Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 4, 2021 - Depositions & Trials

02:43:13

Deposition of Alex Jones, December 4, 2021

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	We are on the record.
	Today's date is Saturday, December 4th, 2021, and the time is 10.38 a.m.
	This is the videotaped deposition of Alex Jones.
	The board reporter please sworn the witness.
	Just a little bit of a read on person and I'll swear again.
	I am Janet Hoffman, Texas certified shorthand reporter number 4208. I'm taking this deposition by Ms. Jean Shorthand and I am located in Spring, Texas.
	The witness is located in Austin, Texas.
	Mr. Jones, please raise your right hand.
	I do.
	Mark, just for the purpose of the record, I would like to, again, have the same stipulation that this is going to be subject to the one protective order is entered and the two that are pending.
	Do we have that same stipulation?
	Plants are agreed?
	All right.
	All right, Mr. Jones, you know about back in September, default got granted against you, right?
	I know that That my Seventh Amendment rights were violated by a political show trial.
	Yes, I do know that.
	It's funny.
	Let me show you what's been marked as Exhibit 1, because you nailed it, man, right off there.
	Seventh Amendment and default ruling.
	Texas judge tramples it, right?
	That's right.
	Okay.
	So, in fact, as you see on that print out there, the way your screen kind of prints, it doesn't print very well.
	So I'm going to actually show you a full copy of that exhibit on this screen here.
	Okay, and now that can help you read it a little bit better, right?
	Yes, and that's about my First Amendment, another one of the things you guys are attacking.
	This is my First Amendment right to say that.
	Oh, yeah, no, absolutely.
	Have fun, man.
	Sure.
	Totally.
	What I'm actually asking you about is in that broadcast, well, in that one, heck, right after it happened, September 30th, you got on your show and talked about it, right?
	I believe so.
	Like October 1st, October 2nd, October 3rd, October 4th, you're just talking about the default ruling, right?
	I did talk about it on some shows.
	One of the things you kept saying on those shows is, I barely covered Sandy Hook, correct?
	I mean, it's been a very small part of what I've done.
	It's not my life like you, yes.
	Yeah, and you said, yeah, something I've done, only covered it a few times, right?
	In the aggregate, comparatively, yes.
	You see how there's a comment on this article right here that I have up showing right now?
	And you can probably read it fully right here.
	What are you, Big Doggy?
	Is that you?
	No, I have it on the screen.
	It's not my comment.
	I don't know whose it is, but okay.
	I don't either.
	Oh yeah, sure, here you go.
	No, I don't know who Big Doggy is.
	I just know you're pretty famous for comments on the internet.
	I am.
	I was asking, are you Big Doggy?
	No, I'm not Big Doggy.
	Okay.
	I don't know who Big Doggy is.
	He could be Brad.
	He could be Mark.
	Could be you.
	Could be you.
	Well, actually, please let him just ask you questions and answer his questions.
	I understand y'all have tension together, but if you could just let him ask questions and answer, that'd be great.
	I think we have a friendly relationship, don't you, Mr. Jones?
	We've had some fun in these depositions, haven't we?
	Yeah, so here's the thing is, I don't think you're Big Doggy.
	And the reason it is, is because isn't Big Doggy saying, look, why does Alex, and I'm going to quote Big Doggy here, let's get Big Doggy on the record.
	Why does Alex say he barely covered Sandy Hook?
	We know that isn't true.
	Alex should just tell the truth.
	He covered this extensively.
	Many, many shows dedicated to this story.
	Big Doggy's right, isn't he?
	You should just call Big Doggy as a witness.
	Well, I'm basically kind of doing that.
	I understand.
	I don't know anything about Big Doggy, so I can't speak for them.
	But he's right.
	No.
	In the aggregate, I barely covered Sandy Hook.
	How many videos do you do on Sandy Hook?
	I don't have that number in front of me.
	Truth is, it's probably around 100, isn't it?
	Well, if you count responding to you guys in your lawsuits, yes.
	Since then, I have covered it quite a bit.
	No, I'm talking between the dates before you were sued, from 2012 to 2018. About 100 videos, right?
	That's not the number I have, but I don't have those numbers exactly in front of me.
	Well, you only produced 55 of them to me, correct?
	You know how many you produced to me, right?
	Well, we produce about 55 videos a day.
	Right.
	Let's make sure that you understand the difference between what you mean by produce in your world, which means the collection of people who get together and create an audio-visual product which you distribute to the world, and the definition of produce in my world, which means that you give me things.
	And one of the things that you gave me was 55 videos on Sandy Hook.
	Okay.
	So you did cover it many, many times, correct?
	I have covered it, yes.
	Alright, so my question is, is if you're going to get on your show and say you barely covered Sandy Hook, and you only covered it a few times, if you're going to say that untrue stuff, why should this jury believe you about anything?
	Objection form.
	Mr. Jones, you've been in enough depositions now to know that when Mr. Reeves says objection form, you can go ahead and answer.
	You already know that.
	So I'm just going to go ahead and ask you the question again.
	If you get on your show and you say, I barely covered Sandy Hook, I only covered it a few times, and the truth is that you covered it many, many, many times, why should this jury believe you about anything?
	Objection to form.
	Go ahead and answer it again.
	Again, in my opinion, if you compare it to all the things we've covered and done in the last 10 years, it was a very small thing that we covered at limited points, but I do four hours a day, and so things can be cut up into different pieces.
	Many videos have been re-edited by others countless times, and so there's really no way for me to know.
	I just know that...
	That I've covered it a lot more since these lawsuits, and I've had to talk about it, some respond to it, than I did previous to that.
	And that it's not something that made my career.
	It's not something that made me money.
	It's not something that was my bailiwick, as you have said.
	Do you know what the most popular news story on your website in pageviews is?
	Do you know what it is?
	No.
	Okay.
	We may talk about that later.
	Let's come back to that.
	One of the things you just talked about is that you have, since this lawsuit has started, you've said some things about Sandy Hook, correct?
	I've said things about organizations and groups that want to get rid of the First Amendment trying to use me as a case to do it.
	Okay.
	Well, what I'm really talking about is you've said things about Sandy Hook itself, correct?
	I have talked about...
	I mean, I've talked about the coverage surrounding it and the lawsuits and that ongoing process, yes.
	Okay.
	Well, I actually want to ask you about a little something else.
	Hold on, back up for a second.
	One thing that you have said a few times is that in terms of when you did say that Sandy Hook was completely fake, synthetic, there were actors, etc., you've said that you've apologized for that, correct?
	Well, first off, I said I could see how people see that.
	And I also, when people said, please apologize to us, and I'd seen some of the anomalies that I think were wrong, That weren't what people were questioning online.
	Then I'm like, yeah, of course.
	I'm sorry for questioning Sandy Hook, but it wasn't intended, you know, in a false way.
	I mean, I really thought maybe it didn't happen.
	And then the attacks intensified and people began falsely saying that I was currently saying those things and then exaggerating what I'd said as a way, as a political weapon that Hillary Clinton was using to beat me over the head with it in 2016 on record and run national political acts.
	Uh, against me, playing edited tapes of me, talking about Sandy Hook.
	Okay, first of all, objection non-responsive.
	Second of all, you, Mr. Jones, you understand this jury is going to watch the videos of you saying unequivocally, not, I see how people could think this, but unequivocally saying Sandy Hook is completely...
	No, Mr. Jones, you don't get to interrupt me.
	You understand that, sir?
	You're here to answer questions for this jury And I want you to listen to the questions.
	You know this jury's going to watch videos of you saying multiple times, over and over again, Sandy Hook is completely fake, completely synthetic.
	It is not real, right?
	And you're going to sit here in this chair and say, oh, actually what I said, Actually, what I said is I could see how some other people could think it was fake.
	You know the jury's going to see those videos, and you know they're going to hear your words.
	Do you think that they should take you seriously whatsoever when they can see you saying the things you said you didn't say?
	I know.
	Objection form.
	Go ahead and answer that.
	I know that the jury's going to say, I always heard that people are innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven how guilty they choose, and that the system's actually scared for me to put on evidence.
	The truth is, deep down, I still have real questions about Sandy Hook and a lot of the anomalies and the weird stuff that's going on and the CIA visiting Adam Lanza before it happened and the FBI, that was in the mainstream news.
	And just all the bizarreness that went on, the public still has real questions, just like they do about Jussie Smollett or the Roe v.
	Wade baby that never actually died or WMDs in Iraq or just the Gulf of Tonkin or Operation Northwoods or Bubba Wallace or, you know, so many of these things that have happened.
	Most of these hate crimes and type things end up Being false flags.
	So I still, when I look at events, question it and say, could this be staged?
	And we look for telltale signs.
	And that's because genuinely, we've seen a lot of staged things and a lot of fraud.
	And so that is something that I question and something that I continue to do.
	I want to show you a video.
	this is gonna be exhibit two.
	I'm gonna show you a little clip of something you said on October 1st.
	All right, Mr. Johnson, here's a video of you.
	It's like the New York Times lying about WMDs on purpose and all other evil things.
	Oh, but I questioned one of the big events they hyped up.
	Because of a lot of the anomalies, and I have a right to question that.
	In fact, I for a while thought it didn't happen, then I thought it probably did, and now, seeing how synthetic everything is, and my original instinct, maybe Alex Jones is always right.
	I'm pretty much right 99% of the time, folks, and so are you.
	I mean, we all know this is easy to look at and see what's happening.
	All right So now you're back to feeding your audience this lie about Sandy Hook, right?
	objection form Correct?
	No, I'm proud of the video and I'm proud of my statement and it's full context that I'm sure we'll be able to show the jury when we have time too.
	They will see what I had to say and see that I'm speaking up for the American tradition of being able to challenge authority and official stories that almost always turn out to be at least partially wrong.
	Please keep that promise and play that whole October 1st video.
	Please keep that promise.
	Okay.
	But second, what has happened here is now that you got beat in court, now that a default's been granted...
	No, I didn't get beat in court.
	I got beat by an organized crime syndicate.
	Now that a default has been granted, you don't have to pretend anymore, do you?
	That's what's going on, right?
	Objection form.
	No, that's not what's happened.
	A death penalty sanction with all the stuff we produced, I believe, is a fraud.
	And it's because they're scared of the real evidence coming out and want to be able to tell a jury that this man is guilty.
	Now, you decide how guilty.
	Now, juries are supposed to decide if someone is guilty or not, period.
	Not how guilty they are.
	So you guys can try to do all your anti-free speech stuff.
	All you're doing is waking up the American people.
	Alright, so let's just be honest about what this is.
	You got mad after you got defaulted and you lashed out by saying that Sandy Hook was fake again.
	That's what happened.
	No, I have privately, I mean, I've told my crew and I've always said I really have real questions about this, but I can't 100% prove it was totally staged.
	But the CIA was definitely involved and that came out.
	And then I was told, again, By high-level folks in the CIA that it was staged back at the time.
	And so I went with them and also what Wolf King Halbig said and others.
	So I really believe that it should be looked at.
	You've repeatedly said that this, this court process, this lawsuit, what just happened, is all a sham because you turned everything over and that court still defaulted you anyway, right?
	Yes, Owen Schroer, you never sent him one deposition, one document request, one thing, and he was defaulted along with me.
	And if that isn't fraud, then nothing is.
	Okay, hold on.
	I may have to pull this order for you because I need you to understand this.
	Do you understand that in Mr. Neal Huston's case, there was a court order requiring Owen Schroer to appear for deposition?
	Do you know that?
	I know he appeared for deposition.
	Yesterday.
	You asked for it after the default.
	No, sir, Mr. Jones.
	Do you understand that there was an order in August 31st, 2018, requiring Owen Shroyer to appear for deposition?
	Did you know that?
	I don't know what you're talking about.
	Yeah, you didn't know that.
	So you got on your show without even knowing what the discovery was.
	Did you know in Mr. Posner's case and Mrs. Delarosa's case, you understand they're suing you, right?
	I've never said her name.
	I'm never going to say it.
	I'm not asking you about what you said.
	You know they're suing you, don't you?
	Correct?
	Let's just start there.
	You know there's a lawsuit.
	I know I didn't get a jury trial.
	I know a judge said I was guilty.
	I don't believe that I live in the Soviet Union.
	Mr. Jones, you're not answering the questions.
	Let's just admit it right now.
	You're not answering questions.
	I'm asking you, do you know that Leonard Posner and Veronique De La Rosa sued you?
	Do you know that?
	Yes.
	Do you know they served you discovery?
	I believe so, yes.
	Yeah, you know you didn't answer it?
	Ever?
	That's not true.
	It is true, Mr. Jones, and I bet you when you go back and you talk to your lawyers, you're going to find out a lot of things you don't know.
	I'm not going to tell you, Mr. Jones, not like you got a bad grade on your homework, like you didn't turn it in.
	You didn't know that?
	What were the depositions we had in 81,000 documents?
	That's in Mrs. Lewis' case.
	That's when Mr. Barnes came in.
	And we'll get to that.
	Let's talk about that in a minute.
	But first, let's take on Mr. Posner and Mrs. De La Rosa's case.
	You don't know that you never answered discovery, do you?
	You don't even know that.
	Correct?
	Again, I don't have the stuff in front of me.
	Right.
	Now let's talk about, in Mr. Heston's case, In that same order that required Mr. Schroer to show up to deposition, did you know it required you to show up to deposition and your company to talk about Mr. Heslin's defamation case?
	Did you know that?
	I mean, I've showed up for these, so I don't know what you're talking about.
	Yeah, you showed up for Ms. Lewis's case, didn't you?
	Again, I don't have this in front of me, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
	Right.
	How many depositions have you done before today with me?
	Two.
	Right.
	How many lawsuits, how many different plaintiffs are suing you in Texas?
	I don't know.
	Can you name the people who are suing you in Texas?
	Nope.
	Not surprising.
	You'd never name most of them to begin with.
	They're the ones attached to me.
	In Mrs. Lewis' case, back when you had Mr. Barnes handling discovery, things didn't go so smoothly there, did they?
	According to an affidavit written by you about Mr. Barnes, right?
	I don't have the affidavit in front of me.
	You remember writing an affidavit up in that Lafferty case basically saying, Mr. Barnes messed everything up and I've gotten rid of him?
	You remember that?
	I think I remember there was a memo.
	Yeah, you remember because you had to get on the phone with somebody in Connecticut.
	You didn't actually sign that affidavit.
	Somebody signed it with your permission.
	There was a big hub-a-loo about it.
	Do you not remember anything?
	I do remember something about that.
	Yeah, so you wrote an affidavit about Mr. Barnes, how he botched Discovery.
	Right?
	Correct?
	I believe so.
	Yeah, so okay, so now let's go through it here.
	You've got Mr. Posner and Mrs. Delarosa's case, where you didn't even answer discovery.
	You've got Mr. Heslin's defamation case, where you didn't show up for defamation, answer any discovery, or show up for deposition, neither did Mr. Schroyer, neither did the company.
	You've got Mrs. Lewis' case, where you wrote an affidavit saying your lawyer screwed it up.
	And you've got Mr. Heslin's IED case, which you just got sanctioned because you sent Rob Due to the deposition and he couldn't answer any questions.
	And if all of those things are true, when you get onto your show and you tell your show that this is all just a kangaroo court and you completely complied but got railroaded, that's not true.
	None of that's true.
	No, it is true.
	I mean, I remember giving you guys all sorts of stuff and you would say you hadn't been given it or you wasn't given the way you wanted it.
	I mean, look, it should be on the issues of what did I say on air?
	It should be maybe I asked you those questions and you didn't answer them, Mr. Jones.
	And that's not fair, is it?
	Mr. De La Rosa and Mr. Posner have the right to ask you questions, right?
	Do you agree with that or not?
	I mean, I've sat for these depositions.
	You have not sat for a deposition for Mrs. De La Rosa and Mr. Posner.
	And they have that right, don't they?
	I don't know.
	You don't think they deserve that?
	I don't deserve a jury trial.
	I'm found guilty by a judge.
	You remember when you told me in your November 2019 deposition, look, Mr. Bankson, I'm sorry, I could find those sources you were looking for if I had known to look for them, but I didn't know what you were talking about.
	But yes, now that you've told me, I can go find those sources.
	Do you remember telling me that?
	Yes.
	I imagine you probably watched the August 31st, 2021 default judgment hearing.
	I would bet that, right?
	No.
	Everything that you said about the judge and what went on in that hearing is second-hand.
	You didn't watch it?
	I read the newspaper articles and it's not what I've been doing.
	Everything you said about Mr. Reeves, that was second-hand about what he did in that hearing?
