Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 29, 2022 - Depositions & Trials

02:20:26

Alex Jones Defamation Trial: Sandy Hook 'Hoax' Lawsuit - Day Four, Part Two

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The defendants chose not to produce and disclose videos to a suspect.
	So, they have not laid any foundation for Mr. Zip that this is what it reports to do.
	Mr. Zip does testify that he- Well, he testified that he was asked to review a video with that name.
	By plaintiff's counsel, which would certainly indicate that they had the video with plenty of time to provide it.
	The problem is you never gave them your exhibits, so we don't know that what you're going to show is the same thing.
	That's the authentication problem.
	I did give them my exhibits, Your Honor.
	That's how we agreed on this list.
	more importantly honor just because we have we had to search for alternative sources we have no idea where actually came from it's all because nobody that neither defendant produced any videos business we began addressing this pretrial and we had to come to agreement because of this issue the foundation
	prior to hearing any of this is the the the the the
	the the the the the the the Can you approach?
	I'm going to use the same thing.
	Thank you.
	And please remember all of my previous instructions.
	I can't tell you how long it'll be.
	It could be five minutes.
	It could be a little bit more.
	All rise.
	Thank you.
	And as always, if you'll just shut the door for me.
	Appreciate it.
	All right, you may be seated.
	All right, so we had a conversation off the record, because we can't put them on the record when we get the recent year on record.
	The substance of which, for the record, was that I do think there's an authentication problem.
	I don't have a problem with impeachment, not for the purposes of, not for admitting that you're safe.
	All right, let's start over.
	I don't have a problem with impeachment evidence that isn't admitted for proving the truth of what it contains.
	But I do think that you still have an authentication problem.
	So what I would like to propose we do, or what I'm going to tell you that we do, is we'll play some of it now for the witness, and we'll see what the answers would be, and then I'll make a more final decision about how to handle it in front of the jury.
	Because I think maybe we can just get an answer, then we don't need the video because it isn't possible to do that.
	Thank you.
	I'm your host, Rob New.
	Thank you for joining us.
	We're about to have an extended interview, I believe.
	And if you remember last segment, we were talking with two documentary filmmakers for the documentary, We Need to Talk About Sandy Hook.
	I'm now joined by two individuals who are both on the opposite ends of the Sandy Hook spectrum.
	One is a writer for American Free Press, and his name is Keith Johnson.
	He, in fact, there's an article here that says, AFP's Keith Johnson, I'm a conspiracy theorist, but not on Sandy Hook.
	The other individual is a man who we've had on the show several times, Wolfgang Halvig, who runs SandyHookJustice.com.
	Gentlemen, how are you both doing today?
	Good.
	Mr. Zip, was this one of the videos that you were asked to review when preparing as an expert to testify on this case?
	I don't recall seeing it, actually.
	You can still use this for impeachment since the jury is not here.
	If you want to ask some questions to do that, that would lead to a question I'll let you ask and the jury is back.
	I'm willing to allow you to do that.
	But the video is not going to come with evidence.
	When, as part of your preparation to testify, did you ask the...
	I don't mean to cut you off.
	I mean, I do, obviously.
	But I don't mean to cut you off in that you can't ask this question.
	I just mean, you only need to ask questions right now that you could not ask in front of the jury.
	Is that what this one is?
	No, it isn't.
	I thought Your Honor wanted me to ask these questions outside the presence of the jury so that she could decide whether...
	No, the video's out.
	It's not authenticated.
	Your client made those decisions years ago.
	So the video's not coming in.
	He doesn't remember seeing it.
	I'm not saying you have to drop the whole subject.
	I'm saying you can't show him the video to do that.
	So, anything else before we bring them right back?
	Do you have any more videos you're going to try to get in that we need to discuss outside the presence of the jury with this witness?
	I do not.
	Okay.
	Then we can bring them back.
	It's good.
	For everyone's For everyone's For everyone's For everyone's
	Thank you.
	Everyone can file back in.
	All right, you may be seated.
	And Mr. Radon, you may be seated.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	Mr. Zip, you've not testified twice that the videos On Plainish Exhibit 31 were videos that you were asked to review in order to prepare and testify here today.
	Correct.
	And did you have every opportunity to get any documents you wanted or needed from the Plainish Council?
	I did.
	And looking at this list, I'm going to direct your attention to the bottom of page two.
	Can you read us the name of the video that's next to the date, December 12, 2014?
	Can you give him the paper?
	Oh, you're losing it there.
	I forgot.
	Never mind.
	Leave it there.
	No, no, leave it there.
	It's fine.
	You can stand up.
	We're going to get it fixed.
	It's not your fault that it's broken.
	We're going to get it fixed during the next break, though.
	I apologize.
	I forgot you were using the same, the actual exhibit.
	The ultimate Sandy Hook debate as the second anniversary loan use.
	I'll ask you now, have you watched that video?
	I'm not certain I have.
	What does the word debate mean to me?
	It means a conversation between conflicting points of view.
	So, could we say that another potential title for that video could be the ultimate conversation Between conflicting points of view on Sandy Hook as the second anniversary looms?
	Sure.
	That being said, would you like to revise your earlier testimony that InfoWars never broadcast alternative points of view or conflicting points of view as to the events of Sandy Hook?
	Wasn't the question you asked earlier whether there was a diversity of opinion because of a phrase that appeared in this document?
	Yeah, I believe.
	I believe you had testified.
	I saw no coverage showing both sides.
	Okay.
	And you're asking me would I like to revise then?
	Yes.
	Not without seeing the video.
	You had every opportunity to watch it before you testified here today.
	Thanks, sir.
	Pass the words.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Ogden?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Reynolds questioning you earlier he kept asking a lot about opinions Mr. Jones opinions Do you remember that?
	I didn't.
	Is that consistent with how Alex Jones describes the InfoWars coverage programming as opinion?
	No.
	In fact, Alex Jones signed an affidavit in this case.
	Did you repeat it?
	Isn't that true?
	He did.
	Thank you.
	Right next slide.
	Yes, Your Honor, I apologize.
	TX-12.
	This is an appendix signed under oath by Alex Jones, correct, Mr. Zip?
	Correct.
	I'm going to flip to page 2, paragraph 5. Can you read that paragraph for us, please?
	I have reviewed plaintiff's discovery requests to defendants, which are subject of plaintiff's motion to compel, as well as defendants' responses thereto.
	All sources, documents, and information were held by defendants, and which are the subjects of defendants' journalist privileges, in parentheses, numbers 2, 3, and 5, to FSS, and numbers 1, 2, and 5, To Jones, close parentheses, were obtained or prepared by me and other employees of FSS while I and they were acting as journalists.
	So while you were being questioned about Mr. Jones being equivalent to the Howard Stern Show as a talk show, Mr. Jones was swearing under the penalty of perjury that He and his employees were acting as journalists.
	Is that what I'm reading there?
	That's correct.
	When you go to the InfoWars website, do you see similar websites like that on the internet?
	It's organized in the way most news websites are.
	We heard a lot about Alex Jones not being the person that gathers the info, and he's just a mouthpiece for other people's reports.
	Do you remember that?
	I do.
	And what did this happen, David, that Mr. Jones signed under oath.
	I'm going to turn to page two, the top paragraph, fifth line.
	It starts with, I also supervise.
	You see that?
	Yes.
	Tell me if I'm reading this correctly.
	I also supervise or assist in gathering, preparing, and disseminating the news.
	Am I reading that correctly?
	You are.
	Or informational.
	Despite the questions you got from Mr. Reynold cross-examination, based on what you reviewed in this case, Alex Jones' sworn testimony says that not only is he a journalist, but he and his company are independently gathering information.
	True?
	Correct We've also A couple of times throughout this trial that you've been observing, have seen that Alex Jones says, Infowars is the news for tomorrow.
	Do you remember that slogan being said?
	I do.
	Were you in the courtroom for Mr. Bankston's opening statement?
	I was.
	It was a screenshot that was put on the TV for everybody to look at, and we discussed the banner behind Mr. Jones.
	Do you remember what that said?
	I did.
	What did it say?
	The front line of truth journalism.
	So, can you name any other talk shows that call themselves the front line of truth in journalism?
	I can't.
	I'm not a big talk show consumer, but I cannot.
	Would slogans like that, and slogans like the news tomorrow, today, would those slogans be more by news sources or by commentary of talk shows?
	They clearly, I think, tell the viewer, the audience, that this is a news website.
	This is a news operation.
	You would agree with me that rarely if ever Mr. Jones tells his audience that he's performing punditry or journalistic commentary on things that was described.
	Have you ever heard Mr. Jones tell his audience that?
	Yeah, in fact, what he tells them is just the opposite, that he is giving them the inside scoop on the vast conspiracy so that they can prepare for the future by buying supplements and so forth.
	We've reviewed a lot of material in this case on the Zero Hedge story.
	In your professional opinion, as an expert, can you describe the recklessness it takes for an organization like the Confidence to run the story that Neil Heslin never held his dead child?
	That's complete disregard for the basics of journalism.
	What about the fact that Sadie Hook never had How reckless is that for an organization holding itself out as a journalist to make that statement?
	It's as reckless as it gets.
	It's taking an abundantly documented fact and pretending that it didn't exist.
	So, for the proposition that Mr. Jones and Free Speech Systems aren't a news organization and they're not gathering, Do you remember reviewing a video in this case where Mr. Jones tells his audience in his own words the exact opposite?
	The exact opposite of what?
	That he's a talk show.
	that he's not in the news.
	I might be able to help you out there.
	Melissa, can you pull up PBX 12A? It's already in evidence.
	We'll watch it.
	I don't.
	Let's talk to Kevin.
	Kevin, go ahead.
	You're on the air.
	Hi, I'm calling about Sandy Hook.
	Basically, my take on it is I live about 50 miles from Newtown, and the whole thing is pretty much the next step in reality TV because with other false flags like 9-11 or Oklahoma City or the Boston bombing, at least something I've had the investigators on, I've had the state police have gone public, you name it.
	The whole thing is a giant hoax.
	And the problem is, how do you deal with a total hoax?
	How do you even convince the public something's a total hoax?
	Very hard because, you know, any time I talk about this issue with people, you know, you get criticized, blackball, ridicule, call every name of the book, or they respond with the magic words.
	They were saying on TV. There's no statement more proof positive of somebody who's been brainwashed by that stuff, mainstream media, than those words.
	They were saying on TV. Well, I always tell people the same thing.
	Go out and prove the official story.
