and I took a trip to see Richard Vigory while you were still representing me in Virginia at American Target Advertising.
I don't remember it specifically, but if you say so, I'm prepared to agree.
And the reason that we were looking to...
Get that list is because Vigery owned those names.
But you asserted that you co-owned them, that you had a right to use them.
That was your assertion, which is the normal standard way of doing business with his company.
I told you also that Fitton and Judicial Watch would not give me access to that list when I left Judicial Watch.
You actually never told me that.
You never told me that.
Well, if I had access, what was the reason that I would have to go to?
Virginia with you to see if we could grant Vigery's list.
Because lists have to be scheduled normally, and when lists are co-owned, those who co-own them schedule them so that the mail dates don't bump into each other.
You actually told me that you had access to the list and the right to use the list.
That turned out, of course, to be false.
But we were able to use Vigery's list, where he owned the names, correct?
I don't recall us ever having a successful mailing.
In fact, you wrote the copy, correct?
Well, I did want you to mail that list, too, and I was under the impression that you had the right to mail it, but that turned out to be not true.
And that mailing or mailings were mailed, correct?
I have no memory of that.
You remember everything else, but you don't remember that.
objection to argumentative.
I'm going to show you what we went over yesterday.
This is my sworn affidavit.
I want you to take your time.
Court reporter, if you could give...
Actually, you have a copy of the binder.
I want you to go through it, paragraph by paragraph, and tell me what you consider, if you consider anything to be inaccurate in that affidavit.
Objection. Some of it will call for legal conclusion.
We went through this yesterday.
You went through it line by line.
This is factual.
Okay, I'm going to ask him.
I have no obligation to do that, and I'm not going to do it.
Certified. Yes, please do.
You can ask your individual questions like you did yesterday.
Well, take an opportunity, Mr. Stone.
We have time to review the affidavit.
I'm not going to read your biography.
And tell me whether anything's inaccurate.
I'm not going to read your biography and all of your asinine claims because you're an egomaniac.
I'm just not going to do that.
If you have a specific question, close it.
We'll go to the court about it.
I agree.
Let's go to the court about it.
I want to do that.
Your reputation here is well known.
Well known.
I'm asking you.
You can take your time.
Go through it paragraph by paragraph.
Tell me if anything's inaccurate.
I'm not going to do that.
We went through this yesterday.
I didn't ask it that way.
He likes to hear his biography.
It makes him feel important.
Okay. Certify it.
Yes, please do.
I'd like to speak to the judge myself about this.
Better do it quick.
Before you're disbarred.
Stop. Stop.
No further questions.
This deposition is concluded for now.
Subject to my going back and moving the court to produce all the documents that we requested.
Subject to your still being admitted to the bar.
Please note that for the record.
Can I just ask a few clarifying questions?
Sure. Back on the record at 9:54.
For the record the affidavit to which I'm referring my affidavit Is the first document in composite Exhibit 2 to this deposition.
And before Mr. Lerner takes over questions, I'm happy that he's going to do the questions.
But basically, we ended our deposition yesterday at the time noted, but it was way, at least a half hour before 5 o'clock.
Mr. Stone was prepared to stay basically overnight.
You know, Mr. Corsi did some Internet research and presented some exhibits that were the only real basis for new questions in day two of this deposition.
They should have been produced in response to requests for production.
In regards to exhibits that support your allegations in the various lawsuits, they were not.
Mr. Lerner came from New York and had to stay overnight for the second day, and we could have handled this yesterday.
That being said...
That being said, it's inaccurate.
First of all, that wasn't the sole basis of the questioning today.
We talked about an appearance of Tom Fitton with regard to Tucker Carlson, and I wanted an opportunity to review everything to see what, if any, other questions I needed to ask.
I went back through it.
I streamlined the questioning as a courtesy to you and Mr. Lerner, and for that matter, Mr. Stone.
And I've decided that I've got what I need at this time subject to my filing motions to compel with the court.
Let the record show that I answered the questions even though there weren't even any sightings on where these came from.
Thank you, Mr. Lerner.
I just have a few questions and I'll get us out of here.
So are you aware in the complaint in Corsi v.
Stone and Newsmax and Cardillo, the case that my client is involved in, There are allegations regarding Cassandra Fairbanks' appearance on Newsmax television on January 30, 2019.
Are you aware of that?
I am.
Okay. Were you aware in advance of January 30, 2019 that Cassandra Fairbanks was going to appear on Newsmax on that day?
I was not.
Did you discuss the possible appearance of Cassandra Fairbanks on Newsmax with anybody at Newsmax at around that time?
I did not.
Christopher Ruddy?
Did not.
John Bachman?
Did not.
John Cardillo?
Did not.
Did you discuss with anybody at Newsmax at or about that time presenting anything negative about Jerome Corsi?
I did not.
Did you encourage anyone at Newsmax to present Jerome Corsi in a negative light?
I did not.
Did you ask anybody else to contact Newsmax on your behalf to encourage them to present Jerome Corsi in a negative light?
I did not.
Let the record reflect that this witness has been convicted of five counts of perjury.
You're defaming.
You're defaming.
Let the record show that this man's bar license is under attack in New York for his serial misconduct.
It's Washington, D.C. I have no further questions.
Very professional.
▲
Export Selection