	I didn't watch the hearing.
	You remember talking on your show about Mr. Reeves, right?
	I remember talking about the newspaper articles.
	No, you remember talking on your show about the judge won't let you have the lawyer you want.
	So all you have is a bunch of new lawyers who roll over and go into court.
	And you did a mocking voice of Mr. Reeves.
	Do you not remember that?
	Well, I'd never...
	Yes.
	My point was is that he didn't know that...
	He wasn't ready for the case then because they weren't letting my lawyer in.
	And so that's why he wasn't ready.
	That's why he was new on the case.
	Yeah, new on the case, I understand.
	But you were mocking his performance in that courtroom, right?
	I mean, I guess you could say I wasn't happy with what the newspaper's rendition of that performance was.
	And I'm going to tell you right there, that's a good lawyer.
	That's a good lawyer.
	Now, I'm starting to wonder, when you don't know that you haven't even answered Discovery, I'm kind of wondering what has gone on before that.
	I don't know.
	I object to this line of question because the Discovery and the Posner case is the Free Speech Systems LLC. It's not to Alex Jones.
	The most...
	Okay.
	I'm just telling you.
	You know what the court ruled on that.
	I understand what...
	You know 100, but Brad, don't even raise that objection.
	That's in bad faith and you know it.
	That's not in bad faith.
	The court said unequivocally on the record, Alex Jones, Free Speech Systems, InfoWars, LLC are all to be considered one empty and all have equal and...
	No, she said that about the question related to certain information related to employees and things like that, but that is not what she said about discovery requests being one...
	One for free speech systems being discovery request for option.
	You're sitting here right now not knowing about, because I know now you are brand new counsel on the Fontaine case.
	There is a motion to compel that was granted in that case that describes all of this.
	That describes all of how Infowars LLC cannot get away with saying, no, those were to request free speech systems.
	And neither can Mr. Jones.
	And if you want to raise that objection and have it ruled on by the court, we'll do that.
	I'm just saying that the discovery that you are referencing in the Posner case was the discovery issued to Free Speech Systems LLC, not to Alex Jones individually.
	All right, you can say that.
	I'm just telling you.
	I can put that on the record.
	I want to make sure that...
	Let's, in fact, let's make the record clear, right?
	There was discovery served to the company that you were the sole owner and member of, correct?
	In these cases.
	That's happened.
	Do you understand what I'm saying?
	Yes, yes.
	Okay.
	You have access to every single document Free Speech Systems has.
	Correct?
	Is there any situation where I would ask you for a document in Free Speech Systems files and you would walk into the offices of Free Speech Systems and anybody in Free Speech Systems would tell you, no, Mr. Jones, you can't have that document.
	Is that something that could ever happen?
	I don't understand how to answer that question.
	Sure you do.
	If I'm telling you right now, if you walked into Free Speech Systems, is there any document you couldn't lay your hands on?
	Is there anything in the building, period, that you couldn't lay your hands on?
	No, I probably couldn't find anything I needed to.
	Okay.
	That's interesting, too, because you remember we talked in that last deposition about the Bloomberg email, where Bloomberg sent an email out to his people, said, get ready in the next 24 hours, there's going to be a big event.
	You remember that?
	That was a news story, yeah.
	Yeah, and then we talked about it for a while because you had brought that up to me.
	You were like, look, I don't have the email itself.
	That was something I was reporting on.
	There was a story about it and I was reporting on it.
	You remember that?
	I do.
	And then you remember you told me you could find it for me, right?
	Yeah, I believe I said that.
	And then you never gave it to me, did you?
	To be honest with you, Bankson, you don't really inhabit much of my mind.
	I know, yeah, you don't have much respect for any of this process, do you?
	None of it.
	I don't think you have respect for America or anything.
	You remember when I asked you to produce me records that shows that the school was closed?
	Do you remember me asking you about that?
	I do.
	And you remember you telling me you could give it to me?
	You remember that?
	I mean, I don't remember all the stuff in the deposition.
	Alright.
	You didn't give it to me though, did you?
	I don't remember.
	InfoWars is currently broadcast on over 200 radio stations.
	Yes.
	I don't have the number in front of me right now.
	If you had to ballpark it, what would you say?
	Something like that.
	Okay.
	How many over-the-air television stations?
	I don't have a number.
	Give me a ballpark on that.
	We're free to air.
	Anybody can pick it up.
	Right, but over-the-air television stations, there has to be an affiliate there who you're having a relationship with.
	Nope.
	You're going to tell me that somebody is broadcasting InfoWars programming over the air without you knowing about it?
	Absolutely.
	That's what free-to-air is.
	I don't think that's happening, Mr. Jones.
	You think there are things going out on FCC airwaves right now that are InfoWars broadcasts that in no way you knew about.
	You think that's happening?
	I just don't think you have a knowledge of what free-to-air means.
	Okay.
	I understand that, for instance, InfoWars is on certain cable packages, right?
	You may not even know about all the cable packages it's on, right?
	I don't.
	Because again, when you say it's free to air, you know what an OTT system is, right?
	I'm not really an engineer, but I just know I'm free to air.
	Right, so OTT over the top.
	I know you're not on it anymore, but say like a Roku box.
	It's possible that there are OTT systems out there that are playing InfoWars and you don't even know about it, right?
	That's a possibility, right?
	But you think the same thing is true over the year of television?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	I want to play you a piece of audio from your radio show.
	So there's not going to be any video to show you.
	But this is going to be Exhibit 3. That's
	true.
	That's a guesstimation.
	Conservative, right?
	It's probably a lot higher than that.
	Right?
	I don't know.
	I need to find an audience.
	Is somebody tuning in once a month, once a year, once a day?
	You're the one who said it, Mr. Jones.
	You tell me.
	It's a very short clip.
	I need to know the context.
	There's nothing else said about audience in that entire clip.
	Okay, well I haven't heard the whole clip.
	It's an advertisement for some sort of pill or something.
	I'm asking you right now, Is 10% of America an accurate representation of InfoWars listenership?
	That's true, right?
	They're a major media organization.
	I would say a larger percentage than that agree with my world view, but I would say 10% of the countries watch something I've done and agree with me.
	And then globally, another 10%, right?
	Let me put it this way.
	InfoWars programming is not bound by U.S. borders.
	The Internet's everywhere, right?
	And so globally, InfoWars also has a very large audience, right?
	Maybe 10% of the globe is listening to InfoWars, right?
	I would imagine 10% of the people...
	That's more hyperbole.
	The English-speaking world?
	Yeah, I would say so.
	Hyperbole is something you're very familiar with.
	Yes, talk radio is a big part of that.
	Exactly.
	When addressing that audience, your United States and global audience, would you ever intentionally lie to them?
	No.
	Okay, let me play you another clip.
	This is going to be, I'm going to play you Exhibit 4, and this is another audio clip from your show.
	I don't want to ever see Wolf Blitzer hurt because Wolf Blitzer is a human maggot.
	I mean, like, you really want to start a fight with us?
	He just can't help it.
	Yeah, you do, don't you?
	You're begging for it.
	You're begging.
	You're begging to get your guts stomped out hard.
	And I don't know if you ever had your guts stomped out, but you don't live after that happens.
	Not that I've ever stomped anybody's guts out.
	Actually, I have a couple times.
	It's not too nice.
	It takes people a long time to die.
	They're not as easy as they stomp their guts up, but that's no threat to Wolf Blitzer.
	How many people have you physically killed?
	None.
	You knew about Leonard Posner within weeks of the shooting, right?
	I think I knew of Leonard Posner.
	Right.
	He had complained to Infowars about its coverage within weeks of the shooting, right?
	Sometime later I learned of some correspondence between him and I think one of the crew members.
	So if anybody were to testify that you were involved in responding to Mr. Posner's correspondence, that wouldn't be true.
	Would you refresh my memory?
	I'm just saying if that happens.
	I'm just trying to...
	Say that again?
	If somebody were to testify that you were involved in the correspondence of Mr. Posner and writing the responses to him in the weeks after the shooting, that wouldn't be true?
	I'd have to go back.
	But I remember inviting him on the show.
	I think he emailed us one from memory on this.
	He emailed us and I invited him on the show.
	That's what I remember.
	Okay.
	It's fair to say that Leonard Posner and Free Speech Systems have had an unfriendly relationship over the years.
	No, I don't really follow what he does.
	And you've done shows about him.
	So you do follow him, correct?
	I mean, you have to refresh my memory.
	So, I will refresh your memory about what you know about Mr. Pothier.
	I'm going to show you about Marxist's Deuteronomy 5.
	Have you ever seen that before?
	I'm going to show you about Marxist's Deuteronomy 5.
	No, not that I remember.
	What is it?
	That's the sole document you produced to me just a couple, I guess a month or two ago, in regard to discovery requests for any documents you had regarding Mr. Posner.
	That's the sole document that was in that folder labeled Posner.
	That's it.
	And that, you will agree with me, appears to be a very large, looks to be about a 187-page comprehensive background report on Mr. Posner.
	Correct?
	I never ran a background report on Posner.
	I've never even seen this.
	I understand that you probably never even saw that.
	Did someone email us this and then we opened it?
	I don't know, Mr. Jones.
	You gave it to me.
	What am I supposed to tell you about it?
	I don't know.
	You tell me.
	That's why I got you.
	I did not.
	I mean, we just go through the email, most of it even unopened, and just send you guys everything.
	This isn't an email, is it?
	I would imagine.
	Well, I've never run a background thing on Posner.
	All right.
	Well, one thing we can agree on, because you look at the bottom of that document, it says FSSTX.085544, correct?
	That's the Bates numbers you all use when you give me documents, right?
	So this document right here came from InfoWars corporate files.
	I thought you said we haven't given you any documents.
	Earlier you said we were defaulted.
	We gave you nothing.
	We didn't even respond.
	You gave me documents in the Lewis case in response to documents in the air.
	Listen, I'm just telling you, I've never looked at this.
	That's not what I'm asking you, Mr. Jones.
	But I remember hearing in the news about Somebody in Florida doing a background thing on him, and so I figure somebody might have sent us this.
	I'm just guessing.
	I shouldn't guess.
	I don't know.
	Yeah, do you think you should be guessing in this deposition?
	No, I just said, you're right.
	I don't know what this is.
	So let's not do that anymore.
	But the first thing that I'm asking you, the only question that I was actually trying to ask you, is it has a Bates number on there that is the Bates number you put on your documents that you give to me, right?
	I think, yes.
	I think this is ours, right?
	You answer the question.
	Yes, this is ours.
	Okay, so one thing we can agree on is that in the files of Free Speech Systems is a 187-page investigator's comprehensive report on Leonard Posner.
	According to you?
	No, no, no, no, Mr. Jones.
	No, sir.
	According to you, I want your testimony.
	I told you I've never seen this before.
	I don't care if you've seen it before.
	Okay.
	I'm saying you put, this is your Bates number on the bottom, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay, this came from InfoWars corporate files.
	Okay.
	So the company does follow Mr. Posner, correct?
	No, I don't know if this is out of her email or what.
	What is Honor Network?
	You know what that is, right?
	I think that's a fundraising mechanism that he's involved in.
	I have heard of that.
	A fundraising mechanism.
	Let's start, because I know you're not guessing, because you just said you weren't going to guess.
	So where did you hear that?
	Who told you that?
	I can't remember exactly.
	There's been news articles about the tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars raised by the Sandy Hook families.
	Something called Sandy Hook Promise, right?
	And some controversy about where that money goes.
	Yeah.
	So I have heard about that.
	Yeah.
	Does Leonard Posner have anything to do with Sandy Hook Promise?
	Like I told you, I've heard of him in the Honor Network.
	I've heard that, and I've heard the other name he said.
	I don't know.
	You're just conflicting.
	I mean, you heard some random stuff, and now you're trying to smear Mr. Posner with it, right?
	He has nothing to do with San Diego Promise, does he?
	It's actually formed.
	You're asking me questions, so I don't know.
	Yeah, and I'm asking you, what do you know about Honor Network?
	And you just started telling me some stuff, but it's not anything you actually know, right?
	You're just telling me things.
	It's actually formed.
	No, I told you that I heard that he's involved with that.
	I've never talked about it.
	Let's go back to what you actually know about Honor Network.
	What is Honor Network, as far as you know?
	I've been told it's something associated with Mr. Posner, a charity.
	InfoWars has published articles talking about the Honor Network, correct?
	I don't know that.
	InfoWars has told its audience that Mr. Posner was behind Honor, correct?
	There's so much information we've put out.
	I can't without it in front of me.
	Do you have it again in front?
	Refresh my memory?
	I'm here to ask you questions.
	I don't know.
	Yeah, then that's what I need.
	I need, I don't know.
	That's what I want.
	If you have an answer and you either know or you don't know, just tell me.
	Okay.
	That's how it works.
	Just give me type 5. Well, that ain't gonna work because that's how they produced it, huh?
	Yeah, we'll save that for another day.
	Do you remember a video, not made by InfoWars, but one you chose after it got removed from YouTube to put on the InfoWars website, and the video's name is We Need To Talk About Sandy Hook.
	Do you remember that video?
	No.
	Okay.
	Do you know who Independent Media Solidarity Group is?
	No.
	Okay.
	Do you know who Peter Klein is?
	No.
	Okay.
	So as far as InfoWars hosting of...
	Let me put it this way.
	Do you remember what the first YouTube strike against Infowars over Sandy Hook was?
	No.
	Okay.
	I want to talk to you about what you think is okay or not okay to do as it concerns Mr. Posner.
	And so what I want to do is pretend for the moment that I am going to play the role of Infowars reporter, editor, writer, something like that.
	And I've come to your office and I've said, hey Mr. Jones, I want to publish something on the Infowars website.
	And what I want to publish is the details Of Mr. Posner's business.
	I want to publish his business filings.
	I want to publish the address of all of that.
	Can I do that?
	Is that okay with you?
	I'm not going to answer hypothetical questions.
	So in your day-to-day business, let me just put it this way, in your day-to-day business, when reporters come to you and ask you if they can do something that they haven't yet done, those are questions you cannot answer to them.
	No, I can't answer your hypothetical question.
	No, I'm saying if I'm a reporter, I'm not asking you if my hypothetical, it's not me asking the question.
	I'm saying if a reporter walked into your office and wanted to publish the address details of Mr. Posner's business, could they do that?
	What would you say to them?
	It would depend on the context of it.
	There are situations where that would be okay.
	Because it depends on the context, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	What about his home?
	What about an address that was not his business address?
	Just an address, like his home address, his mailing address, any of that?
	Is that the same answer?
	It would depend on the actual circumstances.
	Okay.
	Do you believe that at any point in the past, say between 2012, 2016, Have there been circumstances that have arisen that would put into your mind the feeling that it is justified to publish Mr. Posner's personal details?
	I'd have to have you give me any specifics.
	Well, I'm asking you, in your memory of these entire events, do you remember any specific situations that you believe would justify publishing Mr. Posner's personal information?
	I never told my crew members or anybody to go to anybody's houses or do any of that.
	I remember some controversy on the internet about his, like a U-Haul parking lot where he claimed he lived, and we simply pointed out, I think Rob Dew did, I'm going from memory here, something to do with, oh, no, this report saying this commentary on somebody else's report and then pointing out that it was a U-Haul.
	That's what my memory, and that's what I remember.
	You know U-Haul has mailboxes at it, right?
	A lot of U-Haul places have P.O. boxes.
	Did you know that?
	I think so.
	Okay, so that's not weird, is it?
	Somebody have an address at a U-Haul for a P.O. box?
	That's not weird, is it?
	I mean, I answered you as much as I know.
	No, that's not what I'm asking about the facts.
	I'm just asking right now.
	If somebody has a mailing address at a P.O. box at a U-Haul, that's not weird.
	I think we said that, yeah.
	Okay, so the point of your broadcast was to say that that's not weird?
	I'd have to see it again.
	I vaguely remember it.
	Like you were trying to defend Mr. Posner is what you're saying.
	I vaguely remember something about it.
	Now, Mr. Posner started in all of this privately complaining to Infowars.
	You agree with that?
	He made a private complaint to you?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And he was very polite about it, wasn't he?
	It's been a long time since I saw the email, but I think so.
	Okay.
	And when that didn't work, he complained again, but this time to YouTube.
	You know about that, right?
	I really don't remember.
	You know Mr. Posner complained to YouTube, right?
	No.
	I remember people said he was going around getting a lot of stuff taken down all over the place.
	It made you mad, didn't it?
	No.