	And I knew that a millisecond this happened with that There's nothing that's going to sell this agenda like dead elementary school kids.
	No, that's right.
	The general public doesn't know the school was actually closed the year before.
	They don't know they've sealed it all, demolished the building.
	They don't know that they had their kids going in circles in and out of the building as a photo op.
	Blue screen, green screens they got caught using.
	I mean, the whole thing.
	But remember, this is the same White House.
	That's been caught running the fake Bin Laden raid that's come out and been faked.
	It's the same White House that got caught running all these other fake events over and over again.
	And it's the same White House that says, I never said that you can keep your doctor when he did say you keep your doctor.
	People just instinctively know.
	That there's a lot of fraud going on.
	But it took me about a year with Sandy Hook to come to grips with the fact that the whole thing was fake.
	I mean, even I couldn't believe it.
	I knew they jumped on it, used the crisis, hyped it up, but then I did deep research and my gosh, it just pretty much didn't happen.
	So Mr. Jones is telling his listeners he did the research.
	And it just didn't happen.
	Does that sound like a talk show opinion or does that sound like a journalist telling his listeners that he did the research and this is a fact?
	Sounds like a journalist.
	Would you say, in your expert opinion, that Alex Jones recklessly represented that to his listeners on that broadcast?
	I would say yes.
	You've heard in this week, you've observed all of the defendant depositions and testimony, correct?
	Correct.
	We heard from Mr. Schroer yesterday and this morning.
	Mr. Schroer said, He considers himself a journalist during his employment, correct?
	Correct.
	We just heard from Mr. Badani through a video deposition.
	Mr. Badani told us he's a journalist, correct?
	Correct.
	We've seen testimony from Rob Dew speaking on behalf of the company, the company's position, that the majority of what they do is journalism, correct?
	Correct.
	And then we just looked, and we've also heard from Mr. Jacobson, Through a video deposition, Mr. Jacobson was so upset that he had violated journalistic ethics and was begging everyone else to stop.
	Do you remember that?
	I do.
	And then we have the sworn testimony of Alex Jones himself, swearing under oath, under penalty of perjury, that he is a journalist and him and his employees go and gather the information as a journalist.
	Right?
	Correct.
	Alex Jones and Free Speech Systems isn't a news source and they aren't journalists and it shouldn't be held to the standards of the journalists.
	It's misleading, is it?
	It's misleading certainly to suggest that he doesn't hold himself out as a journalist.
	Mr. Jones and Mr. Schroyer's broadcast and frankly everyone on the board that you reviewed do not make it clear whatsoever Whether or not they have their journalism at home.
	Correct?
	That's correct.
	They do not.
	But they present it in a way that, as a fact, that would imply the listeners to appreciate what they're saying is the truth.
	Correct?
	I mean, we just heard seven, he rattled off seven misrepresentations in a row, or at least six out of the seven things he said.
	I'm not sure about the seven.
	And that's consistent with the way he conducts his program that I've seen.
	The last thing I want to ask you about is your question on cross-examination about Bill Heslund and Scarlett Lewis and the interviews that they've done on Fox and on Megan Kelley.
	Do you remember that?
	I do.
	Those interviews that we were asked about.
	Are you aware of them?
	I don't believe you were.
	Or were you?
	I don't remember.
	Let's work on...
	Here, I'll ask you again, Your Honor.
	Did you know that every single one of those interviews was done after this lawsuit was filed?
	I can't even imagine we're leaving with that.
	Let's try not to leave, please.
	the rejection not really stated but is sustained when a when an individual is not a news source or media company needs a voice are there avenues that they can use like lawsuits to have their voices heard yes sir
	this is it all of the opinions you gave today are they within a reasonable degree of professional certainty accepted in the journalism field Yes.
	I appreciate it.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Reynolds?
	Mr. Zip, would you agree that words matter?
	Yes.
	And that definitions of words matter?
	Yes.
	Do you know what the legal definition of a journalist is under the Texas law?
	I do not.
	Do you know what the definition of a journalist is for the purposes of somebody being a citizen journalist under the Supreme Court law?
	I do not.
	So, did it - when you were being asked those questions by plaintiff's counsel about Mr. Jones' affidavit, did it occur to you that he might be using a different definition of did it occur to you that he might be using a different definition of journalist than the one That did not occur to me.
	Now, just to clear up some confusion, are you saying that you have or have not reviewed the complete record of Mr. Heslin and Ms. Lewis's interviews, are you saying that you have or have not reviewed the complete record of Mr.
	That's not the scope of the direct.
	Three direct.
	Overruled.
	Would you repeat the question, please?
	I was unclear, based on the redirect from the plaintiff's side, whether your testimony is that you are in fact familiar with the plaintiff's media appearances, whether your testimony is that you are in fact familiar with the plaintiff's media appearances, articles, published speeches, and published books, or you
	I'm familiar with Mr. Haslam's appearance on the Megyn Kelly profile of Alex Jones.
	I am a Wall Street Journal occasional reader, so it's possible that I saw something in the Wall Street Journal.
	You mentioned that.
	Although I do not have any strong recollection of it.
	I'm unfamiliar with any of their appearances elsewhere on television.
	Are you familiar with Ms. Lewis's book published in 2013 about the Sandy Hook?
	I am not.
	And are you familiar with Mr. Heslund's trip to Congress to advocate for gun control?
	Also, I believe, was a critical unit and was widely covered.
	You know, I'm aware that it happened.
	I was not associated with the case at the time, so it didn't make a strong impression on me.
	And is it fair to say that you're certainly not telling the members of this jury that, based on your knowledge, there aren't Many other media appearances, speeches, and interviews that Mr. Heslin and Ms. Lewis participated in prior to the Megyn Kelly show, prior to this lawsuit, in the years 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. I lost the parentheses of your question.
	Are you telling this jury as you sit here that Mr. Heslin and Ms. Lewis did not Publish books, engage in public speaking, be interviewed by newspapers, and go on television programs.
	Are you telling me that they didn't engage in all those behaviors, or activities, in the years 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016?
	I'm saying I don't know.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	So that means it is time for my jury to get another trip It's going to be not a requirement, and it's for each of you individually.
	All right, you may be excused.
	All rise!
	So, Mr. Zip, what happens now is we all take advantage of Ben being gone to take a quick break, probably 10 or 15 minutes, I'm not exactly sure, and then you don't come back into the courtroom, but you stay near enough where we can get your attention.
	All right
	But pink and putting clips at work.
	Do you believe that she did purposely have a bias and intentionally do so?
	We're going to talk about that question.
	Regardless of the textbook definition of the word journalism and any affidavit, you studied semiotics.
	Did he say that?
	Yes, you're right.
	Well, I missed it.
	I guess I shouldn't have said that out loud for everybody.
	I went directly to Wikipedia when I heard that.
	What?
	I went directly to Wikipedia when I heard that for the first time.
	Yeah, I just didn't catch it.
	Alright, you studied semiotics, which for the court in general terms, Wow, that paces a lot.
	Is the study of signs and their relationship to their meaning.
	As someone familiar with this subject, could you say whether the InfoWars videos you watched included signs the viewer could see that were intended to mean that InfoWars is stating factual news, searching for the truth, or that InfoWars is being tongue-in-cheek or somewhat insincere in the statements of their broadcast?
	In your expert opinion, do lawsuits of this sort provide perhaps the only legitimate means at our disposal for our society to fight back against election deniers and dissimilar issues?
	I don't think that his expertise allows me to answer that question.
	How firmly can we apply traditional journalistic code of ethics and guidelines to internet journalism when social media plays a strong role in individuals So, breaking news and headlines.
	First and Second Amendment, these are not questions.
	First and Second Amendment comparison.
	Would you agree that Mr. Jones saying, I'm sorry if I hurt anyone, but I can say what I want, is comparable to Adam Lanza saying, I'm sorry, we are not asking this question.
	I'm sorry I killed the kids, but I can still own a gun.
	Wouldn't each need to carry their weapons, words or guns, in a responsible manner?
	In fact, that's just...
	I don't think that's...
	I would sustain an objection to that question.
	If you guys want to argue about it, I'll let you, but not us.
	Don't ask that one.
	In your experience, if the journalistic approach taken by any of Infoboard's reporters, producers, or editors had taken place in a conventional newsroom, would they have been fired?
	If yes, what reasons would have been given?
	Do you think you were given enough time to prepare for your testimony?
	As an expert, how would you have fact-checked and source-checked the Zero Hedge article Owen Schreyer presented on his show?
	You mentioned you had continued to watch Infobars in recent months to see if any of their practices have changed since the suit was filed.
	Have you observed any changes?
	To your knowledge, does InfoWars free speech systems have an internal code on it?
	Okay, let's go through them one more time.
	In general, did you find that the titles or the videos were an accurate representation of the content therein?
	I think that's a fair question.
	Both Ms. Karpova and Mr. Schroyer testified that the Megyn Kelly video that we saw was edited or cut in a way to cliff Mr. Jones Here's the problem.
	This video was not admitted for the truth of what it says at all.
	And you, I think it was you, did elicit a lot of testimony.
	I don't remember an objection about the cutting and the...
	I don't remember who solicited that testimony, actually, but Mr. Charter didn't talk about that.
	So, I think maybe we can allow this question.
	I think it's...
	Unfortunate.
	Does anyone have an objection to it?
	Your Honor, we would object that even if it is offered for the truth, it's still speculation on Mr. Zip to offer a video cutting of a broadcast.
	I think it's outside the room.
	Excuse me, what Megan Kelly was thinking about the bias that she never had.
	Alright, because the question is, do you believe that she did purposely have a bias and intentionally do so?
	Oh, and that is speculation.
	All right Okay Let me read the whole thing.
	Regardless of the textbook definition of the word journalism and any activity, you studied semiotics, which for the court, that just cracks me up.
	I mean, he or she is not wrong.
	I'm a little sad that he was like, oh yeah, she was like, court doesn't know what that means.
	You studied symbiotics, which for the court in general terms is the study of signs and their relationships, their relationship to their meaning.
	As someone familiar with the subject, could you say whether the InfoWars videos you watched included signs that viewer could see?
	They were intended to mean that InfoWars is stating factual news, searching for the truth, or that InfoWars is being tongue-in-cheek for somewhat insincere in the statements of their broadcast.
	The first problem I have is I don't think that he is an expert on semiotics, even if he studied it in college or something.
	I see Mr. Reynold, that's your objection to this question.
	I kind of agree with that.