	No, actually, I told my crew members, Sandy Hook's a tar baby, stop covering it.
	And then it would just always come back like a disease.
	And so, I mean, long before you guys ever sued me, I would scream at people if they even talked about it.
	Because it's a tar baby.
	And that's why I've told you I've just had to compartmentalize that because it's just like constant.
	I'm the Sandy Hook man.
	I killed the kids.
	I had people in Florida just a few months ago come up and go, you killed those kids.
	And I went, no, I didn't.
	Just whatever.
	People don't know who Adam Lanza is.
	They think I killed the kids.
	So whatever.
	I mean, I just, you know, you guys use a deplatforming.
	People think I killed the kids.
	All this stuff.
	Just do your worst.
	What was my question?
	I've answered your question.
	You don't know what it was.
	You were just talking.
	Right?
	No, I didn't know what your question was.
	Right, and so you just started talking because you didn't even know what the question was.
	Because it wasn't a clear question.
	Because you don't care, correct?
	Because it wasn't a clear question.
	No, I do care.
	I care a lot.
	Hold on.
	Stop.
	There's a court reporter.
	There's no way she can take down both of y'all I'm saying.
	Everybody take a breath.
	Please let him ask you questions.
	Please take a second and then answer his questions and let's try to do this as reasonable a method as possible.
	I would appreciate it if you would just ask your questions instead of laughing and instilling your own personal opinions about his testimony.
	I would appreciate if you would just ask your questions so that he can answer them.
	You're more than welcome to disagree with him and point those out.
	But your personal opinion and his answers is something that is not appropriate.
	And so I would just ask you if you could please ask your questions, let him answer them.
	I'm not going to be in this deposition and pretend that what is happening here is normal.
	I am not going to guard my reactions to the utter absurdity of what is happening.
	That's not going to happen.
	This man is clearly not at all Showing any respect to the process of answering these questions.
	And I am not, in any way, I'm going to stay civil during this deposition, but I am not going to be met with this kind of absurdity and not react to it.
	That won't happen.
	I will give you the instruction, Mr. Jones, that if you don't understand my question, if you think it's not a clear question, don't answer the question.
	Ask me to clarify the question.
	If you answer a question from now on, I'm going to assume that you understood the question.
	Do you understand that?
	Yes, I do.
	I'm going to object to all of that sidebar, and when you're ready to get down off your soapbox and ask your questions, please proceed.
	Brad, this is not a soapbox.
	You understand what's happening in this room.
	You understand what happened in this room yesterday.
	I want you to ask your questions so that we can proceed with this deposition.
	That's what I would like.
	I would like you to not get into an argumentative session with my client.
	I would like you to ask your questions so that he can answer them.
	I would appreciate that.
	Alright, we'll give it another try.
	You remember a video entitled "Sandy Hook Victim Dies Again in Pakistan"?
	You remember that?
	Yes.
	Tell me everything you can remember about what the claims made in that video were.
	I don't remember enough about it to talk about it.
	Mr. Posner was not happy with that video.
	Do you remember that?
	I don't remember anything with Mr. Posner.
	Okay.
	You understand that the Sandy Hook victim who was alleged to have died again in Pakistan is Noah Posner.
	You know that right?
	I believe people in Pakistan had a photo of him at the bombing or something.
	I can't answer your question so I don't remember.
	Okay.
	Now when it comes to Honor Network, Attempting to have content removed, complaining to YouTube, things like that.
	You've talked specifically on your show about how you didn't like that, right?
	This has happened over the last 10 years.
	Sure.
	Do you want vague answers, best of my memory?
	Yeah, Mr. Jones, I expected you to somewhat, after now your third deposition, to maybe try to get acquainted with the facts of this case and the claims being made against you so that you could meaningfully testify about them.
	That's what I... I mean, honestly, I didn't actually expect that, but that's what I would normally expect.
	But what I'm asking you right now, yes, is based purely on your memory.
	Do you have any memory that you ever got on your show and said about the people who were having content removed that you didn't like that?
	I do remember in general talking about that something like, this was like five, six years ago, right?
	I mean, I think it went on a lot longer than that, Mr. Jones, but some of it's in the past.
	I mean, I'm really against censorship, yes.
	Yeah, I get that.
	You called them bullies too, you remember that?
	I can't specifically remember that.
	You remember saying you were going to fight back?
	I don't specifically remember that, but I do fight back against censorship.
	You remember you said they stirred up a hornet's nest?
	You remember you told me you're not a guy to mess with?
	Maybe you have the clip.
	Show it to me.
	No, I'm asking you, Mr. Jones.
	Of course I have the clip.
	I'm asking you.
	Do you remember saying that?
	No.
	If you did say that, not a great thing to say to parents who are upset who have lost their children, right?
	Objection form.
	I mean, listen, the American people are tired of being blamed for shootings And being told that all gun owners are to blame for things.
	And so the emotional response of people is to basically be in denial.
	And I've explained that psychology to you.
	And so I don't remember all that stuff.
	Well, I didn't ask you if you remembered it.
	My last question was, if you were to tell parents who were complaining because they didn't like seeing pictures of their dead children on your television show, if you were to tell those parents, I'm not a person to mess with.
	That's not a very good thing to tell them, right?
	If that happened.
	I don't know the context.
	Objection to form.
	Now you know the answer to the question.
	I mean, I don't know the context of what you're saying.
	What do you mean by context?
	I don't understand what that means.
	Can you help me clarify?
	All I remember was telling my employees at least five years ago, don't talk about Sandy Hook.
	Six years ago.
	I'm not, again, Mr. Jones, I had just told you, I'm not asking you about the past or what you remember.
	I'm asking you, if there were parents, and they had lost children, and their photos had been on your show, like not even Sandy Hook parents, just any parents, there had been parents, they'd lost children, grieving poor parents, and they complained, maybe rightly or wrongly, right?
	Like maybe you should ignore those complaints, maybe you shouldn't, right?
	Whatever it is, if you told them, I'm not a guy to mess with, that wouldn't be a good thing, correct?
	Objection form.
	I would need to know the context.
	I don't want to speculate, but I remember if they're on TV showing pictures and saying, we want to take your guns, and then people say, we're sick of this, well, then we should be able to talk about people that have made themselves public figures.
	But I don't know the hypothetical circumstance.
	Exactly.
	So Ben, when we're talking, it depends on the context, doesn't it?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So there are situations.
	In which parents who have lost their children, who have their pictures of their dead children shown on your show, and complained about that, there are contexts in which it would be totally fine with you to say, I'm not a person to mess with.
	Right?
	No, no.
	I mean, I don't remember the exact...
	I can't answer something that I don't know what you're talking about.
	I'm asking you, is there a possible context where that would be okay?
	Or there is never a possible context where that would be okay?
	See, I might have been talking about YouTube itself or something.
	I don't know.
	That's how your interpretation...
	I'm not asking you about any specific statement you've ever made.
	I'm asking you again, hypothetically, not even about Sandy Hook parents.
	I'm asking you, are there situations and contexts where telling them I'm not a person to mess with is okay, or is there never a context for that?
	I think people have a free speech right to say don't mess with me.
	I'm going to show you what I've marked as Exhibit 6.
	Now, when...
	Oh yeah, sure.
	When you see an email that begins from Jones, that's your dad, right?
	You get emails from your dad, right?
	Not very often, but yes.
	Okay, so that's your dad, right?
	I'm not sure.
	Yes, it says David Jones right here.
	Right, okay.
	We're going to read through the whole thing together, okay?
	You see at the bottom there is a label that says Hesslin 19-4651-000862.
	You see that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	This is an email dated September 6, 2018, right?
	Yes.
	That's after you were sued.
	Yes.
	The subject line, well, let's first to it's who it's from.
	It's from your dad to Rob Dude, right?
	Correct?
	Yes.
	What does your dad do for you?
	He doesn't do anything anymore.
	What did your dad do for you at the time of this email?
	He was doing some HR and helping with product development.
	How did your dad go from being a dentist to HR? How'd that happen?
	He'd done HR before for the dental companies.
	Okay.
	So then you decided to bring him on when?
	Oh, 10 years ago.
	Okay, so approximately 2011, that time period, is when your dad joined the company.
	Does he have a managerial role at the company?
	Can he tell employees what to do?
	Objection form.
	Can you please clarify the timeline?
	Yeah, when he was working there.
	That's all I have to say.
	Yes.
	In this email to Rob Dewey says, read along with me so you can make sure I'm reading it correctly.
	Actually, can you go ahead and read this email for me?
	I want to make sure that you...
	I had some complaints about how I read an email yesterday, so I want you to go ahead and read it for me.
	The Sandy...
	Okay, this is from Jones.
	Subject, please help me find and get a copy of the video of the U-Haul store.
	We want to let people know where they live.
	Okay.
	Date, Thursday 6 September 2018 11-33-57-0500 CDT. The Sandy Hook attorneys are claiming that we tried to expose their addresses.
	Evidently there is a video of that claim that shows that was not what we were doing.
	Mr. Enoch wants a copy of that since it's no longer available on YouTube.
	He thinks it and the apology should be made part of a, what really happened, leading spot to be used in public relations, re-education.
	David Jones for Alex.
	Thanks David Jones for Alex.
	Thanks David Jones for Alex.
	Alright, so first of all, Is there a video that shows that that's not what you were doing?
	Do you know if that was ever discovered?
	Yes, I think there's a video of that.
	Okay.
	So, if I wanted to have a video that shows that what you were not trying to expose their addresses, you would be able to identify that video for me?
	I mean, I'm trying to guess what this email is about, but yes.
	Okay.
	In truth, we know now that those addresses were aired.
	We can agree at least on that, right?
	The U-Haul?
	Is that what you're talking about?
	Actually, multiple addresses, but yes.
	I do remember Rob Dew doing a show mentioning some of that.
	You were on that show.
	You remember that, right?
	I haven't watched the video in a while.
	Okay.
	You remember right after Rob Dew showing all that?
	I guess you don't remember saying that, I guess I'm going to have to go investigate them down in Florida?
	You don't remember that?
	I do remember saying that.
	Yeah, OK.
	Down at the bottom, let's go ahead and get this too.
	This has a label that says Hesslund194651-00862, is that correct?
	Mm-hmm.
	Okay, so this came from Free Speech Systems corporate files?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Hello?
	No.
	When Neil Hesslund Okay, first of all, you know who Neil Hustlin is, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So when Neil Hustlin appeared on Megyn Kelly's show in 2017, do you remember that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	When he went on there and said he was upset by the things you were saying about Sandy Hook, did you believe him?
	I thought it was all done very theatrically in a very canned way, but I do think parents have pain over their children, but it was all done and had an infomercial feel to it.
	And that's my view of it.
	Look, I don't care really what you think about Megyn Kelly or NBC News run by the largest weapons manufacturer in the world.
	You know, like, I don't care.
	Yes, they make incredibly edited videos.
	It's a complete...
	I mean, I'm sure if you've ever seen an NBC production, lights and cameras and staging, they set up scenes, they do all their stuff.
	I know that.
	I know it looks like a video.
	I'm not asking about NBC or Megyn Kelly.
	I just want to know about Neil Heslin.
	Did you believe him?
	Objection four.
	Believe him about what?
	When he said he was upset about the things you said about Sandy Hook.
	Did you believe him?
	Yes, I believe him.
	Okay.
	You understood that if InfoWars were...
	Okay, so let me go back to the...
	Let me get you clear on your date.
	I want to take you back to the night that you first saw that Megyn Kelly interview.
	Which probably was a surprise for you considering that it was not what she represented it to you to be, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And on that night when you saw that video, and you saw Mr. Heslin saying those things, I want to take you back to that date, okay?
	And at that date, you understood that if InfoWars were to make a video saying Mr. Heslin could not have held his son, that would be very upsetting to Mr. Heslin.
	You understood that.
	No, I did not understand that.
	Okay.
	Who do you know sitting here today who made the choice for Owen Troyer to put those claims by Jim Fetzer on the air about Neil Huston after the Megyn Kelly interview?
	Do you know who did that?
	It was a live show.
	See, it's not a video we made.
	It was a live show, and I believe he read a Zero Hedge article.
	He just read an article.
	Right, about Jim Fetzer stuff, right?
	You remember that?
	I believe he was in the article.
	You're right.
	And you understand that a video was made for that and uploaded to YouTube on June 26, 2017?
	Would you have any reason to dispute that?
	I'm not sure we even had our YouTube channel then.
	But you did.
	You lost it in 2018. You also know that a month after Mr. Sawyer made that video, you then took that five-minute video from the live show and played it on your show again.
	You understand that?
	You're being sued for that.
	Yes, I guess.
	Okay.
	So, whose decision was it, if you know, for him to basically give more air to Mr. Fetzer's claims?
	Whose decision was that?
	It was Owen's decision.
	Okay.
	See, the thing is, I talked to him a couple days ago, and he said, no, he didn't read it at all or research it.
	Somebody put it in front of him and told him to do it.
	He doesn't remember who, but he doesn't do that.
	I mean, he doesn't research stuff himself.
	Somebody puts it in front of him.
	So let's try to go at it this way.
	If Owen's going to be doing that video that day...
	I don't agree with that statement.
	Okay.
	Well, I mean, again, talk to Owen, because he testified a couple days ago, right?
	But what I'm trying to figure out is...
	If Owen's in that studio that day, because he's guesting for you that day, how many people are in the studio right then to make that show happen?
	Like, how many people does it take to get an Infowars episode live going?
	Counting the hosts?
	Yeah, counting Owen, right.
	About five.
	Okay, so who are the other four people?
	Like, not their names.
	Like, what job functions are they fulfilling?
	What are their roles?
	Yeah, exactly.
	You've got a producer, and in radio that doesn't mean like movies, they pay for it and run it, which means they set up guests and make sure that the show runs, but they don't actually tell people generally what to do.
	And then you'll have a camera operator, you'll have a board operator, and then you'll have one person researching, grabbing clips and news articles, another person running a video switcher.
	Sometimes there might be an extra person in there creating a radio log of just basic points that the person was making on air in case they ever want to go back and find any clips from the show.
	Like when you have a guest on, they'd say, oh, that was interesting the guest said that, marked that, and then at the end of the day I'll look at the log sometimes and say, oh, let's put that video out.
	Alright, so let's talk about those people in this room.
	The camera person, the camera operator, In general, it's not going to have a lot of influence on the content that goes on to the show, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Same true for the sound engineer on the sound board?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Same true for the logger, right?
	Yes.
	So the only two people in the room who are probably going to have any influence on what goes in front of the anchor to say are the producer and the person who's researching, checking clips, and that sort of thing, right?
	No, no.
	The way it works is the host is telling people what to play and what articles.
	The hosts run the shows.
	So Owen should have been the one who found the Zero Hedge article.
	That's what you're thinking?
	That's how it would normally work?
	He would have found that article?
	Hundreds of articles.
	This is the way I do it.
	Other people don't do it this way.
	I have my own basically producer, booker, everything.
	So the way I sit there and I print hundreds of articles or I direct people to and I just say go to these ten sites and print everything on it because I like to have a physical copy and then Other people there have chosen to do it the same way.
	And then just constantly more information is coming out as the day goes on.
	And we might...
	It's kind of like a parrot's eating.
	It might throw away 90% of the stuff it's put in front of it and then it sits there and just decides what it wants to eat.
	But the radio hosts run the show.
	It's a radio show on TV. It's a radio show.
	It's not journalism.
	It's not in the main.
	It's just like Howard Stern or it's just like Rush Limbaugh.
	And you're playing clips, you're covering articles, you're giving your opinion on things.
	Okay.
	Yeah, well, let me, the last line of questioning on that is, so I think a short way to do this too is to then say, of the people in that room who can have control over the content or are likely to have control over the content, it's the host, producer, and researcher, correct?
	Researcher.
	I messed up then.
	Let me go back because I said the wrong thing.
	Let me back that up.
	At one point you told me of the people in the room was producer, camera, sound, a person doing radio log, and then somebody who does pulls articles and researches articles and clips and gets the clips ready.
	Does that person have a name?
	A job role?
	What is that called?
	I come in.
	The host sends generally to the producer by email, by text, however they want.
	Hey, we're going to play these clips or grab me this clip.
	So that person is less likely to have control over the content.
	That content is almost certainly being, usually being sent to them and saying, hey, can you pull this and get it ready for the show?
	Is that kind of more...
	Yes.
	The host is the captain of the ship.
	Gotcha.
	Sometimes they pop in here and go, hey, there's a standoff at the UN headquarters.
	And I go, okay, give me an article on that.
	And then...