	I didn't even hear him say semiotics, not that I hear every word perfectly, but he's an expert on journalism, not semiotics.
	Do you have a different argument to report?
	That's fine.
	Okay, we're not gonna ask this person.
	Okay, this is another one that I think is probably not gonna get asked.
	In your expert opinion, do lawsuits of this sort provide perhaps the only legitimate means at our disposal for our society to fight back against election deniers?
	doesn't have anything to do with journalism at all.
	Okay, how firmly can we apply traditional journalistic code of ethics and guidelines on internet journalism when social media plays a strong role in individuals coming up with their own breaking news and headlines?
	That seems fair.
	Would you agree that Mr...
	Oh, yeah, we're not asking this one.
	Would you agree that Mr. Jones saying, I'm sorry if I heard anyone, is the same?
	We're not asking that.
	For one thing, it's just...
	It's inflammatory.
	not we're not putting words in your experience of the journalistic approach taken by any of the more reporters editors have taken place in a conventional newsroom with a been fired If yes, what reasons would have been given?
	I think that's fair game.
	Do you think you were given enough time to prepare for your testimony?
	I mean, that's fine.
	All right.
	As an expert, how would you have fact-checked and source-checked the Zero Hedge article on the show?
	If that's fair.
	You mentioned you had continued to watch InfoWars in recent months to see if any of their practices have changed since the suit was filed.
	Have you observed any changes?
	That seems fair.
	I was going to.
	Oh, why?
	Well, I think that his, he was called as an expert to talk about the videos that were in evidence and the sourcing, fact checking on those videos.
	There's nothing to indicate that he was hiring or systematically really.
	Right.
	He kind of said, I'll check in now and again.
	That's fine.
	And then the last question, to your knowledge, does Infowars free speech systems have an internal voting contest?
	I think that's fair.
	Okay, back on the record, which I forgot to do...
	Oh, yes.
	So, I sailed to get your answers of no objection to the questions to...
	Mr. Troyer?
	But you've had no objections, both of you.
	It was not you.
	Okay, so just to get that on the record.
	So now we're on the record for the questions from Mr. Zip.
	We've gone through, and I've eliminated a number of them, which you've all heard.
	The ones that are remaining, are there any objections?
	No, you're not.
	Thank you.
	No, you're not.
	Okay, wonderful.
	We can bring victory back.
	Thank you.
	Please come back up.
	at we're waiting for the jury.
	Okay.
	All right.
	All right.
	You may be seated.
	Mr. Sip, I'm going to ask you some questions and ask you to just answer them.
	Listen carefully to the question and just answer the question you're asked.
	I know you've been in here, so you've heard my instructions a few times.
	Are you ready?
	In general, did you find that the titles of the videos were an accurate representation of the content therein?
	Yes.
	These are questions for the jury.
	Yes.
	How firmly can we apply traditional journalistic code of ethics and guidelines to internet journalism when social media plays a strong role in individuals coming up with their own breaking news and headlocks?
	That's a good question.
	Well, it is difficult because generally the enforcement of principles In your experience,
	if the journalistic approach taken by any of Infowars reporters, producers, or editors have taken place in a conventional newsroom, would they have been fired?
	It would have been warned, and if it continued, they would have been fired.
	What reasons would have been given?
	Failure to...
	failure to observe professional standards.
	Do you think you were given enough time to prepare for your testimony?
	Yes.
	As an expert, how would you have fact-checked and source-checked the zero-hedge order, excuse me, Zero Hedge article Owen Troyer presented on his show.
	I would have found the video of the medical examiner, which was available, and of the family, also available on the CNN website.
	That were used in the Zero Edge article was consistent with the source material.
	To your knowledge, does InfoWars Free Speech Systems LLC have an internal code of conduct?
	I have no knowledge about that.
	Alright.
	Mr. Zip, thank you so much for your time and your testimony.
	We all greatly appreciate it here for you to return to your spot.
	You are, as an expert, not under the rule, so...
	I assume there's no subpoena as well.
	Thank you.
	And then who will be our next witness?
	- I'm planning to call Christopher Daniels by way of deposition. - All right.
	Let's start that. - All right, so let's talk a little bit about your background. so let's talk a little bit about your background.
	First of all, can you state your full name for the record?
	Christopher Daniels.
	Do you have a bill name?
	Alan.
	And how old are you?
	37. And what's your employment status?
	I'm employed with Free Speech Systems, LLC. Mr. Daniels, do you consider yourself a journalist?
	When did you begin your employment with Free Speech Systems?
	May of 2013. When you first became employed at Free Speech Systems, were you aware of any internal journalistic standards?
	I don't recall.
	Do you know if there are any standards on fact checking?
	I don't recall.
	Any standards on the vetting of sources?
	I don't recall.
	Any standards on the verification of other reporting?
	I don't recall.
	Any standard or requirement regarding any background in journalism?
	I don't recall.
	When you became employed at Free Speech Systems, did you receive any training?
	Yes.
	What training did you receive?
	Mainly how to work the updated website.
	Would you describe that as technical website training?
	For the most part, yes.
	Did you receive training on any other subjects?
	Not that I recall.
	Did you receive any training on anything related to journalism?
	I don't remember.
	Are you an editor of Free Speed Systems?
	I mean, if I had to pick a term, I guess I would use that term, although I don't like using that term a lot because that kind of gets confused with video editor.
	Do you review work by other writers?
	I do.
	And what do you do to review work by other writers?
	I just read the content.
	And what do you review it for?
	So it's mainly typos, accuracy, that sort of thing.
	What do you do to review the accuracy of the work by other writers?
	Well, it just really depends So what sort of context would it depend on?
	I don't understand the question.
	So you said it depends on context, right?
	Yes.
	How would it depend on context?
	Well, every news story is different.
	It just depends on what the news story is about.
	Do you ever go beyond the article you're reviewing to review the accuracy of the content of the article?
	I don't understand that question.
	But don't you understand about it?
	I don't understand the question.
	Can you rephrase it?
	Sure.
	So when you're reviewing an article, do you ever review other materials to verify the accuracy of that article?
	I mean, I'm sure I've had, but like I said, it really just depends on the context.
	Are there any contexts in which, in your view, it's particularly important to review the accuracy of an article on InfoWars?
	I don't understand that question.
	Don't you understand about it?
	I just don't understand the question.
	Are there some contexts more than others where it's important to review the accuracy of an article in it for us?
	I don't understand the question.
	What's confusing about the question?
	I think the whole thing is confusing the way you're wording it.
	So you can't say whether there are some contexts that more than others?
	- I don't understand the question. - Are there any words in particular that you don't understand in that question?
	I don't understand the question.
	So what determines whether you're going to go beyond the text of an article to review anything about accuracy?
	I don't understand the question, to be honest.
	What don't you understand about it?
	Well, it sounds like you're talking in riddles.
	I mean, that's maybe not your intention, but I just don't understand the question the way you're asking it.
	Okay.
	I'll see if I can break it down for you.
	Do you ever look beyond the text of an article to review its accuracy?
	I check the sources of the article signing, yes.
	And what sort of sources would you check?
	It's whatever's linked in the article.
	So beyond the links in the article, you don't check anything else to verify the accuracy of the article?
	Not that I recall.
	And one of the things that Alex Jones conveys to his audience is that he's telling the truth that others won't tell, correct?
	I would say so, yes.
	And would you say that part of that message is that his listeners or viewers can depend on him for the facts about world events?
	I would say so.
	Was it a policy that an article should have multiple sources of InfoWars?
	whether a written policy or an unwritten policy at any point?
	It was a good practice to do so.
	And did you do anything to verify that other But did you do anything to verify that?
	I looked at their articles.
	And did you do anything to verify whether they used multiple sources?
	Well, like I said, you just look at their articles and it was already a practice for them to do so.
	Did you ever encounter a circumstance where an author at InfoWars did not use multiple sources in an article?
	I don't recall.
	And was that an important practice, that InfoWars, to have multiple sources for each article?
	I don't like to call it important.
	It was just a standard practice.
	And how was it known to you that it was a standard practice?
	Because everyone was already doing it.
	Okay.
	Did anyone ever communicate that expectation that there should be multiple sources for every article?
	I don't recall.
	Did anyone ever take any action to enforce any sort of standard practice that there be multiple sources for every article?
	I don't recall.
	I'm sure you did.
	What's been marked as Planex Exhibit 21?
	Can you see Planex Exhibit 21, Mr. Daniels?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And what is Planex Exhibit 21?
	A school shooting expert threatened overseeing the investigation from February 2014 And it's an article on Infowars.com, correct?
	I believe so, yes.
	Written by Adon Salazar?
	Yes.
	And would you agree that the only source for the article, the Big Dinner in Plants Exhibit 21, is Wolfgang Halland?
	I mean, if we're reading the article, that's what it appears to be.
	And there are no other sources cited in the author, thank you, excuse me, withdrawn.
	There are no other...
	Well, yes, but this article looks more like a featured story you'd read in a magazine.
	It's not a typical article for Info Wars.
	But it only has one source, correct?
	From what I can tell.
	And what is Clancy's Exhibit 19?
	The headline reads, Sandy Hook Investigator, Connecticut PD, had an FBI false And it was written by Adon Salazar.
	That's what it says.
	Can I ever say that for this article to Wolfgang Halbig was the only source?
	Yes, but like the other article, it's a very atypical article in how it's written.
	How is it atypical?
	It's every form of like a featured story you'd read in a magazine rather than an article you'd read in a newspaper.
	But that article was a deviation from the standard practice that you identified that there are multiple sources cited for every article.
	Well, let me say this.
	It's a very typical article that we normally don't write articles that interview people or, you know, it's basically kind of reads like a feature story you read in a magazine about some local person in the city or business person or whatever.
	And was that typical of articles about well-paying all design floors?
	I don't know.
	Did you ever review the article depicted in the plaintiff's exhibit 19?
	No, to be honest, I think this is the first time I've ever read it.
	And the article in the plaintiff's exhibit 21, the first time, have you ever reviewed this article before?
	I've seen the headline when it went up on the website, but I don't remember ever reading it.
	And you didn't review it before it was published?
	Doubtful.
	What is the plan?
	Is it a 20?
	FBI says no one killed at Sandy Hook.
	This is an article that appeared on the For Wars website, correct?
	Yes, it looks like it, yes.
	And it was written by Don Salazar?
	That's what it says.
	And have you ever reviewed this article before, Mr. Channels?
	I've seen the headline before, but I don't remember reading the article.