	We're like, okay, NBC's reporting.
	It looks like it's a guy who wants to be killed by a cop.
	And we hope everything ends peacefully.
	It's been 30 seconds on it.
	And the next thing is, oh, look, a federal court just ruled that they can't be forced inoculations.
	Oh, look, an oil tanker just crashed.
	I mean, we're just talking about what's in the news.
	Okay.
	All right, he wants to take a break.
	Thanks.
	We're on record at 11.38 a.m.
	Recording in progress.
	We're back on the record at 11.56 a.m.
	Mmm. Mm-hmm.
	Sitting here today, do you have an opinion?
	Do you have a thought, a conclusion about whether Mr. Huston was telling the truth about holding his dead son?
	Look convincing to me.
	It wasn't as convincing to you though in 2017, right?
	I'm not sure what your question is again.
	Okay.
	You weren't as sure in 2017 that Mr. Heslin held his child as you are today.
	You're talking about Owen, not me.
	The issue you're talking about with Owen is Owen.
	No, I'm talking about you getting on your show in July 20th, 2017 and saying the stuff I heard was they never let them have their kids.
	You thought Mr. Hesley wasn't telling the truth in 2017. You were not sure of that, correct?
	I was believing that Sandy Hook happened, and then I saw the Megyn Kelly piece, and everything I said was edited, the opposite of basically what I intended to say, and then it looked so scripted, the way everybody was like, The whole thing looked like a TV production, like a soap opera.
	I was like, this looks so real.
	Personally, I had questions about that.
	I did see that article after Owen covered it, and it did conflict with what the coroner said.
	Again, I mean, I want to believe him.
	I believe his son died.
	I believe mass shootings happened.
	And I also believe we have a right to question events because sometimes we're lied to about them.
	And that's where I stand.
	I said that to Megyn Kelly.
	I said, I believe that this attack happened and I can understand what hurt people's feelings.
	And then she's like, well, let's go into the anomalies.
	Let's go into why you questioned it so I can be the villain again.
	And then you just run into this whole...
	If Sandy Hook itself is not synthetic, then how all the bureaucracy and the media and the system came in and got it, and that made it synthetic.
	And so that's why people then, that's my thinking process, really started to think it probably didn't happen.
	Objection, non-responsive.
	Back in 2017, you had information.
	You had seen information.
	That caused you to doubt whether Mr. Heslin really held his kid, correct?
	Yes, I did see an article questioning it.
	Yeah, and that information was raised by Mr. Fetzer, correct?
	I don't have the article in front of me.
	Okay.
	In 2017, InfoWars, the company itself, Had an understanding that there was issues with Mr. Fetzer's credibility.
	Correct?
	Objection 4. I mean, I can't really speak to Mr. Fetzer's credibility.
	Okay.
	Well, other people in your company have spoken to Mr. Fetzer's credibility to you, correct?
	I don't recall.
	You don't recall Paul Watson talking to you about Jim Fetzer?
	No.
	Okay.
	If somebody, Paul Watson in 2015, is he your chief reporter by then?
	Is he an editor?
	What is he?
	Do you remember?
	Yeah, he was the head editor of InfoWars, the articles, the site itself.
	Okay.
	And he also did some hosting duties too, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	If Mr. Watson, let's just say again, That Mr. Watson, somebody whose opinion you respect, I would assume, correct?
	Yes.
	Somebody you will, if he brings you something, you'll listen to it, right?
	Yes.
	You may not always agree with Mr. Watson, right?
	Yes.
	But you'll listen to him.
	Yes.
	If Mr. Watson had come to you in 2015 and told you, Alex, Jim Fetzer's batshit crazy, would you have listened to him?
	Would you have taken that into consideration?
	Yes.
	Would you have looked into Mr. Fetzer to make your own determination if he was batshit crazy before relying on him again?
	I don't remember the whole the transit the the the discussion Okay.
	But being the responsible journalist you are, if you had received information that called into doubt Mr. Fetzer's credibility, you would check in and verify that before ever relying on him again, correct?
	I can't talk about the hypotheticals that you're discussing.
	And I already told you that 98% of what we do is cover news in the public domain and give our opinion and commentary.
	And so I'm not a journalist at the Wall Street Journal that writes one-year-long investigative journalist reports.
	And so I'm a radio talk show host that puts the show on TV. Now, I understand you don't do year-long reports.
	I understand that.
	You do five years of coverage on Sandy Hook.
	I understand that.
	And it's sporadic, right?
	You're not engaged every day going into the office researching Sandy Hook during those years, are you?
	No, it's continued to...
	To come up in the press and then people would call in about it and things.
	But I've, for at least five, six years, told Crew, I do not want to cover it.
	And that I think Sandy Hook happened.
	I still had anomalies.
	I had real questions.
	I genuinely questioned it.
	And the statements that I made it up because I would get publicity off of it are false.
	That is false.
	Have you ever had a chance to either read or watch Paul Watson's deposition?
	No, I've not read it or watched it.
	Okay.
	There's something he said in that deposition.
	I want to run it by you.
	Okay?
	Which is that Mr. Watson testified that you don't feel bound by journalistic ethics.
	Would you agree with that?
	No, I don't agree with that turn of phrase.
	I do have ethics, and then I want to tell the truth, and I try to tell the truth, but I'm definitely wrong sometimes to say that I don't feel bound by Journalistic ethics because I am bound by ethics.
	I mean, I disagree with my interpretation of that because I do have ethics.
	Okay, so Paul Watson also testified that he did not believe that how you acted regarding Sandy Hook was decent or right.
	How would you respond to that?
	Well, I'm not running a cult, and so the people that work there, we disagree.
	We have debates on air.
	We had debates about Sandy Hook, and I think we concluded that we thought it probably happened well before I was sued.
	And so, yeah, we're a radio show, just like guys at a barber shop arguing and debating.
	That's what it is.
	It's like a barber shop on TV. Well, so what I want to ask you now is, are you going to tell this jury That the way you acted regarding Sandy Hook was decent and right.
	Section 4. I mean, I have a First Amendment right to question big events.
	I did not kill the children at Sandy Hook.
	And the families have sued the police and the teachers and the government and Remington and everybody else.
	And we're 10 years later, and I'm not the one bringing up Sandy Hook.
	I'm not the one living off Sandy Hook.
	I'm not the one, you know, who is in the main doing the things people claim I've done or, quote, are continuing to do.
	And I've been beaten over the head whether it's been used to de-platform me, it's been used to demonize me, it's been used to try to sue us.
	I mean, we know the families have said that we want to destroy Alex Jones.
	We want him off air.
	We want him silenced.
	Which of my clients said that?
	I would have to go pull it back up, but I've seen the quotes in the press.
	None of my clients have said that to Mr. Jones.
	You're just making stuff up right now.
	And I prefer it if you wouldn't just smear my clients in the middle of this deposition.
	No objection form.
	No one said it was your clients.
	Yeah, he's making a very big impression here.
	You're being really vague about it.
	So that's why I'm asking you this question.
	None of my clients said that, did they?
	I can go pull up news articles where some of the Sandy Hook families have been quoted as saying this.
	I'm not asking you that, Mr. Jones.
	I'm asking you a very specific question.
	Not some of the Sandy Hook parents.
	I'm asking you.
	Did any of my clients say that?
	I wasn't specifically talking about your clients.
	Then the answer is no, correct?
	I'll have to go do a search.
	But they've said quite a bit.
	But you have no problem just saying it out loud in this deposition, right?
	What I'm trying to get at is you have no basis sitting there right there in this chair.
	That my client said any of those things.
	Client said what?
	Any of the things you just said.
	Repeat them back.
	That they want to destroy Alex Jones?
	Take Alex Jones off the air?
	Take him off the air?
	Make him pay?
	Oh, well that.
	Oh, Mr. Jones, we're here to collect a debt.
	100% we're going to make you pay.
	But nobody here is talking about destroying you or taking you off the air is the goal of this lawsuit.
	Oh, really?
	Are they?
	That's what I'm asking you.
	Do you have information sitting here right now in this chair under oath that that's true, that my client said that?
	Do you?
	I have seen news articles with quotes like that, and if you want, I can put out a later pull of specifics for you.
	From my clients?
	That's your testimony under oath?
	No, I didn't say from your clients.
	That's what I'm asking you, Mr. Jones.
	In this chair you're sitting right now under oath, you have no information that my client said the kind of comments you just referred to.
	Correct.
	What were the comments again?
	I'm done answering your questions, Mr. Jones.
	I'm already giving you a lot of latitude by trying to do that for you.
	Can you answer my question or not?
	You can say I can't answer that question.
	Sitting here, I don't have the specifics.
	There we go.
	Thank you.
	16 and 17 out of here.
	Okay.
	Who's David Knight?
	David Knight is a...
	Talk show host.
	Does he work for you right now?
	No.
	Okay.
	He did work for you recently?
	Yes.
	When did he leave the company?
	I remember correctly about a year ago.
	And then he's not come back in any way?
	Are you all still doing videos with David Knight?
	No.
	Okay.
	David Knight did not...
	There was some tension between David Knight and Dr. Steve Pachenik.
	You'd agree with that?
	I mean, I remember some.
	David Knight and Steve Pchenik did not get along, right?
	I guess.
	David Knight was incredibly critical of the thing Steve Pchenik was saying about Sandy Hook, correct?
	No, I don't remember that.
	Okay.
	Can you tell me why David Knight isn't with the company anymore?
	David was saying that he was being censored and no one was censoring him and he was just unhappy.
	And so I fired him.
	I'm going to put in front of you what I marked as Exit 7.
	Now one of the things you'll notice about this document is you look down in the bottom corners, there's no numbers, are there?
	Bottom corners of the document.
	No.
	Blank page?
	Alright.
	So this is, I'm going to represent to you, this is a document that was produced to me by your former lawyers that has no Bates number on it.
	Okay?
	So I don't have an identification number for you.
	But looking at this email, with David Knight's name to and from, that's one of your employees at that time?
	2017?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And I'm going to go ahead and read this for you here.
	This is the date.
	Is June 19th, 2017?
	Mm-hmm.
	Okay.
	You remember that the Megyn Kelly interview was in the summer of 2017, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And in fact, one of the videos that your company is being sued for is a June 26th video from 2017 that Owen Shroyer did, we've just been talking about, right?
	Yes.
	And then in July, you also did a video about Mr. Huston as well, correct?
	That you're being sued for.
	I don't.
	Yes.
	So you do know you did make that July 20th video about Mr. Huston.
	You know that's sitting here today.
	You mean I did a live radio show, yes.
	Did a show.
	Did a show.
	I didn't make a video.
	Well, I guess you didn't make the video, but somebody did.
	Somebody made a video of that and uploaded it to the YouTube channel.
	What I'm trying to get, because you've brought this distinction up a couple times, that no, we're just a live radio show, it's not a video.
	But there are videos, and they are uploaded to YouTube, correct?
	They were, yes.
	And in fact, the listenership for the radio show could be totally different than who's watching the YouTube video, correct?
	They are, yeah.
	Yeah, okay.
	So now, we have this video, we have this email from David Knight, and it's from David Knight to David Knight, right?
	So he's sending himself something.
	Correct?
	I would guess.
	Okay.
	The subject line is it says, Connecticut Cary releases the troubled past of Neil Hesslin.
	And then do you see that there is a link there from ammoland.com, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And then it says sent for my iPad, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And then this email here was sent to himself at 6.12 p.m.
	You see that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Everything I've said about this email is accurate?
	Yes.
	Do you have any reason to think that this is not a true and accurate email from Infowars as follows?
	I don't know.
	I don't know either.
	You gave it to me and it doesn't even have a base number on it.
	That's why I'm asking you.
	Do you have any reason to dispute this as a real name?
	No, I don't have any reason to dispute it.
	Okay.
	You ever been to AmmoLand.com?
	I've been there some.
	Okay.
	So you're familiar with what that site is?
	Not actually, no.
	Okay.
	I've just heard of it.
	Yeah.
	Let me show you this too.
	It's a similar email, which I've marked as Exhibit 8. You see this is 6-18-2017?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Just a couple days before Owen Troyer did his video.
	Correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And do you remember that Megyn Kelly's interview with your profile came out in June 19th, 2017?
	I don't remember the date.
	Okay.
	So here we have again David Knight sending an email to himself, David Knight.
	Seekthetruth80 at Yahoo!
	Is that another one of David Knight's email address?
	I don't know.
	Okay.
	You don't know who that is?
	No.
	Okay.
	It says, subject, Neil Hesslin, father of Sandy Hook victim, faces criminal charges, newscountrytimes.com, right?
	Yes.
	And then there's a Country Times article link?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And then Mr. Knight sent himself this email at 2.56 in the morning?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Do you have any reason to think that this isn't a correct, true-and-copy email that came out of InfoWars Files?
	No.
	No, I'm not ready.
	All right.
	All right, you know who Veronique De La Rosa is, right?
	Thank you.
	Yes.
	Video of her interview with Anderson Cooper has been shown on InfoWars many times, correct?
	Yes.
	The company believes she was a public figure, correct?
	Yes.
	The company believes you should have greater latitude to comment on public figures, correct?
	Part of the reason the company believed that her interview was suspicious was because Ms. De La Rosa had made statements in support of gun regulation.
	Right?
	Objection form.
	Yes.
	So if the company was commenting on her because of her public advocacy, then the company knew who she was, obviously.
	Correct?
	Objection form.
	I don't understand the specifics of what you're asking.
	I'm asking you, since you knew she was a public figure, since you knew she had made gun advocacy comments, and that was part of the reason why it was suspicious, the company knew who she was.
	Well, she put herself in the arena on television.
	Right.
	I'm not disputing you on that, Mr. Jones.
	I'm not having an argument about that.
	All I'm trying to come up with is that the moment that Infowars put that video of her in her interview on the air, Infowars knew who she was.
	And knew she was, in your eyes, a gun advocate, a gun regulation advocate, right?
	You know, I don't remember about it.
	It was ten years ago.
	I just really don't remember.
	Well, I mean, you were totally fine just now testifying to me that you knew she and believed she was a public figure, that you knew that she had made comments on gun advocacy, right?
	You just testified to that.
	That's what my memory serves, a long time ago.
	Right, right.
	But I mean, again, if you're gonna make the argument that she's a public figure and that part of what she was doing was suspicious based on the things she was doing in her public advocacy, that means you would have to know about her public advocacy, right?
	I don't have the specifics back at the time.
	Okay.
	Do you remember when talking about that video?
	Okay, so you know there's this thing in that video about Anderson Cooper's nose and the green screen, right?
	You remember that?
	Yes, I remember that.
	Okay.
	Do you remember though, talking about, whenever you talked about that video too, you would talk about how the background behind them was looped and the flowers would move the same way and that you could tell it was looped, right?
	You remember talking about that?
	Yes.
	Okay, first of all, that's just not true, right?
	There's no looped background.
	I was talking about several shots and things we'd seen CNN. I mean, Ms. Delarosa's interview that you were talking about that.
	There's no looped background, correct?
	You know, that was 10 years ago.
	If you showed me the video, it would refresh my memory.
	I'm asking you here because I brought you to a deposition about the video that we allege you defamed her on.
	And I'm wondering right now if you're saying today, is it going to be your contention to this jury that that video had a looped background and you were right?
	Is that your contention or not?
	The video looked like it had been altered and it did look like other shots CNN has done before where they have the person in the studio and then the person's there and they cut the pieces over each other.
	I'm asking about if there's a loop background.
	Is there a loop background or not?
	Is that going to be a contention in this case or not?
	Objection form.
	I'd have to see it again.
	Okay.
	One thing we do know though is you were talking about how the leaves were blowing, right?
	Because they're outside in that video.
	You understand what I'm saying?
	And how if the leaves were blowing and then suddenly they glitch, And they go back to where they were, that would show you that there was a loop, right?
	That's how you would know there was a loop, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So if there's wind blowing out there, the other thing we know is that there's wind blowing on the people if they were actually on the scene, right?
	If there were people, if there's wind blowing on the flowers, and the people are supposedly actually there, there should be wind blowing on them too, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So in that interview, Ms. De La Rosa's hair is moving from the wind.
	Do you understand that?
	Do you disagree with that?
	I'd have to see the video again.
	Okay, so you don't know that.
	But if her hair is moving...
	Well, we're saying Anderson Cooper wasn't there.
	Whoa!
	Okay, this is new to me.
	Are you saying...
	Are you saying that Veronique De La Rosa was standing in the Newtown Square and Anderson Cooper wasn't and they composited Anderson Cooper and Veronique De La Rosa was either talking to nobody or somebody in like a blue Jar Jar Binks suit?