	That would be pretty groundbreaking news, right, if the FBI were saying that nobody was killing San Diego?
	I would assume so.
	Pretty shocking, correct?
	I would assume so, I guess.
	I don't know.
	The kind of thing you'd want to verify with the FBI, correct?
	I don't know.
	I wasn't involved in this story.
	If one of the writers who you supervise today came to you with this article, you would direct them to check with the FBI, correct?
	I don't know.
	You don't know if you would do so?
	I don't know.
	It's very hypothetical.
	Would you direct them to check with any other source that they could?
	I don't know.
	Would you allow them to just publish the article?
	It looks like an email from Buckley to me from 2015. And it's responding to an email you originally wrote, right?
	I believe so.
	And in the original email you wrote, you said the article NY Stock Exchange shuts down was one of the most viral articles of the day and all I did was rewrite a CNBC blurb Yes.
	And you said, in other words, even if we had a couple of writers who just wrote MSM articles that are breaking news and gave them more sensational headlines, we'd experience a huge boost to traffic overall.
	Yes, that's what the email says.
	And you suggested to Buckley that That's what the email says, yes.
	That statement that if you had a couple of writers at Infowars who just rewrote mainstream media articles and gave them more sensational headlines that Infowars would experience if you'd boost traffic overall, you believed that to be true at the time, correct?
	That's what I read in the email.
	And you believed it to be true then?
	I don't remember back then.
	Maybe I was just trying to impress Buckley.
	Who knows?
	Why would you want to impress Buckley?
	He was kind of like Alex's manager at the time.
	So you don't want to get on his bad side, you know what I mean?
	Well, we know in this case, right?
	Because he answered, quote, I agree, I like this tactic, to your suggestion, right?
	Oh, he did.
	I guess he did.
	I'm going to show you what's been marked as a finance exhibit since.
	Okay.
	Mr. Daniels, can you see Plan FCS 7-6?
	Yes.
	Alright, what is Plan FCS 7-6?
	It looks like an email that I sent to Patrick Riley.
	It says edits, third-party advertising, so it's probably me checking typos on something that they wrote.
	And what was it that they wrote?
	It looks like a thing for radio affiliates or digital advertisers from the looks of it.
	All right.
	And it looks like the figures cited are 8.1 million global uniques in January 2017.
	That's what the email says.
	It says lower on the page.
	There were 46.3 global views in January 2016.
	Do you know what that means?
	To be honest, all I probably did as far as this is concerned is Patrick might have sent me this email to check it from typos and proofread it.
	I probably just sent it back to him.
	So as far as the actual figures and things like that, I don't know how they got those.
	And you believe that calling somebody a crisis actor would be a horrible claim, right?
	If it's false.
	So falsely saying that Well, it depends on the context.
	I mean, you don't know what he called something that you're not, you know?
	Who's Robert Jacobson?
	He was a cameraman who worked for Alex Jones for, I believe, about 14 years.
	Were you ever aware of Mr. Jacobson advising anyone of concerns about relying on Mr. Holbeck as a source for the proposition that Sandy Hook was a scripted event?
	I remember that Jacobson had Concerns that he believed that Sandy Hook really happened.
	And that went against the, you know, it wasn't really a unified front at the office of whether or not it happened.
	different people had different opinions about it.
	Next witness.
	You're going to recall back to Lewis this time.
	Raise your right hand.
	You can send forward just a little bit.
	Do you solemnly swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony we're about to begin shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	You can come have a seat here.
	I see that you've brought some notes up with you.
	The rule in my courtroom is you can't look at those unless I or an attorney says you can.
	So you've got to set them upside down to the side.
	Thank you.
	And it looks like we forgot to throw away that water, so don't pick up the wrong water glass.
	Mr. Matt Shakespeare will come get it.
	You can pour a new one for yourself.
	Sounds good.
	Thank you.
	Yeah, don't make a mistake there.
	And then it sounds like we'll be able to hear you.
	You don't need to talk directly into the microphone.
	I'm just in that direction.
	Thank you so much.
	It's not like a conversation, so you have to let the lawyers completely finish asking their questions before you begin your answers so that you don't speak over one another.
	Do you understand?
	And I need you to answer out loud in words without um-humms or things like that.
	Do you understand?
	Wonderful.
	Thank you.
	Go ahead.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	All right, Ms. Lewis, can you introduce yourself for the record?
	Yes, I'm Becca Lewis.
	And I just want to make it clear for the record, no relation to Scarlett Lewis.
	Not that I'm aware of, no.
	Just a coincidence?
	Yes.
	Okay, as far as profession, are you an academic researcher?
	Yes.
	Okay, do you do anything else besides that?
	Yes, I'm also an educator.
	I teach students and I do public interest work with nonprofits and I write some media criticism as well.
	What is your field of expertise?
	So generally the discipline that I'm in is called communication and basically we research human interaction in a scientific way.
	My specific area of expertise is looking at disinformation and conspiracy theories and how they travel online.
	Communication studies often have a focus on You have an educational background now.
	Can you tell us where you did your undergraduate work?
	Yes, I have a BA in double studies from Columbia University.
	Alright, and I don't mean to embarrass you, but for the members of the jury who might not know, can you let them know where Columbia stands in terms of academic prestige?
	Oh, yeah, it's...
	I'm very proud to have gone there.
	It's considered one of the top universities in the country.
	Okay, and then once you graduated with your degree from Columbia, did you do any Master's work?
	Yes, so I have my Master's of Science in the Social Science of the Internet from Oxford University.
	Okay, I'm going to embarrass you again.
	Can you tell the jury how Oxford University is viewed in your field in terms of academic prestige?
	Yes.
	I feel a little silly.
	It's considered one of the top research universities in the world.
	But then, so once you got your Master's in Social Science on the Internet from Oxford University, what institution did you go to next?
	So I'm currently researching and teaching at Stanford University, and that's also where I'm a doctoral candidate in Communication Theory and Research.
	Let's do it one more time.
	Stanford University, for those in the jury who don't know, where does Stanford sit in terms of academic prestige?
	It's also very highly regarded.
	It's one of the one of the top schools in the country.
	All right.
	And at Stanford right now you're doing some research, is that right?
	Yes.
	Okay, and one of the things I know you have a thesis going on right now?
	Yes, my dissertation.
	Can you tell the jury what the topic of your dissertation is?
	Yes, so in general up until this point I have researched Right-wing and far-right movements on the internet and also specifically disinformation campaigns and conspiracy theories and their spread.
	My dissertation focuses specifically on a history of right-wing and far-right movements on the internet and how they came to be what they are today.
	Okay, do you have any fellowships, anything like that, other affiliations with institutions?
	Yes, I have a fellowship through Stanford University, it's called the Stanford Graduate Fellowship.
	I'm also a graduate fellow at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, the Center for Information Technology and Public Life, CTEP, they call it.
	And I am a research affiliate at a research institute known as Data and Society that looks at the impact of the internet on social dynamics in the world.
	And I also have previously been the recipient of an Impact Guild Fellowship for Social Good, which is forwarded to people doing research on issues of social importance.
	Has your work in this field been published?
	Yes.
	I have several articles that have been published in academic peer-reviewed journals.
	And I also have published two late papers, which are essentially research publications that fall somewhere between an article and a book in length.
	And I also have done some public writing as well.
	And then, have you written any chapters for any published books?
	Yes, I have.
	And then, have you presented your work publicly?
	Yes, I have...
	I've given several, I think about ten, referee presentations, which means that they've gone through the process of peer review before I'm then allowed to give that presentation, so they've been reviewed.
	And then I've also been invited to give many talks at different schools and other institutions as well.
	Okay.
	Are you popular on Twitter?
	I post on Twitter.
	Sure, let me say, you have an active Twitter account where thousands of people follow you, right?
	Yes.
	Is that your personal account or your professional account?
	That's my personal account.
	Okay.
	Do you do some political punchetry on there?
	Yes.
	Let me ask you this.
	When working in this field, have you become passionate about politics?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	We live in some strange political science.
	Would you agree with me about that?
	We do.
	I always approach my research from the empirical side and set aside my own political ideas in that context, but I do have strongly held political ideas as well.
	Is misinformation, is that limited to any political party?
	No.
	Absolutely not.
	Okay.
	The work that you do, does it include debunking various pieces of information?
	I'm sorry, I asked that question wrong.
	Does it involve debunking various pieces of misinformation that are spreading across the internet?
	Yes, it does, yes.
	Have you debunked misinformation that came from conservative sources?
	Yes.
	And far-right fascist sources?
	Yes.
	Have you debunked misinformation from left-wing sources?
	Yes.
	Socialist, communist sources?
	Yes.
	Have you debunked sources that came right down the middle in large mainstream media publications?
	Yes.
	Can you describe outside of your academic work any other work that you've done in this field?
	Yes, I worked as a researcher at Data& Society Research Institute full-time.
	They had a team that they were built up to research what they call media manipulation by various groups, and I worked on that team.
	And before I got into academic research, I worked at a software company called Crimson Hexagon that does data analytics, social media data analytics on behalf of brands and agencies and non-profit institutions.
	Alright, when I reached out to you, Can you explain to the jury what I asked you to do in this case?
	Yes, you asked me to review materials from the case, testimonies, you asked me to do some of my own research, and you also asked me to come here.
	Okay, and I asked you to, when you say materials in this case, that means various things produced in this lawsuit, documents and testimony?
	Yes, that's right.
	Okay, and I When you have that list, is that a list that paper would that help refresh your memory as to all of All right, that's fine as long as that's what it is, but you don't read from it.
	Okay.
	You refresh your recollection and then you tell them.
	Would you like to reflect your recollection on all the materials that you reviewed real quick?
	Yes, please.
	Okay, take a look real quick and we'll talk about it.
	Okay, I believe I should be fine.
	All right.
	If you need to, we'll refresh at the end of it.
	OK, perfect.
	The news is in the middle.
	But can you start by telling us, just go ahead and start listing off the materials that you reviewed.
	Yes.
	So I reviewed about 1,500 pages of literature related to Alex Jones and Infowars.
	Most of that was academic literature.
	I ended up reviewing about 30 studies for this case.
	Some of it was also journalism.
	Yeah, so basically academic publications in journalism.
	I also reviewed three specific pieces of testimony, and I already had a really deep familiarity with Alex Jones and Infowars' videos, but specifically for the purposes of this trial, I reviewed the two most recent videos in which he references that we have.
	Did you review Mr. Jones' deposition testimony from March in 2019?
	Yes, I did.
	Did you review Mr. Jones' deposition testimony from November 2019?
	Yes.
	And did you review editor Paul Watson's deposition from November 2019?
	Yes, I did.
	Before this case, you were familiar with Mr. Jones and InfoWars?
	Yes, it's impossible to research disinformation on the internet and not encounter Mr. Jones and InfoWars.
	Your Honor, I object under a civil practice and learning code section 4111. Overruled.
	May I have a running objection?
	You may.
	When you say that anybody who is in the field of disinformation encounters InfoWars, what do you mean by that?
	Well, Infowars has an influence on the internet among creators of disinformation that's pretty unparalleled.
	One of the ways that we, there's many different ways that we approach this research, but a lot of it is seeing who other figures retweet, repost, make content about, make content referencing, what sorts of posts disseminate throughout social media, which sorts of posts disseminate within certain social networks, and to say that Mr. Jones shows up frequently is an understatement.
	I want to talk about a publication that you have entitled Media Manipulation and Disinformation Online.
	Do you remember that publication?
	Yes, I do.
	Okay.
	And where was that published?
	That was published through the Data and Society Research Institute.
	Okay.
	Do you consider publications from the Data and Society Research Institute to be authoritative in your field?
	Yes.
	Do you consider them to be reliable in your field?
	Yes, and I believe they are considered that widely.
	Were you the sole author on that?
	No, I had a co-author.
	Okay, and who is that?
	Alice Morwick, who is a professor of communication at the University of North Carolina.
	Okay.
	Your Honor, let me, can I see the exhibit 17?
	No, do not put it up.
	Just any paper.
	I understand.
	I'm going to approach you now.
	What's been marked?
	Planter's exhibit 17.
	Is that your study?
	Yes, it is.
	Or your article?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Can I have a discussion with the rules of the lies of unauthoritative publication, the data of society publication?
	Yes, I do.
	Would you like to admit the plan to 17 under the current treaties?
	Any objection?
	Yes, Your Honor, we object.
	Here say it doesn't qualify as a form of truth.
	No, I'm sure you say.
	How about I read the rule?
	Sure.
	This is not something that happens every day in every case.
	Right, this is right.
	So can you point me to the right rule?
	I know it's in the 802 or 803. It's in 803. Thank you.
	So one of the exceptions.
	Yes, and it's in, I think it's in somewhere between 17 and 20. Alright, hang on.
	oh it's it's 803 18.
	so so
	do you think this article comes into evidence under any other rule than 803 18?
	No, actually, as I'm reading 803, it republished to the jury but not admitted it.
	Correct.
	And that's all I'm asking.
	Okay, so the objection to admitting Plaintiff's Exhibit 17 as an exhibit is sustained.
	So the way I read the rule is you need to ask your witness questions about it, and you can use them that way.
	I think I may be repeating some of these questions, so I'm not sure if I'm going the right way.
	But what I'm going to ask is the questions from the rule.
	The questions from the rule?
	That it's an authoritative in our field.
	That's fine.
	Yeah, I'm just saying if you want her to testify about something contained in the article, you ask her a question.
	Yes, yes.
	And then we go.
	Yes.
	Okay, no worries.
	And in fact, for this one, I don't think we're going to need to be here in Netflix.
	I'm not going to ask you about a specific statement.
	Okay.
	It's really just putting up the cover.
	But what I wanted to, from the cover, list your name and your fellow author's name.
	Yes.
	Correct?
	And this is a day of society.
	Does this publication discuss this or don't?
	Yes, it does.
	Okay.
	So this, would you consider this to be part of your published work as it regards InfoWor's involvement in the game?
	Yes, exactly.
	Can you kind of describe the media environment?
	Why our current media environment allowed Mr. Jones to become so popular?
	Do you have a conclusion on that?
	Yes, and I teach entire classes on this, so I'll try to keep it as brief as possible.
	There's a few things I think that are important.
	The first is that the current media environment online is what we call an attention economy, which means that everyone is vying for views, for clicks, either to translate those into Into revenue, through advertising, or just to translate it into influence, right?
	To get as many eyeballs in front of your page as possible.
	And so sometimes that translates into what we call clickbait, which means that you have a really salacious headline and someone clicks into it.
	It's not actually reflected in the story.
	But sometimes that's reflected more in the content itself and the fact that people try to publish Really salacious content to get those views.
	But the other big way that I would describe the media environment right now is that on the internet people are able to form really insular communities, bubbles, in which they reinforce each other's fears and anxieties and biases about the world.
	And often there are opportunists who will come in and stoke those fears as well.
	In all of your professional work with InfoWars and during your work in your case, do you believe Mr. Jones is one of those individuals?
	I do.
	Now, did you, as we discussed before, you reviewed the published academic literature?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So in order to do that, can you kind of walk me through how you attacked that issue?
	Like how you got your literature and all that?
	Yes, absolutely.
	So I started with a resource that scholars love, which is Google's search specifically for A lot of academic work, unfortunately, is behind a paywall and therefore is really inaccessible to the public.
	So I tried to focus specifically on publications that were free and accessible to the public.
	I ended up reviewing about 30 different articles that somehow deal with Alex Jones and Infowars.
	And then after about 30 articles, I've reached what we call a saturation point, which means that the points were getting repetitive.
	Okay.
	And were you able to determine from the published literature If there had been a consensus in the literature regarding Mr. Jones' responsibility for pushing lies about Sandy.
	Yes, there was universal consensus that he was responsible for the spread of these lies.
	I want to talk about some of those studies.
	First, are you familiar with the journal Modern American History?
	Yes, I am.
	Okay, and are you familiar in that journal with an article in that journal called Fringe Paranoia Goes Mainstreams?
	Yes, I am.
	Okay, is that something that you reviewed and relied on in this case?
	Yes.
	Okay, and the journal itself, Modern American History, Do you consider that publication to be a reliable authority in the field of media studies?
	I do.
	It's a highly respected and prestigious journal.
	It's published by Cambridge University.
	It also goes through the rigorous process of academic peer review.
	Can you describe to the jury what peer review means in the context of a published study?
	Yes.
	Peer review is a system that academics use to try to ensure that our work is really high quality and rigorous research.
	So if I were going to submit an article to a publication, then that publication would send the article to two or three experts in the field.
	Who would review my methods, my findings, the literature I draw on, and they would either reject it outright if they didn't think that it was rigorous or acceptable for the standards of their journal, or they would ask me to rub In
	this article, Fringe Paranoia Goes Mainstream In the journal Modern American History.
	Are there specific statements within that article that you have relied on that you find authoritative and reliable?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	I would like to show you those statements now.
	Here is the study.
	Okay, I'm going to ask you questions about that.
	And I would like you, from this publication that you have found reliable, Can you please read for the jury the specific statements in there that you thought were relevant to your testimony today?
	Yes, absolutely.
	I should just dive in?
	You should.
	Just let us know, hey, this statement, then later this statement, whatever you want to do.
	Sounds good.
	The career of Alex Jones best illustrates the mainstreaming of anti-government conspiracism.
	And then it skips a bit and says, his improvised rants, mixing right-wing and left-wing fears of government overreach, won him a large fan base, and he moved to conservative talk radio in 1996. And then in the next paragraph, there's a quote that says, though he had a dedicated following before 2009, Jones's popularity really began to surge when Obama won the presidency.
	Jones cleverly inserted Obama into long-standing American Conspiracy narratives about elite rulers.
	And then at the end of that paragraph, it says, Infowars began promoting even more conspiracy theories, including, most notoriously, that the massacre of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School was a government hoax designed to take Americans' guns.
	And then the very last sentence of this article says, as distrust and conspiracism became mainstreamed, figures like Alex Jones moved from the paranoid fringe to advising those at the center of power.
	Now, are these statements here consistent with your research and your work in this case?
	Yes, absolutely.
	Can you explain a little bit why?
	Explain all that to the jury.
	Yeah, I think that...
	There's a cyclical process through which Alex Jones became as popular as he did.
	I think content creators and people producing media online rely on, as I said, getting people's attention, and so what he was really talented and successful at doing was finding conspiracy theories and pieces of disinformation that proved really For lack of a better word, like sticky.
	They resonated with audiences and spread and disseminated really widely and then it becomes a cycle from there.
	So once one conspiracy theory becomes particularly popular with a group that draws in new audience numbers for him, makes his audience bigger, and then it means the next conspiracy theory he can promote will already have a bigger built-in audience and it will disseminate even more widely and so on.
	and so this is kind of the feedback with the that we have heard happening both with mr. Jones and other others I noticed in the part that you read that it is discussed about how mr. Jones mix right-wing and left-wing ideas about the government and and you know I think you know can you explain a little bit how mr. Jones is outside of the traditional left-right mold why he incorporates both yes absolutely
	His politics have changed over time, but in general he tries to He claims that there are conspiracies Regardless of who's in power.
	And so during the Bush era, he was a very big proponent of conspiracies about September 11th and was very critical about George W. Bush in general.
	When Obama came into power, he was incredibly critical of Obama and developed a range of conspiracy theories about him, including in part the Sandy Hook conspiracy theory.
	And it goes on from there.
	Now, he has been quite close with Donald Trump, who's been on his show, so he doesn't focus his conspiracy theories against President Trump, but he continues to believe that in other facets of government there are still conspiracies, including other Republicans.
	So it's not really a partisan divide that he's Are you familiar with the program on extremism at George Washington University?
	I am, yes.
	Okay, and you know individuals who work in that program?
	Yes, I do, and they're some of the leading scholars in the field.
	And are you familiar with what I'll describe as a white paper or periodical?
	Yes.
	That is released by the program on extremism back in 2017?
	Yes, exactly.
	It's an extremely high quality scholarship.
	Okay, and is that something you reviewed for your case?
	Yes, it is.
	Okay, and I'll just ask you this, I think you've already answered this, but do you consider that publication a reliable authority in the field of media studies?
	Yes, absolutely.
	Okay.
	And were there passages in the article from the program on extremism called Conspiracy Theories in the Patriot Militia Movement that were relevant to your opinions in this?
	Yes.
	I am going to bring you that now.
	Here's that publication.
	Thank you.
	Could you, for the jury, read a portion that you think is relevant from that publication?
	Yes, this is the piece that I highlighted.
	It is difficult to overstate Alex Jones' role in spreading anti-government conspiracy theories.
	In 2011, a Rolling Stone article stated that Jones draws a bigger audience online than Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck combined.