	I believe...
	Roger Banks.
	You know who that is?
	No.
	Okay.
	Don't worry about it.
	Do you think Veronique De La Rosa was there?
	Back up.
	When you made those comments, when you were describing this Anderson Cooper blue screen, was it your allegation that they were both on a studio in Atlanta behind the blue screen?
	No.
	Or was it that Anderson Cooper wasn't there, but Veronique De La Rosa was there?
	I would have to, like I told you, it was 10 years ago, I'd have to review the videos.
	Okay, so as far as the video you're being...
	I remember the nose disappearing and people having a lot of questions saying that could be a blue screen and looking at it and some of the other anomalies.
	When was the last time you saw that video?
	A long time ago.
	So here you are for your third deposition.
	I didn't know that you'd bring this up.
	It really would be surprising for me to bring up the video that you're being sued for defamation.
	Well, next time you bring it up, I'll put it in the research.
	There ain't going to be a next time, Mr. Jensen.
	Next time we see each other, there's going to be a couple months in a courthouse.
	Well, next time we see each other, you'll be able to bring this up.
	No, we're not going to talk about that.
	Oh, okay.
	All right, all right, all right.
	Please just let him ask you questions.
	No, he wants to answer.
	I mean, he really wants to ask questions.
	I'm happy to answer them.
	Please just let him ask you questions and you answer them.
	So we can move on.
	So one of two things has to be true if Anderson Cooper's on a blue screen.
	One of two things has to be true.
	Either Ms. De La Rosa's also on a blue screen, or Ms. De La Rosa's in the town square and she's not actually talking to Anderson Cooper.
	One of those two things has to be true if there is a blue screen.
	Correct?
	How it would work is one person has an earpiece.
	They're really talking to them.
	They just composite the person in so it looks like they're together.
	They generally do that kind of shot.
	You can see how they're far apart.
	You can see blue screens sometimes.
	That happens in a lot of shots.
	And we may have been wrong about that.
	We weren't the ones that pregenerated it and the first to put it out.
	We just simply gave commentary and our views on it.
	Okay.
	Is Ms. De La Rosa...
	Wasn't at Newtown.
	Let's go ahead and pretend for a moment that this was all shot on blue screen, right?
	That Anderson Cooper's not in the town square.
	And let's also pretend that Ms. De La Rosa isn't in the town square.
	If that's the case, somebody's going to have to be off screen with a fan blowing her hair, right?
	Objection form.
	Like I told you, it's hard to comment on something that's not in front of me.
	Does the company have any reason to contend, well first let me ask you it this way, do you have any reason to contend that any of these parents have been faking their distress over Infowars actions as it regards Sandy Hook?
	I did not kill their children and I didn't visit Adam Lanza's house, the CIA did, and all the rest of that.
	And no one sued me back at the time when I was actually talking about it.
	It was once I became extremely famous.
	Hillary Clinton made an issue about it in campaign ads.
	And then Trump won the election.
	And then I became this big supercharged political target as low-hanging fruit.
	And then they go, oh, he's the Sandy Hook man.
	And then the anti-gun control groups, The Democratic Party basically attached themselves to me so that every time I was in the news they could then bring back up Sandy Hook for the gun control advocacy that they have.
	And that's what this long process has been.
	Okay, first of all, objection non-responsive.
	Was any of that meant to be a reason that you contend that the Sandy Hook families are faking, or my clients are faking their distress?
	I do not think they're faking their distress.
	Okay.
	So their distress over what you said is genuine.
	You admit that?
	Objection.
	I mean, I would call it more hatred than distress.
	I think that, yeah, I think there's some feelings of hatred.
	Yeah.
	I do.
	I think when, for instance, you can understand how when Neil Heslin has spent the last moments with his little heroic child who saved some lives that day.
	Looking him in the face with a bullet hole in his head.
	I didn't kill him.
	I know you didn't kill him.
	Please let him just ask you the question.
	Yeah, let's not interrupt me, Mr. Jones.
	I know you didn't kill him.
	I'm handling it with my client.
	You're not, but we'll see what we can do.
	I'm asking you, Mr. Jones, I'm not saying you killed these kids.
	Nobody's saying that you caused that grief.
	Let's make that really clear.
	Nobody's saying that.
	These parents, though, were grieving over the deaths of their children.
	That's a thing that they went through.
	It has nothing to do with you.
	You get that?
	Their grief over the death of their children has nothing to do with you.
	You get that?
	Except then that through the gun control movement it was projected on gun owners blaming us for their deaths and we don't accept that.
	I don't even know what that means.
	You know what it means.
	Gun owners have all been blamed.
	You asked me to answer your question.
	We get blamed every time some crazy person on Prozac goes and kills people that the CIA went and visited on record.
	And then we get blamed and we're tired of being blamed.
	And so people start really looking at these events and don't trust them.
	And a lot of the times it turns out they are staged.
	The Roe v.
	Waybaby never died.
	Gulf of Tonkin never happened.
	The CIA did plan to stage mass shootings and mock funerals to start a war with Russia and Cuba.
	Operation Northwoods, these are real things.
	Judith Miller at the New York Times collaborated with Ahmed Chalabi and basically invented weapons of mass destruction that resulted in the death of a million Iraqi civilians, right?
	And whoever the journalist was who got to the bottom of what Judy Miller and those neocons were doing, that person deserves a Pulitzer and maybe a medal, and maybe Judith Miller deserves to be in jail.
	Would you agree with that?
	Yes.
	Right?
	And so, that journalism that resulted to that was really good journalism.
	Yes.
	But there can also be really bad journalism, too, like what Judith Miller did with the weapons of mass destruction, right?
	Well, the point is, they lied on purpose about WMDs.
	Absolutely.
	I gave my opinion and legitimately thought it might not have happened.
	Right.
	Okay?
	And I've been honest with you about that.
	Okay.
	So, here's the deal.
	The Court of Public Opinion knows that people have a right to ask questions.
	Now, in hindsight, I saw the families.
	It looked pretty legitimate.
	Some of the anomalies turned out to not be true.
	And then I said I was sorry.
	And then I got sued.
	And so let's just not sit here and pretend that Alex Jones is in red pajamas like the devil running around attacking all these people when that's not the case.
	Let's see if we can...
	Okay, so if Neil Heslin spent these last moments with his son, has this cherished memory, putting his hand through his son's hair, And then he sees Mr. Schroyer and then you.
	Right?
	Get on TV and draw serious doubt about whether he even held his son.
	Whether he's telling the truth.
	And he did that after he had asked you to stop.
	You can understand why that man might have some negative feelings about you.
	And you can understand how he's on TV on a national program attacking us.
	Yeah.
	You know why he did that?
	Yeah.
	Tell me why.
	Why do you do that?
	Because Megyn Kelly went and organized the whole thing for publicity, to go after the Second Amendment.
	They stepped into this, used it for political purposes, went after the American people, and then get surprised when people think it might be staged, or it might be synthetic.
	You think Neil Hustland went on national television to ask you to stop as part of a plot To what?
	Destroy the Second Amendment?
	No.
	There are the interest behind it and the money and the financing.
	I don't care about those people.
	I don't represent any of those people.
	I don't represent Megyn Kelly.
	I had Megyn Kelly in this chair right now.
	Believe me, I'd be talking to her some things.
	No.
	Why don't you subpoena her and get the real thing I said on that interview?
	Don't you have it?
	You have a full audio of everything that happened when she came into your building.
	You never gave it to me, but you have it, don't you?
	No.
	Where's that tape?
	Well, would you like me to be specific?
	Yeah, where's the tape?
	That was not taped at the office.
	That was taped at a house they rented.
	Oh, so they rented a house to do your actual interview?
	Yes.
	And then you didn't actually tape any part of that?
	No.
	Well, the crew member did not put their phone, do not disturb.
	And so about a few minutes into it, someone calls them and the recording stops.
	Just the total, the truth is that we've got some good employees, we've got some bad employees, but it is Slackerville Austin.
	And if anything, we are in, if anything, we're incompetent sometimes.
	And so that's my crime is we got so huge and big and sometimes I'm just a regular guy on the radio and make mistakes.
	All right, but you do have audio recordings of you talking to Megyn Kelly about that interview?
	No.
	Like I told you, it didn't...
	No, no, before talking about the interview.
	Oh yeah, I did record.
	Well, no, I interviewed her.
	Let me slow down here.
	She called me one day a few months before, before she came to Austin and did the interview there in the summer.
	And she was driving in the car and she's like, oh, I'm such a big fan.
	Oh, you're so wonderful.
	And I knew it was a setup and I didn't have a recorder on my phone.
	So I said, let me get back to my office.
	So I got to my office and I had another iPhone.
	And then that's the thing I interviewed and put out on the internet to show what she'd really said and really done.
	That was not a recording of her at the office.
	That was a recording of her setting up the interview with me.
	Okay.
	So you have AudioView and Megyn Kelly?
	It was uploaded to YouTube and then they took that channel down, but I'm sure it's somewhere.
	Okay.
	And they took that channel down.
	After you were sued, right?
	Okay, so at some point between when you were sued and when they took that channel down, you had audio of you talking to Megyn Kelly, correct?
	Yes, and that audio is public.
	We put it out unedited.
	If you want it, you've got it.
	Where would I find it?
	I mean, it's got deleted off.
	We've used that as the cloud.
	We used YouTube as the cloud.
	I get that.
	And so I didn't like organize stuff.
	No, no, I'm not asking any of that.
	I'm super unorganized.
	I'm asking where can I find it?
	I would have to get online and go find Alex Jones, I forget even the headline of it.
	It would take some time, but not that long.
	Okay.
	Be like, I'm trying to remember.
	Does the company have any reason to, I mean, let me actually, this way, let me do it to you.
	I don't want you to speak for the company if you don't, you can't speak for everybody in the company, right?
	Some people in the company have different opinions, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Do you have any reason to dispute that these parents' grieving process over the past eight years has been impacted by Infowars actions as it regards San Diego?
	Objection form.
	That's a hypothetical question.
	I can't speak to their emotions.
	There's nothing hypothetical about it, Mr. Jones.
	I did not kill their children.
	They became political and used that death to then for their advocacy against the right to keep and bear arms.
	And so that directly put them in opposition politically with me.
	And so they stepped into that political arena.
	What did Leonard Posner do politically about guns?
	What did he do?
	Did he ever say anything about guns, publicly?
	I'm talking about the whole Sandy Hook situation in general and then some of the parents.
	Okay.
	Did Scarlett Lewis ever say anything about guns?
	I don't have it all in front of me.
	Okay.
	I mean, a lot of these people never even said their names.
	Okay, but again, I'm going to go back not to like what they may have done.
	I'm asking you, do you have any reason sitting here today to think that their grieving process was unaffected by Infowars actions as it regards Sandy Hook?
	No, I think it was affected and then it gave them someone to hate.
	And to continue on again, so I wish I never would have gotten in the middle of it.
	Right, so if for five straight years, InfoWars is telling millions of people that Sandy Hook is fake, and that the controversy then stays alive, you understand it might be hard for my clients to have closure on the death of their children.
	Five straight years is a false statement.
	Really?
	Okay, so we know you said false...
	Straight years means...
	Hold on.
	Please, let him ask you a question.
	So we know in 2012, right when it happened, you got on TV and started talking about it being staged, right?
	We know that.
	Soon thereafter, I had questions.
	No, Mr. Jones, I don't understand this whole thing about questions.
	I don't get this.
	If you say Sandy Hook is fake, that's not a question, right?
	That was years later.
	There's a quote of me saying, I can see how people think it's absolutely fake.
	There's no quote of you saying, I can see how people think.
	That doesn't exist.
	You keep repeating that, it doesn't exist.
	Okay, well that's what I remember.
	In our last deposition, I showed you clip after clip of you saying it's totally synthetic, completely made up, with actors.
	At first, I thought they killed real kids, but nope, they didn't.
	That was my thought process.
	That's something you said.
	Yep.
	And you did that in 2014. You did it in 2013. You did it in 2014. You did it in 2015. You did it in 2016. You did it in 2017. Correct?
	Rejection form.
	I'd have to go back and look, but I definitely said that I had serious questions about it and could see how it was staged with all the bizarreness, man, I tell you.
	No, Mr. Jones, let me just make something really clear.
	If you had gone on and said, man, Sandy Hook looks weird.
	There's a bunch of weird stuff going on.
	God, it's weird.
	Look at this weird thing.
	This thing's weird, and I don't know what's going on, and somebody needs to answer these questions.
	You wouldn't be here today.
	The reason, the statements that I want to talk to you about is you admit that over those five years, you repeatedly, without equivocation, said it was fake, the children didn't die, there were actors playing the different parts of different people.
	You said those things.
	Can you now just admit that for the jury, that you said them?
	They're going to see the videos.
	Well sure, they should investigate Sandy Hook themselves.
	They should look into it themselves and see why people ask questions.
	You hope they don't.
	No, I really hope they do.
	Okay.
	I really hope they do.
	You're aware of Mr. Fetzer's book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.
	I've not read it.
	Infowars promoted it though, right?
	I remember.
	Give me Tab 1. Can we stop and get a cup of coffee just real quick and maybe go to the bathroom?
	This is five minutes?
	Yeah, if it's five minutes.
	Okay, thanks.
	We are back on the record at 12.35 p.m.
	Before we broke, we had talked about whether Infowars had ever promoted or directed people to Jim Fetzer's book, tried to get more viewership for Jim Fetzer's book, and you weren't aware of that, right?
	Not in my memory.
	Okay.
	I'm going to show you what I've marked as Exhibit 9, and I'm going to go through this whole thing with you to see if it reflects your memory, or if it refreshes your memory.
	You'll see at the very bottom corner there is a notation that says FSSTX. I do see that.
	I need to finish for the court reporter.
	You see a notation that says FSSTX-019237?
	Yes.
	Up at the top, we see that there's an exchange of emails here.
	Let's start at the bottom of the email.
	And you'll see how the original message is a message from James Fetzer to Alan Powell, CCing Rob Dew and James Tracy.
	Do you see where I'm referring to there?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And then in Mr. Fetzer's email is a copy of an email that he was sent earlier by a man named Alan Powell down at the bottom, right?
	Mm-hmm.
	Do you know who Alan Powell is?
	No.
	Okay.
	And you know who James Tracy is though, right?
	He's one of the professors who you said was an expert on Sandy Hook that you relied on?
	No, I was talking about Wolfgang Halbig and Steve Pachenik.
	Okay.
	You don't remember Paul Watson interviewing Michael Tracy about crisis actors?
	I do remember Paul interviewing a professor.
	Yeah, who said there were crisis actors at Sandy Hook.
	Did you not know that was his claim?
	Oh, I remember him now, yes.
	He was all over the news.
	I want to start at the bottom with Alan Powell's email.
	And he says, Rob, Jim Fetzer put together a book on Sandy Hook to which I contributed two chapters.
	Amazon have decided they won't handle it.
	I think Jim would agree to it being distributed by Infowars free as a PDF. We were both just on the phone, we were both just on the Jeff Rents show today, and Jim gave that right of distribution to Jeff.
	Would you see if Alex would have Jim and Jim Tracy on to promote the book and talk a bit about the still-running sore of Scandi Hook?
	I spoke to Jim Fetzer about this today and said he will speak to you.
	If you flip over onto the back part of the page, you just see it says, Cheers, Alan Powell.
	Did I read that email correctly?
	Yes.
	Before we go on to Jim Fetzer's message, do you know who Jeff Rince is?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Do you remember Paul Watson also telling you at the same time that he told you that Jim Fetzer was batshit crazy, that Jeff Rents was batshit crazy?
	Do you remember that?
	No.
	Okay.
	Going up to Jim Fetzer's email, or he identifies himself as Jim and James, so it's going to be used both in this document.
	But he says, Rob, we are making the book available to the public for free.
	Here is the cover in PDF. Several sites are now offering it.
	I would be glad if Alex were to do the same.
	I am sure James would be glad to come on with me if Alex wanted to interview us about this stunning event.
	I think the latest case was the Pentagon Papers.
	Did I read that correctly?
	Yes.
	And then Rob Dew writes back to Jim Fetzer, says, thanks for the heads up, sent the links to Adon, and he is writing an article about it.
	Please let us know if there is a bump in downloads, Rob.
	Did I read that correctly?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And from this Bates label at the bottom that says FSXTX, we know that this is a document that resided in Infowars corporate files, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Okay, can you show me a tab 4?
	Okay.