	In 2016, the Washington Post reported that Jones claimed 5 million daily listeners.
	His YouTube channel, the Alex Jones Channel, has 56 videos with more than 1 million views each.
	I was about to read the citation.
	That's the end of the quote.
	In the study when it says that it's difficult to overstate Alex Jones' role, Yes, it is.
	Can you explain why?
	Yes.
	When scholars are looking at different producers of media online, I mean, there's a range of factors that we look at, but I would say that Two of the most important ones are analyzing the content itself, so what is this person saying?
	What ideas are they promoting?
	And another equally important aspect is what is the size of their audience, or even beyond their core audience, what's the size of their reach?
	And in terms of combining the types of disinformation that Alex Jones promotes and the size and scale of his audience, I can't think of another person working in media who Is comparable to him.
	He's unparalleled in terms of that combination.
	You're on, before I went on, I wanted to check with you if you did want to take a break in the afternoon to see if the church was hired or...
	We can take a short break.
	Sure.
	We'll take a, maybe, let me keep it to 15 minutes.
	okay we'll take a 15-minute break this was you go ahead and come back up to the witness seat Everyone may be seated.
	And you may begin.
	Thank you.
	Resume, rather.
	Ms. Lewis, we had previously entered into evidence in this case, plaintiff's exhibit 39, which as you see is this graph here, the analytics.
	Were you able to determine from this how many page views the N4's website got?
	Three billion, I believe.
	Okay.
	Is that the exclusive way you can see in Polish?
	No.
	That's obviously a huge number, but it's not actually even representative of the total number of people that get exposed to InfoWars content, because that's only referring to page views on the InfoWars website.
	And in fact, we know that the content gets disseminated out across multiple social networks, either through Alex Jones' accounts or InfoWars' official accounts, or also through other accounts that post clips and spread them and so on.
	Alright, I want to talk about another study right now, or another publication, and that is the Syracuse Law Review.
	Are you familiar with that publication?
	Yes, I am.
	okay and in that publication did you review an article entitled free expression rationales and the problem of deep fakes within the US and EU yes I did okay
	in this publication the Syracuse Law Review do you consider that publication or reliable authority when in the field of media studies?
	Yes, I do.
	It's maybe counterintuitive, but some of the best media scholarship actually gets published in law journals.
	Okay, and these law journals, in the case of Syracuse, does Syracuse have a law school?
	Yes, they have an incredibly prestigious law school.
	Okay, and do these law schools publish scholarly journals?
	Exactly.
	So it's basically akin to what we've been reviewing already.
	It's also peer-reviewed research.
	Now, these law review publications, is it sold by law professors, or are there other academics who sometimes write for law reviews as well?
	Oh, there are absolutely other academics who write for law reviews.
	In fact, my co-author on the report we were mentioning earlier has also published in a law review.
	She's not a legal scholar.
	She's also a scholar of communication.
	Were there specific statements within this publication that you thought would be relevant to the jury for your testimony today?
	Yes, there were.
	And I would like to give you that study now.
	Here you go.
	And if you can just read for the jury what you thought was relevant to this case today.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	So just to provide context, this is about specifically the spread of the Sandy Hook lies.
	Despite the backlash these false messages often face, they spread six times faster than truthful information in online environments.
	These falsities gain particular traction in heavily fragmented virtual communities Where individuals seldom encounter ideas that challenge their realities and where misleading information that supports dominant narratives is likely to be accepted and shared.
	Is that conclusion consistent with your research and work as well?
	Yes, it is.
	Okay, can you elaborate a little bit why?
	Yes, so like I was talking about before, how there are kind of insular communities, what happens is when information gets shared that either kind of confirms that that community's worldview or somehow is something that would be appealing for that community to hear for whatever reason, It becomes that much easier for it to spread through that community.
	And because these communities are often fractured online, it becomes really difficult to fact-check it in any meaningful way.
	Because it just becomes this self-reinforcing thing.
	That also means that it's really easy for InfoWars content, for example, to spread to audiences that aren't even necessarily die-hard.
	InfoWars fans, it may just be communities devoted to other things who happen to find an InfoWars story that's appealing to them for some reason.
	Okay.
	Did you review, first let me ask you, are you familiar with the MIT or Massachusetts Institute of Technology Review?
	Yes, I am.
	Okay.
	And do you consider that publication reliable authority in the field of media studies?
	Yes, I do.
	They publish some of the top media scholars.
	Okay.
	And did you review how social media took us from Tahir Square to Donald Trump?
	Yes.
	Okay, and you found that relevant to your opinions today?
	Yes, I do.
	And in fact, the author of this article is one of the most highly respected scholars of communication.
	Is this someone you know personally?
	Yes, we have both researched disinformation on YouTube specifically, so we've been interviewed together at times and have discussed with each other.
	Well here, I'll hand it to you that study.
	Thank you.
	And would you read for the jury a part that you found relevant to our case today?
	Yes.
	Three degrees of Alex Jones became a running joke.
	No matter where you started on YouTube, it was said, you are never more than three recommendations away from a video by the right-wing conspiracist who popularized the idea that the Sandy Hook school shooting in 2012 had never happened and the bereaved parents were mere actors playing hearts in a murky conspiracy against gun owners.
	Is this conclusion consistent with your research as it concerns social media and algorithms?
	Yes, it is.
	Can you elaborate a little bit on that?
	Over the years, YouTube has built up a series of different algorithms.
	I think the most famous being the recommendation algorithm, which lists recommended videos on the side.
	Whatever video you are watching.
	They also have their search algorithm, which decides what to return back when you enter certain search terms.
	They also have an algorithm if you have autoplay on.
	It's an algorithm that determines what plays next.
	And it turns out that Alex Jones and Infowars content, when he was on YouTube, Played very well in the algorithms.
	This content would get surfaced really easily, again, to people that were not even necessarily InfoWars fans or viewers, and so it was really easy for a really wide range of people to be exposed to this content.
	And on top of that, I think I can't speak to Mr. Jones' strategy specifically, but in general it's common practice for people on these websites to develop what's known as SEO, search engine optimization strategies.
	So people very specifically will kind of work to get their content surfaced highly in those algorithms.
	Now, does Infowars have a role in amplifying or giving a platform to small voices?
	I want to talk about some individuals who we've heard about in this courtroom over this past week.
	Yes.
	And one is Jim Fetzer.
	Are you familiar with that name?
	Yes, I am.
	Okay.
	And outside of InfoWars, other than InfoWars, does Mr. Fetzer ever have Oh, absolutely not.
	Okay.
	Did Mr. Fetzer have his own blog?
	Yes, I believe he did.
	And any one of us could make a blog?
	Yes.
	But did he have the sort of multi-million person reach that a media company like Mr. Jones would have?
	No, in fact, almost barely anyone does.
	It's a really rare type group of people that have the level of audience that Mr. Jones does.
	Okay, and I want to ask you about Jim Tracy.
	Do you know who he is?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Are you familiar...
	Can you tell us how Mr. Tracey's ideas about crisis actors got spread through the country?
	How did that happen?
	I believe he also appeared on InfoWars.
	Okay.
	And do you know if Mr. Tracey, do you know if he was fired from FSU, the Florida State University?
	I believe it was Florida Atlantic University, but yes.
	Yes, he was fired.
	Well, let me ask you, we had heard an earlier question about a tenured professor.
	Do you remember hearing about the word tenured?
	Yes.
	Can you tell the jury what tenured means?
	Oh, okay.
	Academia is odd.
	Tenure is a form of job security that comes after many years of when you're first hired as a professor.
	Generally, you're hired either on the tenure track or not.
	Being on the tenure track means that Eventually, if you kind of prove yourself in the job, you will receive tenure, which means essentially that you have pretty significant job security.
	Okay.
	But as to your knowledge sitting here today through your work in this case, Mr. Tracy no longer teaches students.
	No, that's correct.
	I believe that he was tenured at Florida Atlantic University, but was fired for failing to disclose the work he did outside of academia.
	Okay.
	The next person I want to ask you about is somebody who I believe was called Sophia Smallstorm?
	Yes.
	Was this somebody you were familiar with coming into this case?
	Only in so far as I went back and looked at her and realized that she had done some work with Jim Spencer.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	Do you have any indication from your work in research that Miss Smallstorm had any sort of substantial audience?
	Absolutely not.
	I looked into it and confirmed that she had little to no reach online.
	Okay.
	And in terms of your career over the past 10 years or so, looking at this sort of stuff, had you ever encountered, in your research, devoted any research time to Sophia Smallstorm?
	No.
	Okay.
	The last person I want to ask you about is Wolfgang Halbig.
	You know who that is, right?
	Yes.
	Outside of Infowars, did Wolfgang Halbig have any real platform of substance to get his message out?
	No, absolutely not.
	In fact, I believe the witness from earlier this week mentioned that Mr. Jones loved to help the little guy, I believe is how she put it.
	Wolfgang Halbig had no national reach.
	He didn't even have regional reach.
	He had little to no reach.
	And it was InfoWars that gave him that platform.
	I mean, any of us can post pretty much anything we want online in some capacity.
	You can find a way to post things.
	What almost no one has is a sizable audience, and virtually no one has the level of audience that Mr. Jones does, so just posting something online is really not even able to be compared to posting it to an audience of millions or billions.
	Okay, and then I think we, did you happen to be in the courtroom where we had an email from InfoWars about them distributing or helping to promote Jim Fetzer's book?
	Yes.
	Do you recall in that email the mention of another person who was willing to do that for Mr. Fetzer named Jeff Rents?
	Yes, I believe so.
	Okay.
	And then, did you recall the email from Mr. Watson, born in the company?
	Yes.
	Was Mr. Rents discussed in that email?
	Oh, now I'm going to forget.
	Let's show it to you.
	I don't want you to ask me from something like that.
	Let me put it in front of you.
	There is a lot to-- I'm going to make sure you're going around here.
	It's plan of 673.
	Stay tuned.
	OK.
	Can you read that for me really quick and to yourself and confirm for us whether deference is discussed Yes.
	Should I read it out loud?
	No, no.
	Okay.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	How does Infowars editor Paul Watson characterize Mr. Rince in that email?
	As one of the most batshit crazy people around.
	Can you tell me what is Zero Hedge, this website we've been seeing in a shorter video?
	What is that?
	Yes, it's an anonymous blog that publishes people anonymously.
	Okay.
	So the contributors who contribute to that blog, nobody can verify who they are?
	Correct.
	if an info wars employee was posting on zero head as zero point now or whatever would you have any way to know sorry could you say that again yeah sure
	like if I'm an objective leader if an info wars employee yes was surreptitiously going by a anonymous pseudonym zero point now and be in making those a contributor to that website would you through your work have any way to be able to figure that out.
	No.
	There are times when people leave Tracks behind where people can kind of, you know, de-anonymize someone, but otherwise, no.
	Okay.
	And do you recall seeing when, at the time it was shared, or excuse me, at the time it was put on InfoWords, did you recall seeing how many times it had been shared?
	Yes, because it was...
	So strikingly low, I remember it was three shares.
	Okay, and so at that point when it was put on InfoWars, had it had any significant exposure anywhere?
	No, I would categorize three shares as virtually no.
	Okay.
	No exposure.
	sure 16 16 Do you recognize that?
	Yes, I do.
	Is that something you relied on in this case?
	Yes, it is.
	Okay, and that is, can you describe what this document is first?
	Yes, it's a Fairleigh Dickinson poll of Trump and Clinton supporters.
	Okay.
	I'm going to ask for additional foundation on this one for media studies.
	Are you familiar with Fairleigh Dickinson University and the public information polling that they conduct?
	Yes, I do.
	And just to clarify, my field is communication, not media studies.
	They're similar, but communication is squarely within Do you know how, in terms of prestige, how the Fairleigh Dickinson University poll that has been being conducted?
	Yes, it's one of the most prestigious polling firms in the country.
	And you know this specific poll, which tests public impressions, right?
	Yes.
	Do you know how long that poll's been going on?
	I believe around 20 years.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	And do others in To rely on this poll?
	Absolutely.
	Okay.
	And this poll, is it something that attempts in each of its yearly iterations to survey the American people on their attitudes about things they see and need?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Was this something that you relied on for your opinions in this case?
	It was.
	Okay.
	At this time, we go ahead and move to Admit, Planning 16 and 16. Any objection?
	If he wants to use it as a learned treatise and have a read from it, that's something.
	It's hearsay.
	I mean, the author's not here.
	Alright, so hearsay.
	I don't know.
	A poll is interesting.
	Girl, I think I can make this easier by saying I will not admit it, but it is the hearsay that an expert of her type typically rely on, so I'm going to ask her about it, but not anything.
	Alright.
	Ms. Lewis, so you reviewed and relied on this poll in coming to your conclusions in this case.
	Is that right?
	Yes, I did.
	Okay.
	Can you, first of all, can you explain why this polling is relevant to this case?
	What are the findings here that you thought were relevant to your conclusions?
	Yes, the poll found that 24% of Americans believed that Sandy Hook had been at least partially or fully staged.
	Okay.
	And so, some of these people in this 24%, you would agree with me, believe that Sandy Hook was absolutely, definitely staged?
	Yes.
	And some of these people, would you agree with me, believe that it was possible?
	Objection to the reading?
	Um, okay.
	I'm going to allow the question, so you don't have to redo it, but do try not to leave.
	I understand, yeah.
	Yes, so people felt it was either possibly staged or definitely staged.
	Okay.
	Can you give this jury a conclusion to a reasonable degree of academic certainty regarding Alex Jones' role in spreading those false facts about the San Diego Elementary School?
	Yes, absolutely.
	And I just want to clarify that academics are very, very hesitant to make definitive statements.
	It's very rare to be able to say this clearly, that we can track back the source of an idea so clearly to an individual source.
	And in this case, I can say with a great deal of confidence that the 24% is directly due to the influence and amplification provided by Alex Jones and Infowars.
	Okay.
	That 24%, in other words, what I'm wondering is, can you say in that group of people, can you say whether, and just to the extent of more likely than not, right, that's what I'm asking, is more likely than not of any given person among that 24% were exposed to those false claims either directly or indirectly because of their voice?
	Yes, and I recognize that the standard here is more likely than not, but I actually believe it's quite a bit greater than that.
	Ms. Lewis, thank you so much for your time today.
	I don't have any more questions now, but I'll pass it over to you.
	All right.
	Mr. Reno?
	How much are you being paid to testify, Ms. Lewis?
	I was paid a retainer when I was first hired that was, I believe, $3,000 for about 20 hours of work.
	I have gone well beyond the 20 hours, but these issues are really important to me, so I guess that's not good for that, I guess.
	Fair enough.
	These issues are really important to you, right?
	Yes.
	And that's because you've made your career study people you hate, right?
	Not always, no.
	Well, you hate Alex Jones, don't you?
	I... I would say that personally I have come to be really disturbed by what I have watched.
	I started out my research not knowing Anything about Alex Jones, and so when I go into research, I don't go in with any preconceived notions, but through the course of watching, I would say hundreds of hours of his content...
	Objection, non-responsive.
	I can get to the point.
	Well, let me just...
	So, the question was just, you hate Alex Jones, don't you?
	Yeah, I guess it's a little more complicated.
	I would say that I've come to think that he's really harmful.
	And he's not the only person that you think is really harmful in the media sphere, is he?
	Correct.
	And you have a Twitter handle, at Becca Lu.
	Yes.
	And you speak about things that you're passionate about, right?
	I do.
	And one of the things that you've said is that you believe that the entire Republican Party is a white supremacist organization, right?
	You would have to show me that tweet.
	I tweet a lot.
	Do you not recall tweeting that?
	No.
	But I do tweet a lot.
	I'm not saying I didn't tweet it, I just...
	Well, let me refresh your recollection.
	Oh, yeah.
	To be honest, this seems like something I could have tweeted.
	I can't confirm that I did because I don't remember.
	And I haven't seen this earlier in the trial, so I can't confirm it hasn't been tampered with.
	It seems like something I reasonably may have tweeted.
	I'm not sure.
	And if you treated it, it's because you really felt that way, right?
	Yes.
	And you say the Republican Party has been a white supremacist party since the 1960s.
	You know you can't read things that aren't in evidence out loud to the jury.
	And she just said she can't confirm that it hasn't been altered in any way.
	So the jury is going to start to strike everything Mr. Rinald said after the witness's answer.
	Try again.
	Would something like the Republican Party has been a white supremacist organization since the 1960s be the kind of thing you would say?
	Yes.
	And so I take it you believe that Eisenhower was a white supremacist.
	Not necessarily.
	However, it was in the 1950s that...
	Objection, non-responsive.
	Overall, it's not non-responsive.
	I think that you believe you as a white supremacist is a yes or no question.
	Well, can I clarify my answer earlier?
	Mr. Bankston will have a chance to ask you a question after I... So, Gerald Ford, white supremacist.
	Gerald, I'm just going to object to relevance at this point.
	What are we talking about?
	Goes to bias, Your Honor.
	Against the Republican former presidents of the 70s, I don't see the relevance at all.
	You're going to have to ask some other questions to bring this into what we're doing here today.
	Have you heard of the term confirmation bias?
	Yes, I have.
	And confirmation bias is that when you have a A particular idea about how, as a researcher, how something is going to turn out before you begin doing your research, you end up simply confirming what you already believe, right?
	Yes, absolutely.
	It's something I take very seriously.
	And in this case, you already believe in your heart of hearts that Alex Jones was a bad guy who had to be taken off the internet before You were ever retained by Mr. Bankston to testify.
	Actually, it was precisely the opposite.
	That when I started out researching Alex Jones, as I mentioned earlier, I didn't know who he was.
	And so my ideas actually have emerged out of my research because what we do is start with empirical data.
	Which means that you go in without that confirmation bias, or at least you do your best to remove all of it.
	You look only at the facts that have been presented to you.
	So in this case, what I would do is simply look at the content that Alex Jones provides, or the way that it is disseminated, any number of different aspects of it.
	And from there, You reach an assessment, you make an argument as an academic, or so on.
	And anything that I've written, researched or written about Alex Jones in an academic context has been through peer review.
	Twitter is where, if the court will excuse my language, where people go to shitpost.
	So just so we can clarify, these articles and this view that you came to have Those were all written before you were ever hired by Mr. Bankston to testify in this case, weren't they?
	I can't confirm the tweets.
	I'm not talking about the tweets, I'm talking about the...
	When you were testifying earlier, you said that before Mr. Bankston ever hired you, you'd already watched tons of Alex Jones content.
	Sorry for interrupting.
	Yes?
	So in terms of testifying here today, you had already developed an opinion as to Alex Jones before you were ever hired by Mr. Bankston.
	Yeah, that's correct.
	It was based on hundreds of hours of research.
	And in fact, Mr. Bankston came to you because he knew you were going to say what you've said here today, that Mr. Jones is a dangerous guy.
	Yes, because it's based on my research.
	Well, it's because that's what you thought before and that's what you think now.
	It's not because of the work he did in this case, is it?
	Oh, I see what you're saying.
	Yes, I had already done previous hours upon hours of research on Alex Jones, so I assume I can't speak to exactly what Mr. Bankston was thinking, but I assume he thought I was already a knowledgeable party and that my opinions were informed by the research I've done.
	Did I hear you correctly when earlier you said that at least three billion individual different people Have you viewed Alex Jones website and you think that there are many more who have seen it too?
	Quick correction, not unique.
	I believe that was total.
	I believe the unique one was something closer to 2.5 billion.
	Okay, so in your opinion, here as a professional, you're telling this jury that a third of the world's population is watching Alex Jones?
	Not necessarily.
	It's tough to know how many of these are unique individuals versus how many came back to watch content multiple times.
	I assume that many of these clicks are people that came back to watch multiple times.
	However, as I mentioned, first of all, it's...
	I'm going to check on the results.
	Well, I'm not going to strike anything she said, but I'll let you ask another question.
	Now, Alex Jones isn't the only media figure that has come in for your vitriol.
	Isn't that true?
	I'm not sure what you mean.
	Other...
	Sorry?
	I mean, I don't know what the relevance is, so...
	Well, I'll ask another question.
	Okay.
	It's fair to say that you believe that independent media like Alex Jones, Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro are a significant I would need more specifics to simply confirm that statement.
	Well, I'm just asking you.
	So I'm saying I can't answer based only on that.
	Well, Stefan Molyneux, do you know who that is?
	Oh yes.
	And you've been very, very Critical of Mr. Rogan for hosting him, right?
	Yes, that I can answer specifically.
	And because you think that Mr. Rogan is promoting white supremacist views?
	Yes, he is when he has Stefan Molyneux on.
	Stefan Molyneux is a known white supremacist who is one of the biggest forces, or was one of the biggest forces on YouTube in radicalizing young people.