	Here's that.
	Okay.
	Do you want these?
	No, just leave them right there.
	I'm going to show you what marked as Exhibit 10.
	You recognize that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Can you tell us what this is?
	Zero Hedge article.
	Do you know why it might be relevant to this lawsuit?
	This is the article Owen was reading that he's been sued for and the coverage I gave of Owen was sued for.
	Okay.
	Can you flip onto the second page for me?
	Do you see there's a big blank space in the middle of the page?
	Seems to be the way it printed from the internet.
	Below that big blank space, do you see where it says, except this does not comport with the official story?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And then it says, Jim Fetzer, professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota, who wrote a book claiming Sandy Hook was staged, notes that based on the facts of the case, Hesslund's statement that he held his son with a bullet hole through his head could not have happened.
	I read that correctly?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Now I want you to flip to the third page.
	You see that first sentence?
	The first paragraph there, it's just one long sentence?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And how that paragraph begins is by saying it's entirely possible that Mr. Heslund had access to his son after that.
	Do you see where it says that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	That wasn't said by InfoWars though, right?
	I don't have the clip in front of me.
	Okay.
	When you said on July 20th, 2017, the stuff I found was that they never let the parents see the bodies, that's Jim Fetzer's book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook. the stuff I found was that they never let the That's what you found, right?
	I remember going off the news reports.
	I don't know if it was this one.
	I mean, that's not Mr. Fetzer's book and all that.
	He's not a news reporter.
	You understand that?
	Yes.
	I'm not even sure that I was going off that.
	Right, that's what I'm asking you.
	I don't think you were going off that, because when you said the stuff that I had found, that had obviously happened before this brouhaha started.
	So I'm saying, when you say, the stuff I found was that they never let the parents see the bodies, the stuff that you found was Jim Fetzer's book, Nobody Died in San Diego.
	I don't remember the information enough to be able to comment on it accurately.
	Okay.
	Can you give me tab 34?
	Oh, no, I'm sorry.
	Second folder, tab 34. Actually, skip that.
	Yeah.
	Give me 23 out of this book.
	I do want to see that.
	All right, Mr. Jones, just to let you know for your FYI, I do think I can get you out of here by 2 o'clock.
	Okay, great.
	that we're doing a good job.
	Okay.
	Let me do this one.
	Okay.
	I've shown you what I've marked as exhibit 11.
	And I know that this has a real, like, has a lot of stuff, and it's in really tiny print.
	I may not, yeah.
	You have to read it to me.
	Yeah, I know.
	Like, yeah, I don't...
	The only thing that I'm actually...
	I think when we get into this document, we'll quickly discover that it may not be necessary to even read all of this stuff.
	But if so, I may need to give you some time to go read it if you want to do that.
	But what I want to ask you about this document is...
	Up at the very top, you see that this is an email on June 29th, 2018?
	Mm-hmm.
	Okay, that's about a month after you were sued?
	You understand that?
	Mm-hmm.
	Okay, and it's from Nico.
	What was Nico's job title at that time?
	He was a radio producer.
	Okay, and then Daria, what's her title?
	She was sound operator then.
	Okay, and today she's a producer as well, right?
	Yes.
	Okay, and so Daria is sending this to Nico.
	And the subject is forward vanishing blog.
	Not only is Noah Posner a fiction, but his father Lenny is also a fake.
	Have you ever seen this email?
	No.
	Okay.
	I don't think I need to ask you anything else about it then.
	If you've never read this, I don't think we need to talk about it.
	Oh, my only other question was, do you have any idea why Nico would be sending things to Daria from Jim Fetzer right after you were sued?
	Yeah, I mean...
	No, I have no idea.
	Okay.
	Let's do Tab 10. I want to talk a little bit about Wolfgang Halbig.
	Do you know what I mean when I talk about the Super Bowl picture?
	No.
	Okay.
	Do you know what I mean when I talk about the Super Bowl choir of fourth graders from Sandy Hook?
	Yes, I've heard of that.
	Okay.
	And that's when I really started thinking it probably did happen because that just gets too...
	It's crazy.
	It's just crazy, right?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	I've shown you what I've marked as Exhibit 12.
	You'll see again at the bottom there's no base number on this one, right?
	No.
	Okay.
	This one is dated 11-19-2016?
	Yes.
	So towards the end of 2016. It is from Wolfgang Halbig, right?
	The two line, the main people it's sent to include Niko, that's an InfoWars employee, right?
	Yes.
	Then a couple of addresses to the Trump Organization, correct?
	Yes.
	Rob Du, who is also another employee of yours, right?
	Yes.
	And then Jay Rintz.
	Do you think it would be a fair assumption to say that's probably Jeff Rintz?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And then also copied, there's a CC line, and there's several other people copied who are either media organizations and there's also some government addresses.
	Do you see that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Now, there are also a bunch of attachments listed.
	Do you see that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And those attachments appear to be PNG files?
	Those are images, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And then the subject line says, trust, but always verify.
	Please verify with your uncle.
	Thanks.
	You see that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And then I'm going to go ahead and read this email to you, all right?
	It says, Nico and Rob.
	Rob, please send this video to your uncle, the former FBI agent who attended my Connecticut Freedom of Information hearings in Cartford, Connecticut.
	He told me that I was right about what was happening, which gave me a tat more courage.
	He has friends who can verify this video to be accurate, and now we know that the children who supposedly died at Sandy Hook Are at the Super Bowl on February 3rd, 2013 and that is why we have never ever heard them sing again.
	Think about it for just a second.
	They sing before 110 million people worldwide with Jennifer Hudson.
	They have 87,000 people in the stadium of over 3,500 news reporters and we never have one interview in the newspaper of on television from them.
	Why?
	Just think about how much money came flowing in after that February 3rd, 2013 Super Bowl performance from across the world.
	Why have they never performed again if they were so great to be asked to sing at the February 3rd, 2013 Super Bowl?
	Why no appearances on the national early morning television shows?
	They sing before 110 million people and they simply disappear.
	Even Beyonce met them.
	Where are they?
	Are they all dead?
	Are they coerced and threatened by the NFL and CBS sports and by their own parents never to talk about the greatest day in their lives?
	Are they part of child trafficking?
	Who would do this to fourth grade children when we all know that children need to express their feelings or emotions or it can have long-term mental health issues?
	Then below that is a YouTube link.
	And then it says, please have your uncle verify and tell me that I am not crazy because I have now run out of funds chasing the truth.
	Please help if you can afford it.
	Wolfgang Halbert.
	And then he gives his address and phone number.
	Correct?
	I've read all that correctly?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	When he asks them to verify that he is not crazy, that's not something that can be done from this email.
	This is crazy, isn't it?
	That is when I really started thinking that it probably did happen when things took these turns, yes.
	But then I still saw some anomalies, but I'm not the progenitor of this.
	I'm not saying this.
	No, I understand that.
	But once you see this, you have to understand that Wolfgang Habig isn't reliable anymore, right?
	Yes, when he first came out, though, I'd seen him on national TV as a big top expert in all the things, so that's why I was relying on him.
	Yeah, okay.
	But after this, it's clear you shouldn't be relying on Wolfgang Howe.
	This man is not well.
	Well, I didn't learn about this until later.
	But I have, I don't remember when, but I remember right after this, sometime after this, the stuff about, you know, the Sandy Hook kids at the Super Bowl.
	It's crazy.
	It's not a thing a rational or sane person would do.
	Right?
	Claim that the Super Bowl choir was actually the murdered children, right?
	I never claimed that.
	Right.
	I get that.
	I'm saying the person who did, if somebody was to claim that, that's not a thing a rational person would do.
	Right?
	I don't think that's rational.
	And around the same time, people started thinking I was Bo Bridges and Bill Hicks, so I started experiencing...
	Right, and that's unrational.
	I've actually heard about that.
	People think you're Bill Hicks.
	Yeah.
	And that's dumb, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	It's really stupid.
	And one thing that I've noticed is that a lot of times people are completely face-blind, and they look at a picture of you and Bill Hicks, and they're like, that's the same person, and it's obviously not the same person, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	People who say things like that, like for instance, if somebody was to say about the people at Sandy Hook, oh there's actors who are playing the different parts of different people.
	Like there's a guy who's playing a police officer and he's also a parent and he's also this guy.
	That's also irrational, right?
	Well, the reason people have those questions is it's called AstroTurf, and you really can hire 1,000, 5,000, 100, wherever you want people to go be, and governments and others have done that.
	That kind of stuff goes on, and I remember seeing some of those anomalies where they were saying the coroner looked like this guy, and they did look very similar, but I could see why people were thinking that, and then the extrapolation goes out to the Super Bowl and the rest of it.
	But that's just, the system's lost so much credibility with the public.
	We've been lied to so much that then there's certainly been cases where things that are real, the public questions them because they've lost so much confidence and they don't know what's real anymore.
	You know, you bring up an interesting point.
	I actually think, just for...
	I've been pretty aggressive with you in this deposition, and I understand that.
	But I think I need to be fair with you for a moment about something that happened in your previous deposition.
	Which is the media ran with something in your deposition, and I think they kind of distorted it and didn't quite say what you really said.
	Which is, you remember all those headlines about you saying that you said things about Sandy Hook because of psychosis, right?
	Yes.
	And that wasn't really accurate, was it?
	The way the mainstream media spun that was not really accurate.
	You were not literally saying you had mental illness, right?
	No, I was not saying that I was mentally ill.
	I was saying it was like a form of...
	And that's the general public doesn't believe anything they're told anymore because...
	The corporate press lies on purpose, so then you start reflexively not believing anything you're told.
	And I'm simply as being honest saying, I believe the things I said, I believe the things I did.
	And in the aggregate, even at the time, I had problems with a lot of my listeners who didn't actually like what I was saying.
	But I never said things and did things to just get an audience.
	I said it because I was generally questioning.
	Like, I had over 130, 40 radio stations on 9-11.
	And I would have already been the next Rush Limbaugh.
	But then I thought there were bombs in the buildings.
	It looked like it.
	They said on the local news that they had blown up Building 7. I had the newscast.
	And I went on air and said that I think the government was involved, or at least let it happen.
	And I lost over 100 of my stations in the next month.
	And I didn't care because I thought I was telling the truth.
	Now, looking back at 9-11 now and that, even more evidence has come out.
	But I didn't go say 9-11 was an inside job for audience.
	That took my revenue down massively, totally hurt us, but it was the right thing to do.
	And so after 9-11, and if you've seen that, then you start thinking, you know, more stuff's going on.
	No, I get what you're saying there.
	In fact, this might surprise you to learn this, but when I was in college, I watched Loose Change.
	Like, I understood.
	It's important to ask questions, right?
	You would agree with me that...
	In this country today, the phenomenon you're talking about where people have a hard time telling what's real, this country has failed in so many ways to its public and the media has failed in so many ways to the public that it is genuinely difficult sometimes for members of the public to know what's real anymore, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Those members of the public The only way that they can be kept from being lost in a sea of confusion is if there are enough responsible journalists in this country.
	That's the only way it's going to happen, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And right now there's not.
	You'd agree with me.
	The state of journalism in America is bad.
	Yes, and I've tried to get better even before I got sued, and so I've definitely never said I was perfect.
	And I see the whole state of the country, and I have four children.
	I'm really worried about them, and that's why I've tried to be more measured and everything because I've now realized how big my show is.
	I mean, I didn't even realize how big my show was ten years ago, five years ago.
	I mean, I do now.
	And that's also because, you know, I've been contacted by so many prominent people who've lost confidence in the system.
	And now, basically, you listen to me.
	And so with that, you know, that's a lot of power.
	It comes a lot of responsibility.
	Responsibility.
	Correct.
	Well, I won't say the only way, but one of the ways that we help, or we could help, maybe making journalism better in this country is if we ensure that journalists are held accountable when they publish false facts and do so carelessly.
	Do you agree with that?
	Well, that's not what's happening.
	The big corporations are lying on purpose more than ever.
	I never lied on purpose.
	And they are supporting the destruction of independent journalism and small-time journalism and citizen journalists who mean well but make mistakes, whereas the big corporations are owned by trillion-dollar companies and are actively supporting the attempts to silence us and shut us down.
	And it's all over the news that they say they hope your lawsuits take us off the air.
	Yeah, because they hate you, right?
	Well, the big corporations do.
	And listen, I'll just be honest with those big corporations.
	It's had the opposite effect.
	Big media is so hated and so distrusted.
	This has been a terrible process for me and my family.
	And it's been a growing process.
	I would have grown anyways as you get older.
	All this persecution has made us bigger.
	Like I told you last time, this is all just a process, and whatever it is the big shots think they're doing, it's not going to do what they think they did.
	Yeah, so when the media piles on you, for instance, that actually is counterproductive to what they think their goals are.
	They're actually making you more popular.
	Correct?
	Well, people know that I legitimately question and am not lying to them on purpose.
	And I actually admit when I'm wrong on air.
	And I'm trying to be better, but I've also...
	And it's important we try to be better, right?
	You agree that, particularly for independent media, if we have any prayer in this country, it's that we get up from under the yoke of corporate media.
	And the only way we can do that is through independent media.
	You'd agree with that?
	But the big corporate media, as a default...
	In these cases, only puts out what you guys says and hammers it everywhere because they want to silence all the little people.
	So whether you like it or not, Mark Bankston, you are on the side of the cutting edge of the establishment.
	No, I'm suing them too.
	And I think I just told you right now, in this deposition, for the record, they messed up doing that.
	When they come in here and they take your words out of these depositions and they distort them, that isn't good.
	I understand that.
	What I'm asking you is from the standpoint of the independent media, It's important.
	Crucially important.
	There's a lot of new independent media that's come out in the past five, six years.
	You'd agree with that?
	We've seen almost a revolution.
	Yes, the corporate attempt to use Sandy Hook.
	I'm not saying you yourself are doing this because I can't read your motives.
	They are using this and even writing articles about how they're going to try to use it to silence all their opposition.
	So that's why the establishment supports it.
	And that's fine.
	The establishment is making a real run at censorship and authoritarianism and control, and thinks it can use a demonized version of Alex Jones as the poster child of the villain.
	But when you've got the real system that's the real villain, and people know that, and they see the big villain coming after Alex Jones, they go, he's not a villain.
	So, I mean, I guess you've actually blessed me.
	So, I mean, it's hard, it's rough, but I'm going to go through this and I'm going to grow and be better at the other end.
	But I've really meant to be good and I've really meant to tell the truth.
	And so at the end of the day, this is just the way it is.
	Villains are going to be villains, right?
	We know no matter what happened in this lawsuit, corrupt corporate media is going to be corrupt corporate media.
	There's no stopping them, right?
	They're going to do what they're going to do.
	I'm just telling you, That the power structure is anti-Alex Jones and so I've got a lot more serious issues to deal with for my children and the future of the country and everybody than this Whirlpool that is Sandy Hook.
	And so I don't hang my hat on Sandy Hook.
	And I wish things would have gone better and been different, believe me in hindsight.
	But the claim that I got famous off Sandy Hook and I like Sandy Hook and I want Sandy Hook isn't true.
	Until they made me the Sandy Hook guy and I'm being attacked for it, that has made M4s get a lot bigger, but I didn't do that.
	The previous Sandy Hook stuff hurt me and made me lose audience, made everybody get mad at me, and made a lot of my crew get mad at me.
	Once the system took it up and started attacking me with it, now people see what it is.
	I know, and I wish they were...
	I'm not going to my feelings about what they're doing.
	You would agree with me, if we're going to solve what's wrong with information in America right now, what's being pulled over the public's eyes, we can't rely on corporate media to fix it.
	It's got to be independent media.
	Do you agree with that?
	Well, Mark, let me just say this since we're actually here talking.
	In that PBS documentary, Frontline, you were in, one of the parents says that he, paraphrase, he sent his attack dog henchman at us, and it's some woman I never even heard of until she got arrested.
	And it's on the show, everyone consciously up there talking about, Alex Jones sent this woman.
	It wasn't said, oh, what he said made her do it.
	It was Alex Jones sent his attack dog knowing what she would do.
	That is fake, 100% not true, and have you ever thought about the stuff that my family gets and what happens to my children over stuff like that that is not true?
	And so we can all sit here and claim that we want to be these great journalists, we want to be perfect and everything, but I wouldn't have said something like that about somebody unless I was sure that indeed they did send that poor schizophrenic woman after them.
	And again, because I'm sympathetic for what you're saying right now.
	Was that something that one of my clients said?
	Because I don't think my clients were on that show.
	I'm just trying to check.
	Mark, it all just...
	I forget...
	Who said it on the show?
	But I basically, word for word, I mean...
	What I'm trying to get at, Mr. Jones, is I'm pretty sure I didn't say it, but if somebody on that show said that, if PBS put somebody on that show to say that, I'm going to demand a retraction.
	Okay, great.
	I want to know, do you know who said it?
	I'd have to go review it again.
	I don't say this as a victim, but this is traumatic for me and I'm tired of hearing about it.
	And so I'll be honest, just like 9-11 became a traumatic thing, I have never talked about 9-11 because I got so sick of talking about it and attacked over it.
	And now I have like a mental wall on Sandy Hook that just goes up because I can't deal with the stress of it.
	And so I just put a mental wall up, and you ask me these questions, and it's like, I just can't deal with it anymore.
	Okay.
	Let's talk about Sandy.
	Okay.
	It would be good.
	Just for a minute.
	Maybe we can bring the temperature down.
	Which is that you agree with me that independent media, people who do independent media, if they do it poorly, they hurt the cause of independent media.
	People like a Jeff Rents or a Fetzer that people were criticizing.
	That's not good for independent media.
	Yes, and I want to move out of that class that I wasn't completely in into a better class.
	I hear you.
	I do.
	But then that doesn't engage me by the corporate press that is trained and lies on purpose, whereas I was untrained and went through this whole process.
	Look, I'm with you that I want to hold corporate media accountable wherever I can.
	But do you also agree that it's good for journalism to hold independent media accountable wherever we can?
	Yeah, but independent media is being absolutely censored and attacked and sued with lawfare everywhere.
	There's a real system-wide attack on it.
	And very legitimate stuff.
	Like, Senator Paul gives a speech about learned immunity in his Israeli study being 13 times better.
	And YouTube censors it saying the WHO doesn't authorize that statement.
	The American Heart Association comes out and says, on the inserts of the Pfizer shot, it says increase in myocarditis and heart attacks.
	They say, we don't care.
	You're not allowed to scare people.
	And they block the American Heart Association.
	So see, people are pissed about this censorship.
	For sure.
	And so they see what's happening to us as that, and that's why you've got the corporate backing.
	Mark, you can't get out of the fact that you've got the establishment behind you.
	Oh, 100%, I get that.
	No, I know that, in other words, if...
	There is a feeling in corporate media that if you are discredited, it helps them.
	You understand that exists.
	Yes.
	And that is something they want to try to do.
	And so that's why Tucker Carlson basically endorsed me last week.
	I saw that.
	Is because they now understand it's the symbol like this to Hitler.
	Like, Alex Jones is now the symbol of victory.
	It's only because you brought that up, and I'm just actually fascinated by this.
	Did you see the story, the thing that Linwood put out there about Tucker Carlson getting the recommendation for his kid from Hunter Biden and all that?
	No, there's a story, and again, maybe we can't talk about it.
	Well, I mean, I'll just say this.
	Lin Wood, I'm not going to get into a fight with Lin Wood, but Lin Wood is definitely what I don't want to be.
	Right.
	I'm just saying, like, sometimes you see some things come out and you realize it's a big club and maybe we're not in it.
	Have you ever heard that phrase?
	Yes, I've been learning that I'm definitely not in the club.
	Yeah.
	Believe me, the problems with this is the least of my problems.
	You're referring to January 6th?
	All of that, yeah.
	Okay.
	I'll do you a favor, we won't talk about that today.
	I want to show you this.
	This I've marked as Exhibit 13. Okay.
	This, as you see at the bottom, it says FSSTX-039550?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	This is from Wolfgang Halbig, right?
	Yes.
	Okay, and then this is two, a couple email addresses that I bet you don't know who those people are, right?
	No, I don't.
	The one, safeandsoundschools.org.
	Have you ever heard of an organization called that?
	Not in my memory.
	I don't either.
	Okay.
	I'm going to assume, though, that you see the address is written to somebody named Michelle?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And then the subject line is, I urge Michelle to stop using Josephine in making money and appearing on speaking engagements.
	You saw that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	The date of this email is December 21st, 2014?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And as we see from Free Speech Systems at the bottom, this is a document from Infowars corporate files.
	Correct?
	Okay.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	The attachments here, we see a bunch of PNGs.
	That's correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	I'm going to go ahead and read the email to you, all right?
	Michelle, how could you and your husband, as responsible parents, even allow your precious child Josephine to attend that filthy and deplorable-looking school on December 14, 2012?
	This school, as you must have known, is and was a toxic waste dump, as reported by environmental consultants who requested more money from City of Newtown leaders before demolishing the school and transported all of the high levels of lead paint, high levels of asbestos, and especially the high levels of PCPs in the groundwater at Sandy Hook out of state.
	Josephine, your child should have expected more from you before that tragic day as a parent.
	You are supposed to protect her from serious lifelong health risk when you send her to that school every day.
	Why would you as a parent and all those other parents who supposedly lost a child to gunfire allow their children as you did To serious toxic waste.
	This all unfolded before the first shot at that school even occurred.
	Did you not see the filth and deplorable conditions when you went to that school, or are you blind?
	I do not understand, unless you explain it to me, and the world, why you and your husband failed Josephine, who is a nonverbal child, as you stated and depended on for her safety.
	She needed you to protect her from all the serious health risks that you sentenced her to on a daily basis.
	Now you talk about school security.
	You have got to be joking.
	You have all these experts on your staff who are now part of your conspiracy.
	They should be ashamed of their actions in supporting you.
	A mom puts her own child at risk on a daily basis and is now the expert on school security?
	I look forward to meeting you one day when I can take your deposition about not about the shooting, but why you and your husband failed Josephine by sending her to that filthy and deplorable school with all that toxic waste.
	We call this child endangerment when you know of the danger that exposed your child to serious lifelong health risks.
	You must have known without a doubt, because pictures do not, and it says LI, but I believe that means a lie.
	You put her life in serious risk every day, knowing how filthy and deplorable that school is.
	I am enclosing photos that you must recognize since you took your child to school, and having a child in special needs, you would expect a school environment and school climate that allows children to learn and teachers to teach.
	Right?
	Please explain to me, if you can, why a school principal, Dawn Hopspring, would allow her school to be so filthy and deplorable looking.
	There is not one female elementary school principal in this country who would allow her school to be that filthy and deplorable, both inside and outside, and most of all, allow her to become a toxic waste dump Placing every child and her school staff in serious lifelong health risk, right?
	All the pictures are taken by the major crime squad from the Connecticut State Police.
	Please respond, since you are now the expert on school security.
	Wolfgang W. How Big, www.sandyhookjustice.com.
	I read that correctly?
	Yes.
	How do you feel about that, Emo?
	It's horrible.
	I've never seen this before.
	I mean, I guess he sent it to us, too.
	It's in Inverworth's corporate files, right?
	Yeah, I just don't even see M4s on here, though.
	I wonder why we had it.
	That was going to be my next question.
	Do you know?
	I don't.
	Okay.
	Can you give me a tab 20?
	I'm going to show you what I've marched as Exhibit 14.
	You see at the top there's another email from Wolfgang Halbig.
	Yes.
	Right?
	Okay.
	And on this one...
	You see about right here?
	See what the blue line is?
	Let me show you again.
	You see that?
	And so you see on your document too, you've got some InfoWars email addresses there?
	Yes.
	Okay, and that would be Rob Dew and Nico who got this email?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	This was March 21st, 2017?
	Yes.
	Okay, the subject was, anyone needing the address for a visit to welcome them to Florida, please call, and this was a great day for me.
	Who says that you cannot catch a big fish in Florida?
	That's what the subject line says?
	Yes.
	Okay, and then there's a PNG attached, an image file?
	Is that correct?
	Yes.
	Okay, and then I'm going to go ahead and read this email to you.
	It says, Nick and Laura Phelps did a great job acting in Newtown, Connecticut, on December 14, 2012. I visited their home today at 1924 Westover Reserve Boulevard, Windmere, Florida, 34786, and thanks to Lieutenant Van Gailey telling me during my wellness check of Nick and Laura Phelps that they no longer live in Newtown, Connecticut, and they are now Richard and Jennifer Sexton.
	Guess what?
	He is totally right and can you believe it that my Newtown Police Department guided me in the right direction?
	They have a beautiful home with a three-car garage.
	They were not home today, but the good news was that the three adult female moms with their children standing outside their homes observed me and wanted to know what I was doing.
	It is spring break for Orange County, Florida school children.
	I showed them this picture and I told them that I did not want to go to the wrong house to surprise Nick and Laura from Newtown, Connecticut, aka Richard and Jennifer Sexton, today.
	It took a few minutes for them to look at the pictures, and then when they asked why I wanted to speak to them, I told them that I had been in Newtown and wanted to surprise them since they now live in Florida.
	They asked for my name, which I gave them as Wolfgang Halbig.
	They told me how I knew them, and I told them that they have been on the national news, so I wanted to meet them again.
	Our conversation was all about Newtown, Connecticut.
	So she said, do you mind if I text her?
	I said, absolutely not.
	Waited about 10 minutes, only to learn that they did not know me, which surprised me.
	They verified the pictures and why would she text them about Newtown, Connecticut and that someone from there wanted to visit if they were not Nick and Laura Phelps now, Richard and Jennifer Sexton.
	At first I did not want to enter, since it is a gated community, but several people told me, just go on in there, there is no security guard at the gates.
	If there is CCTV, they will see me being told to go in, and that is the only reason I would not have entered.
	Now who says law enforcement does not know what they are doing?
	Thank you, Newtown, Connecticut Police Department.
	Can you turn the document over?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And then on the back, you see there's a picture here, right?
	Yes.
	And at the top, it says, Sandy Hook hoax actors, correct?
	Yes.
	And it has arrows pointing to the Phelps, right?
	Yes.
	And then at the bottom, it says, playing the part of grief-stricken parents, correct?
	Yes.
	This is a horrible email, isn't it?
	I've never seen this email, and it's...
	Yes, I don't like this email.
	And again, this is someone else, Wolfgang Halbig, after I'd already clearly knew that he cracked up.
	And so that's not my work.
	Next month, you did a video called Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed, right?
	Someone edited a video, put that name on it.
	I've seen that.
	Okay.
	And during that video, you repeated all Wolfgang Halbig claims, right?
	This 16 questions thing?
	I don't remember that.
	I'd have to see that video.
	But I believe it was about people using it to continue to try to get gun control and money.
	But I'd have to watch it if you got it.
	But I don't remember.
	Type 15.
	Mr. Jones, I've handed you what I marked as Exhibit 15.
	At the bottom we see it says FSX-TX-040027.
	Yes.
	So there's an email from InfoWars Corporate Files?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	At the top it says Wolfgang Halbig, Right?
	That's who it's from?
	Yes.
	Okay, it says to wildrosefarms1740 at gmail.com.
	Do you know who that is?
	No.
	That's my client, Scarlett Lewis.
	Okay.
	The subject line says, how could you as a mother stop and buy your special brand of coffee on December 14th, 2012, when you heard as a mom that shots had been fired at the Sandy Hook School?
	You read that correctly?
	Yes.
	This is a March 10, 2015 email, correct?
	Yes.
	He says in this email, Scarlett, it is just a matter of time and all that money you have has to be returned.
	How could you even stop to buy your coffee and you bought coffee for two other people?
	What kind of mother does that, especially when you see on the news tell everyone how you ran across that fire department parking lot?
	If you did, you would have spilled the coffee.
	Do some serious soul searching because the scam is up.
	Wolfgang and his phone number.
	I read that correctly?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So at least Infowars had received information that Mr. Halbig was harassing Ms. Lewis, correct?
	We get millions of emails.
	I've never seen those up until the time of these lawsuits, so I'm not Wolfgang Halbig.
	I understand.
	All I'm asking is, Infowars received that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Was InfoWars aware that Mr. Halbig, what he was doing at the Catholic school in Newton?
	Bad question.
	Can't answer for all of InfoWars.
	Do you know what Mr. Halbig was up to at the Catholic school?
	No, I knew that he was getting mad at us because we wouldn't have him on and because I was saying that, hey, it probably happened.
	And then I was aware over time that he seemed like he had deteriorated some.
	And so that's what I'm talking about, where I had questions about the questions.
	Did you know what he did at the Catholic school?
	No.
	Okay.
	I'm just trying to search my memory.
	Let me show you what I've marked as exhibit 16.
	You see at the bottom this has a Bates label.
	It says FSXX-042477.
	That's correct?
	This is a June 25, 2015 letter.
	You see it's from the Diocese of Bridgeport?
	Yes.
	To Mr. Wolfgang Halbig in Sorrento, Florida?
	Yes.
	It says, Dear Mr. Halbig, as the Chief Legal Officer of the Diocese of Bridgeport, I write to serve you notice that you are to cease and desist any activity on or in the vicinity of St. Rose of Lemus Parish.
	Including the church, rectory, school, and any other ancillary buildings on or near the parish grounds.
	Your presence will be considered a trespass and a nuisance.
	Should there be any violation of this order, the parish reserves the right to seek any and all remedies available to it under the law and will immediately contact law enforcement to remove you and any individuals in your company from the property forcibly if necessary.
	This order shall remain in effect from the date of this letter forward.
	Very truly yours, Anne O. McCrory, Chief Legal and Real Estate Officer.
	I read that correctly?
	Yes.
	So, InfoWars had received information that Mr. Halbig had been banned from the premises of the local Catholic school.
	Objection form, correct?
	I mean, I guess that's what this shows.
	I'm not Wilking Halbig.
	Can you give me second folder tab 31?
	Okay, this is a one-page email. this is a one-page email.
	You see at the bottom, this has been marked Exhibit 17?
	Yes.
	At the bottom is marked FSSTX-053394?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	This is a series of emails, correct?
	Yes.
	The first email is from Jonathan Reich.
	Do you know who that is?
	No.
	Okay.
	It's to Wolfgang Halbig.
	It was sent on May 16, 2016, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	It says, St. Rose Security Guard video footage.
	And then it has a link to a download for some video footage, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And then the next email is from Mr. Halbig, right, on May 17, 2016, correct?
	Yes.
	And it says, Arturo, this is the St. Rose Lima video that we shot accusing us of being a pedophile and was trespassed.
	False police reports filed by Monsignor Wise.
	I read that correctly?
	Yes.
	And then Arturo Rico responds, do you know this associate of Mr. Halbig's?
	No.
	Okay.
	He says, thank you.
	And then there's another email from Arturo, correct?
	Yes.
	And that's to Wolfgang Halbig on May 17th, right?
	Yes.
	Okay, and he says in that email, I saw the video.
	I'm so upset.
	I'm looking into the face of the, quote, security, unquote.
	He is no security.
	He is government.
	We need to speak.
	I will explain everything.
	Yes, there is suspicion that the pastor was part of it, but not the church itself.
	Wait until I get the official green light.
	There are people inside that school.
	They knew you were coming.
	They followed you.
	Not the church, but the government.
	They got...
	I believe that's the school on gag order.
	I wish I would have been there with you guys.
	The quote, principal, unquote, of Saint Rose of Lima is the same quote, principal, unquote, that quote, died, unquote, at Sandy Hook's shooting.
	But the, quote, principle, unquote, of St. Rose was always fake.
	I know the location of that person.
	This is the most serious event the church has and will go through, Arturo.
	I read that correctly?
	Yes.
	And then the next email is from Wolfgang Halbig, and this email is sent to Nico at InfoWars, correct?
	Yes.
	And another person it's sent to is inpattis at pattislaw.com, correct?
	I guess so, yes.
	And is that the company's lawyer?
	That is a lawyer that we work with.
	Okay, at that time was that the company's lawyer?
	No.
	Okay.
	And then there are a couple of other people copied on the email too, right?
	Do you know who Tony Mead is?
	No.
	Do you know who Richard Carlisle is?
	No.
	I mean, I can volunteer that Pattis had run-ins with Halberg and doesn't like him.
	So, I mean, that's just an added thing.
	I don't think they're working together.
	Okay.
	Wolfgang says, it's going to fall apart very shortly.
	I want my lawsuit to come to closure for my family's sake.
	Wolf.
	I read that correctly?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Now, the idea that the principal of St. Rose of Lima is the same murdered principal at Sandy Hook, that's not rational, right?
	No.
	I've not investigated it, but no, it doesn't look like a pattern of sanity to me.
	Like I told you, he just forwards everything to us.
	I have nothing to do with it.
	So a lot of times you just ignore what he says?
	He seemed very credible early on.
	I looked up who he was on TV, the things he was saying, the anomalies, but I think, you know, obviously there seems to be a deterioration here, but I am not Wolfgang Halbig and I've not talked to him in probably five or six years.
	You said there's been a deterioration.
	We saw emails from like 2014 of him harassing parents that are kind of weird.
	I wasn't aware of that and it doesn't seem good.
	It doesn't.
	It seems like maybe you didn't know what was going on with Wolfgang Halbig's old state.
	No.
	Okay.
	Can you give me 14?
	And if we just power through, I think we can do it and get out of here, boy, too.
	We are at 120 right now.
	I am going to show you what I have marked as exhibit 18.
	You see at the bottom is FSSTX-039897.
	Yes.
	This is a 2015 email sent March 6, 2015?
	Yes.
	And the top email is Nico forwarding something to Rob Dew, correct?
	Yes.
	And it says, forward two cents from a third year law student.
	Right?
	Yes.
	And then it says, some comments on How Big's last interview from a law student.
	Okay?
	And then I'm going to go ahead and read you this email from a gentleman named R. Darren Brumfield.
	It was sent to mediacontacts at infowars.com.
	He writes...
	Two cents from a third-year law student.
	Madam or sir, I am in my final semester of law school.
	I listened to the Wolfgang Haubig video and some significant alarm bells went off.
	I also wrote on the YouTube page, but I copy and paste here.
	Okay, so let's, so I just get this straight.
	Starting at 31.30, he filed his lawsuit in Seminole County Court in Florida.
	Not in federal court in Florida, but in state court, there is a legal requirement called, quote, standing, unquote.
	He does not have standing to sue in Seminole County Court.
	He was not a party in the shooting in any fashion.
	There is also a concept called, quote, jurisdiction, unquote.
	Either the man is lying or the judge is insane.
	A Florida county-level judge would not have jurisdiction for any reason other than a contract, tort, or crime issue And directly involving Halbig.
	Something is completely wrong here.
	Had he said, quote, in the federal district of Florida, quote, or whatever district it might be if the state is split, that may at least be plausible.
	This is completely insane and cannot go anywhere but into the trash can.
	No standing, no subject matter jurisdiction, no personal jurisdiction, two cents from a third year law student who is legally current in his education.
	Demand seems to be grasping and stretching.
	No judge in their right mind would do such a thing as he describes.
	Here's an example.
	Imagine there is a crime in Las Vegas and the criminal kills himself.
	There is no law whatsoever that would allow Alex or anyone else to file a suit in San Antonio for anything regarding the crime in Las Vegas.
	There is no claim that could be made in Texas for something that happened in Nevada.
	It is a rule.
	R. Darren Blumfield.
	Did I read all that correctly?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So here we have that not only did InfoWars receive information suggesting that what Halbig was up to was completely insane, in Darren Brumfield's words, but actually Nico ended up forwarding that information directly to Rob Dew, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Which is good that he found that, because we get about 10,000 emails a day, or at least we did.
	It's good that he found that in 2015?
	Yeah, I mean, it wasn't shown to me, but I mean, it shows he was, you know, I guess Rob Dew wanted to know about anything coming in about San Diego because he was interested in it, and so that's why it was sent to him.
	Okay.
	Which one are you talking about in 2015?
	This email?
	It was in 2015?
	You said it was found in 2015. Right, that Nico found this in 2015. He said he's glad he found this.
	Like, this is something that they actually found.
	His testimony is about them sending tons of emails that they don't even see or ever recognize, and he got this one, and this one was found in 2015. We know it was found in 2015 because Nico forwarded it to Rob Doe in 2015. In fact, let's ask that question.
	We know this email was found and actually seen by somebody at InfoWars because it was forwarded to Rodgers in 2015. Thank you.
	I didn't mean to...
	No, I understand.
	I'll clear up your objections.
	I appreciate it.
	Can you give me...
	Tab 17. Now, as far back as 2014, you were raising money for Halbig's court actions.
	Correct.
	He'd been a guest a few times and we let guests, a lot of guests do stuff like that.
	And you told your audience, support how big?
	Go to SandyHookJustice.com and give them money.
	You told your audience that.
	- I don't remember doing that, but it may have happened.
	Because again, I thought he was a-- they had him on national TV as a top school safety expert.
	I thought he was going to find out.
	I mean, even Rob Dew's retired FBI agent uncle thought it sounded credible enough to go actually hear what they said at the event.
	So...
	Object is non-responsive.
	Infowars was aware that Mr. Halbig was harassing Mr. Posner for years, right?
	No, no.
	Infowars was following the lawsuit between Mr. Halbig and Mr. Posner.
	Was keeping up with it.
	I mean, I think Rob Dew was.
	I really wasn't.
	Rob Dew was news director at that point.
	News director on the nightly news.
	Not the director of everything at the office.
	Let's talk about Dan Badandi.
	You sent Dan Badandi to Newtown multiple times.
	Dan lived nearby and would go and then he was on the show some.
	Well, I mean, you said on your show, we sent our reporter, Dan Badandi, up to Newtown to cover this.
	You've said that plenty of times.
	I think so, yes.
	Okay.
	He went there to film videos about Wolfgang Halping, correct?
	I believe so.
	Okay.
	You understood that Dan Badandi was prone to causing trouble.
	You knew that.
	Later, I figured it out.
	When did you think you figured that out?
	He came down to Austin for a few months, and he was a nice fellow, but he would not follow a direction.
	So we sent him back to Connecticut.
	He didn't officially work for us.
	And then he just would go out and do things, some interesting, some that we didn't agree with.
	And then he would still occasionally call on the show or be on the show.
	But when you would send him out on a mission, you knew he was likely to cause trouble.
	You knew that, right?
	Section 4. No.
	Okay.
	I want to play an audio clip from you.
	And this audio clip will be...
	Exhibit 19. I'm going to play an audio clip from you and I want you to tell me, is this you talking?
	Do you know what we privately say about Badani when we sit him on a mission?
	What?
	Release the Kraken!
	A Kraken is a mythological Greek monster, correct?
	Yes.
	Release the Kraken is a rather famous line of dialogue from the film Clash of the Titans.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	A listener sent us a painting saying he's the...
	and that was from the Boston bombing.
	Okay.
	That's what we were talking about.
	Right, because he caused some trouble in the Boston bombing stuff.
	I remember that.
	Oh, well, I mean, there really were a bomb squad there that looked like they were wearing black water uniforms.
	Oh, look, hold on.
	Before we dive into the esoterica of whether the Boston bombing happened or not, I'm actually just referring to when Dan Badandi went to do some coverage in the Boston bombing, there was some fracas.
	Well, he asked some questions.
	Yeah.
	And wasn't it—didn't somebody try to kick him out of a room or something?
	Somebody tried to make— It was a press conference.
	Okay.
	And that's what I was talking about in that club.
	I mean, I remember the club.
	So you had had previous experience with Dan Badondi sending them out on stuff?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Tell you what, Mr. Jones, let me let you take a short break.
	Actually, let me ask you about one more thing before we do that.
	I've got a couple more topics to talk about, but I don't think it's going to be too long.
	The one I did want to bring up, though, real quick, because I think we can cover it real quick.
	Do you know who I'm talking about when I say Darren Howard?
	No.
	Okay.
	accusing a man of being a COVID crisis actor, being a fake COVID patient in the United Kingdom?
	I remember covering people saying that, yes.
	Okay, so...
	Who do you think was saying that?
	Do you remember?
	I don't remember the specifics.
	Can you explain what Darren Howard was being accused of right now?
	Do you remember?
	I don't remember.
	Do you know if you apologize to him?
	I believe so, yes.
	What is the question for that for?
	Yeah, just ask the question.
	Ask the question.
	Don't worry about it.
	If you apologize to him in writing, do you think you have it?
	I don't know.
	Okay.
	Yeah, go ahead and let's take a quick comfort break and we'll come back on the record.
	We are back on the record at 1.42 p.m.
	Alright, Mr. Jones, just a couple last things.
	You would agree with me, your company does not have any documents that are used to train InfoWars employees how to verify factual information in InfoWars stories.
	Those documents, you don't have anything like that?
	Well, we've had lots of meetings and things about if we're going to do something original, then we have to prove it and have multiple witnesses.
	And generally, it's video journalism out in the street.
	It is what it is.
	You see it.
	And then on air, it's just commentary and opinion and analysis.
	So I've always told people, you know, make sure what you're saying is backed up.
	And the areas we've gotten in trouble with have been things where it's these big internet hubbub speculation things.
	And I've really tried to steer clear of those now.
	Okay, but my question is, there are no documents that set forth the policies or procedures for vetting factual information to InfoWars.
	That's not something that exists in a document, correct?
	No.
	Okay.
	Your company has never disciplined anyone due to a false fact about Sandy Hook published on InfoWars, correct?
	I don't remember.
	You think it's possible you may have disciplined somebody for saying something false about Sandy Hook?
	I wouldn't say false.
	People have gotten in trouble for talking about it.
	I've tried to stay out of it and myself get sucked back into it.
	I think people testify to that too.
	At least that's what I was told.
	One of the reasons that you, in 2015, went to people like Adan Salazar and told them stop printing articles about Sandy Hook is because Leonard Posner kept getting strikes against the company, right?
	I don't remember if it was Leonard Posner.
	I mean, I know...
	I've seen people make a big thing between me and Leonard Posner.
	I barely know who he is, and I've seen him in some shows, but I know.
	I just did not...
	Yes, I mean, I did not want to...
	I had seen some of the anomalies and things be proven to not be anomalies, and so I wasn't sure that it was staged.
	But then, you know, I go back and forth, like anybody, on these kind of these mysteries.
	But...
	So that's where I stand on that.
	I want to know, do you, so the day after the Connecticut default happened, there was a company registered in Delaware called Restore America Marketing Company.
	Is that your company?
	Restore America Marketing Company.
	No, I've never heard of that.
	Okay.
	The company apparently has something to do with Reset Wars.
	Can you tell me what Reset Wars is?
	Reset Wars is somebody else's company.
	Okay, what is Reset Wars?
	Is that affiliated with Free Speech Systems in any way, or you?
	No, that is somebody else's company that is for promotions.
	Does it have anything to do with Free Speech Systems and Infowars and its business?
	Well, yes.
	I am working with them.
	They are producing a six-hour course titled Reset Wars.
	A course, like an educational course?
	Yes.
	Okay, and is there planning to be students who sign up for it and watch it online?
	Is that the idea?
	I wouldn't call them students, but it's like a self-help deal.
	So what I'm trying to distinguish with is it's not an in-person class, it's an online thing?
	Yes.
	I want to show you what I marked as Exhibit 19.
	At the bottom we see FSSTX-077501.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And this is from somebody named Logan Ponder, and there are emails at the top, but I take it you don't know this person personally.
	No.
	Okay.
	This is to writers at Infowars.com?
	Yes.
	And the subject is, I'm with you all, correct?
	Yes.
	The date is April 17, 2013?
	Correct?
	Yes.
	Okay, I'm going to read this email.
	My name is Logan Ponder.
	I'm 21 years old and what's going on in this world is disgusting.
	You guys are always on top of information.
	I am so glad I have all of you to refer to because you know what's going on.
	The government and all these groups are trying to take over the world and they are clearly succeeding.
	What can I do to help stop this madness?
	Sandy Hook and now this Boston bombing marathon are clearly inside jobs.
	It's obvious.
	So what can I do to help?
	What can I do to change the expected outcome?
	Please tell me.
	I want to help.
	I live in Lexington, Kentucky.
	If there's anything I can do to help your cause, please let me know.
	I support you guys all the way.
	Sincerely, Logan Ponder.
	Sit for my iPod.
	Correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	This is actually somewhat typical.
	This is not an unusual email for you, right?
	You have a lot of fans who are very supportive of you.
	We get millions of emails.
	You can find basically anything you wanted in the emails.
	Oh, I've found a lot of things in them.
	Yeah, sure.
	There's people sending you just hundreds of pages of crazy numerology.
	Have you seen stuff like that?
	And that's the kind of stuff you can just throw in the trash, right?
	We can't even.
	We've even thought about getting rid of the email addresses.
	You can't even look at all of it.
	But this email, now that you've seen it today, this is something you're proud of, right?
	I don't know who this person is.
	Right, no, what I mean just generally, I mean we're looking at somebody here who is kind of waking up to some of the forces that are involved in this country and they're listening to you and they want to get involved in the fight.
	That's kind of the mission statement of your show, right?
	To get people woken up like this, right?
	I mean, yes, I'd like people to become aware of the international corporate tyranny that's taking over publicly in front of all of us right now.
	And in doing that, I would imagine that you feel a sense of responsibility to people like Logan Ponder.
	They're looking for you for information.
	You feel a sense of responsibility to him?
	I mean, this is an email from nine years ago.
	I don't know what to say.
	No, I mean, let's talk about anybody who you have, unless...
	I don't think it would be inappropriate for me to say you have millions of fans, right?
	Would you agree with that?
	Sure.
	Okay.
	And those millions of fans who follow you and are engaged by you, some of them follow because they're entertained by you, and some are followed because they like the information, right?
	There could be different reasons people are a fan of yours, right?
	Some people could be really into your comedy.
	Some people could be really into your commentary.
	Some people could be really into your website and what you're doing there.
	There's lots of different reasons people could be a fan of yours, right?
	Yes.
	Okay, but in terms of those millions of people who are your fans, do you feel some sense of responsibility to them?
	I mean, yes, and it's been a growing learning process as well.
	Counselor, I have Exhibit 19 as the audio clip.
	Oh, you're absolutely right.
	Let's go ahead and remark that for the record.
	Thank you so much on that.
	And let me make sure I have that marked down.
	Yes, I do.
	Okay.
	Mr. Jones, I have, as you see, I've put in front of you an exhibit that's been remarked as Exhibit 20. You see that?
	Yes.
	And so this is the Logan Ponder email.
	Let me ask that one more time because you've got to write it down.
	This is the Logan Ponder email we've been talking about?
	Yes.
	I'm going to show you I've marked as Exhibit 21.
	You see where it says FSSTX 078964?
	Yes.
	Okay, so there's another email from Infowars Corporate Files?
	Yes.
	And it looks like here we have an email from a person named Gabrielle Jones is how they signed it, correct?
	Mm-hmm.
	Okay.
	This was an email sent on March 24th, 2014?
	Yes.
	Okay, and I'm going to read this email, okay?
	It says, Dear Alex Jones, I'm not sure if this is the way to contact you or not, but I hope this is received.
	My name is Gabrielle Jones.
	I'm 15, and I now truly realize that nothing is what it seems.
	Raised to think this way by my conspiracy theorist father, Evan Jones, I now understand everything from 9-11 and Sandy Hook all the way down to chemtrails in the skies and GMOs in our food.
	My father listens to you all the time and knows all about you.
	About one hour ago, he just made his first video, elephant in the room, chemtrails aren't invisible.
	You see, sir, I've been watching this, and I finally understand the things my father had been putting into my brain.
	We can't trust Big Brother, and something big is going to happen soon.
	Anyway, I'm sorry for the long story, but I had a huge question.
	You see, my father is unemployed, and he just wants to live a peaceful life and do what he loves.
	I want to help in this fight.
	The, quote, Infowars, unquote, you could say.
	Bad joke, sorry.
	But you see, I feel as though my father could do so much in this, just to show people the truth even.
	But I don't know how to do this for him, or help.
	But anyway, I ask of you, do you have any ideas?
	I know you would before anybody, so that is why I ask you.
	If this gets to you, thank you so much.
	Continue the good fight.
	Thank you, Gabriel Jones.
	I take it you've never seen this email, right?
	No.
	Okay.
	But now that it has gotten to you, and Gabriel now, seven years after the fact, you've seen Gabriel's thanking you.
	Very sweet.
	You're proud of this email, right?
	Objection form.
	I mean, I think it's a sweet person.
	It sounds sweet.
	He does.
	He sounds like a real sweet kid, doesn't he?
	Sounds like he's maybe waking up to some things in the world.
	Right?
	Ejection form.
	Correct?
	I mean, I think it's good to question.
	Yeah, and you're proud that you're able to do this, that people are going to follow you and you might be making a difference, right?
	I mean, I've tried to tell the truth and I've been warning people about tyranny and forced inoculations and now it's here.
	You didn't start InfoWars and do what you do every day, four hours talking.
	You didn't do that just to make money, right?
	No.
	You did that to make a difference, right?
	Yes, sir.
	Okay.
	Mr. Jones, I appreciate your time today.
	That's all the questions I've got for you.
	Thanks, sir.
	All right.

▲