	And same thing about Ben Shapiro, right?
	You think that he's also promoting white supremacist views?
	That's not specifically what I argue.
	Islamophobic, I'm sorry.
	Yes.
	And that, in some way, Mr. Shapiro is responsible for, is it the Quebec attack or the Buffalo attack?
	I don't believe I ever argue that.
	Your Honor, I'm just not seeing it all.
	It's this whole line of questioning to anything in this trial.
	Sustain.
	Let me ask you about de-platforming.
	You testified about that?
	Yes, I'm happy to.
	Mr. Jones was de-platformed?
	Yes?
	You'll have to be more specific.
	That word means lots of different things to different people.
	So, let's put it this way.
	Mr. Jones and his employees, if identified, cannot post on YouTube.
	True?
	They cannot post from the account that they held.
	They can still appear in other people's content on YouTube.
	And they cannot have an account or post on Facebook, right?
	Correct.
	Same answer.
	Their content can still be posted by other people.
	They cannot have their accounts there.
	And same thing with Twitter, right?
	No accounts on Twitter.
	And actually, I mean, they can't even have an Uber account, can they?
	I can't confirm that.
	They can't even have an Airbnb account, can they?
	I can't confirm that, and it's not clear to me how that's relevant either.
	The judge will decide what's relevant, as will the jury.
	I'm saying to my line of research.
	The poll we were looking at earlier, Exhibit 16, what was the sample size of the poll?
	I don't remember offhand.
	I would have to go and read it.
	You think that's important?
	Yes.
	Wasn't that something you should have looked at before you came up here to testify?
	I did look at it.
	I also am not going to remember offhand every single piece of methodology of every single one of the 1,500 pages I read.
	We just talked about it.
	Would it be fair to say, if you remember, that it was less than a thousand people?
	That may be fair.
	I can take a look if you would like me to.
	Have you ever, in forming your opinion about this poll, did you ever, Did you ever Google it to see what other academics say about this poll that says fully one quarter of Americans think Sandy Hook possibly never happened?
	Yes, I really did at some point.
	And did you see a very prominent article by The Atlantic saying that it was junky?
	Yes, this sounds familiar.
	I couldn't tell you about specifics.
	Have you ever heard the term clickbait?
	Yes.
	For example, five foods that are sure to shred body fat?
	Yes.
	And another form of clickbait is 24% of Americans believe Sandy Hook never happened, right?
	Well, that depends.
	Well, it's the kind of catchy title that people like putting on their polls so that lots of people are going to click on them and read articles about them, aren't they?
	The way I understand clickbait is that it's misleading, and in this case that would be an accurate representation of what was measured in this poll.
	With a sample size of less than a thousand people.
	Sample size is not always the most important factor.
	You need to make sure it's statistically significant.
	I don't want to get too into the weeds of statistics, but just by saying that it's less than a thousand, that's not really saying anything about the accuracy because things that are sizes of a thousand can be statistically significant.
	Do you know what company was hired to actually ask the questions?
	No, I don't.
	Did you see whether those questions, there's an audio recording of how they were asked?
	No, I don't.
	You realize we're talking about $150 million that is supposedly at stake in the States?
	Yes.
	Based on that data?
	Yes.
	And you didn't think it would be important to see what company was that actually asked the questions or how the people were selected to participate in the poll?
	I may have seen it if it was in here.
	I don't remember it, but it's not standard practice for every published poll or academic journal article that you read to go and check out the sources directly.
	You understand the methodology.
	You read through the methodology and see if it makes sense.
	If this is, you know, Yeah, I'll leave it at that.
	Okay, so it's fair to say you just didn't check your sources on this poll?
	Sure.
	All right.
	Mr. Bankster?
	Rebecca, can you check that poll?
	Can you open it to page three?
	Yes.
	Do the statisticians who provided this poll provide a margin of error?
	Let's see here.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And I'd like you also to take a second, and you can take your time, because like I said, I know not all this information is in your head at one time.
	Yes.
	Can you look and see what the sample size on that poll is?
	Well, let me ask you this way.
	Is the sample size of this poll under a thousand people?
	No, it's not.
	Have you ever heard the phrase, lawyers who lie should lose?
	Yes.
	I hadn't heard it, but I guess you heard it with me, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	I think Mr. Reynolds should check that before trying to call you out in front of this jury.
	Yes.
	A sample size of over a thousand people, when it's run by qualified statisticians, can produce a result Can it produce a result that's within acceptable margins of reliability?
	Yes.
	Do you consider a plus or minus sample, I mean a plus or minus margin of error 3% to be fairly reliable for your use in this case?
	Yes.
	The margin of error inside the poll.
	Is it below 4%?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Is it listed right there in the exact number?
	It is.
	Can you tell the jury what that number is?
	It's plus or minus 3.1%.
	Okay.
	What does that mean?
	Can you tell the jury what a plus or minus 3% margin of error in the statistical analysis means?
	Yes, okay, now I have to get back into my statistical mindset.
	It means that the results that they come back with, there's a possibility that it may be anywhere between actually 3.1% lower than what they said or 3.1% higher than what they said.
	And so, what you're saying, what we're saying here is that potentially it could have been, you know, closer to 21% than 24% of people at Flowest.
	Sure.
	Let's talk really quick about the 2.5 billion page views.
	Yes.
	And you were talking about how that could be people who revisit the website.
	Yes.
	In fact, almost certainly is some revisitation, correct?
	Yes.
	Is there any, from the data that InfoWars has provided in this case, is there any reliable way to ascertain the exact number of individual human beings who access the website?
	No, there's not.
	Does the identifying Digital data of a person, can it change over time?
	Yes.
	Again, if we're thinking about these anonymity online, there are a lot of ways for people to disguise or seem like different numbers of people than they actually are.
	Okay.
	Are you aware or have you reviewed any conclusions from any experts in this litigation from the defense who are going to say your opinions are wrong?
	No, I'm not aware.
	Are you aware that any such expert exists or will come to this courtroom?
	No.
	Okay.
	Ms. Lewis, have you ever testified before?
	No.
	I think you might be doing it more.
	That's all I have for you, Ms. Lewis.
	Ms. Lewis, why don't you tell us, since we're getting into exactly how many people were in the meeting.
	It was...
	Well, on page 3 they talk about 310 and then another 709. So it was over a thousand.
	And 310 and 709, those are, I think that's 1,019.
	310 were interviewed in person, right?
	No.
	They were conducted on landlines.
	Oh, sorry.
	And the others were by cellular phone?
	Yes.
	So none of these interviews were even conducted in person, right?
	That's not considered relevant in polls like this.
	And there is also in the same poll, and this is, you know, what they're saying.
	We were talking about margin of error.
	Yes.
	Does it say right there on page three, it says, surveyed results are also subject to non-sampling error?
	This kind of error, which cannot be measured, arises from a number of factors.
	Mr. Reynold, what are you doing?
	You're reading again from an exhibit you kept out of evidence.
	She's testified already that this is part of her funded treatise.
	She can read to the jury.
	She can read to the jury.
	Ms. Lewis, would you read the section beginning?
	Survey results are also subject to non-sampling error.
	This kind of error, which cannot be measured, arises from a number of factors including, but not limited to, non-response, eligible individuals refusing to be interviewed, question wording, the order in which questions are asked, and variations among interviewers.
	So let's focus That says non-response.
	Yes.
	That means that they could have called somebody within that number of 1,019 people and the person just said, I don't want to answer that question.
	Yes, that's common.
	And so if a bunch of people did that, then you'd have a sample size that was smaller and that could skew the data.
	I wouldn't put it in those terms, no.
	And the wording of the question is also a significant factor to take into account, right?
	Yes.
	And the order in which the questions are asked, another one, that can skew the results.
	Yes.
	And variations among interviewers in the way that they deliver the question can skew the results.
	Yes, as with all social science, yes.
	And those were just some of the reasons that the people at the Atlantic thought that the study wasn't trustworthy, right?
	I can't speak to that article because I don't remember it specifically.
	What I will say is all of these potentials are extremely standard.
	They're known in a widespread way.
	They're in no way unique to this particular poll.
	These are issues that exist in fall polling.
	No further questions.
	Alright, it's 4.53.
	I would like to go ahead and finish our process.
	If that is impossible for somebody on the jury, let Ms. Matashek-Steele know as you walk by, and then I'll let everyone else know out here.
	Otherwise, remember all of my instructions about any questions you may have for this business and you can head on back.
	All rise.
	And, Ms. Lewis, you'll have to wait in the hall.
	Sounds good.
	Should I do that right now?
	Thank you.
	And if you'll just shut the door behind you when you walk through.
	Thank you.
	- All right, you may be seated.
	I hope that's okay with everyone. - And I was like, I was gonna ask you, just so you should miss loose enough to say that we can. - Yes.
	They always give me a look when I, this isn't even down the record, when I took them to shut the door, but then the one time I didn't, they left the door wide open.
	So I think people, I know I sound like a broken record.
	I'm going to go ahead and do time now I'm going to just do some math and then I'll I'm good great Thank
	you All right so Mr. Bankston you're set to use 12 hours and 9 minutes and Mr. Raynall you've used 6 hours and 51 minutes
	The jury total has used 3, jury and other non-stuff, 3 hours and 45 minutes, through today.
	I'm not counting, oh, yeah, I'm not counting what we're doing right now, because we're over.
	Judge, I think you said yesterday that you think we're, ours is going to be around 25 hours, Yeah, I mean, we used up a lot of time with the jury today, so 44 minus 3 hours and 45 minutes is 41 hours and 25 and 15 minutes.
	So you have approximately 60% of that.
	Take your first word.
	The old joke is lawyers went to law school because they can't do math, and then here I am.
	But I do have these two things.
	I have two.
	Chest blocks.
	One for each side, and then one for the other stuff.
	And then sometimes I've had a third.
	Anyway, that's my...
	I love these things.
	That's great.
	But yeah, as far as time, we're looking great.
	Okay, good.
	While we're here, and so before we leave, who are our witnesses going to be tomorrow?
	So there's a joke back here that I'm always trying to make us work on holidays.
	I mean, more than once.
	I've been like, okay, well I'm scheduling it on this date and some poor lawyer will be like, I never want to disagree, but isn't that a county holiday?
	I'm like, oh, I did not know that.
	So anyway, yes, Monday.
	Who will your witnesses be on Monday?
	Well, depending on how fast they go, it could be everybody.
	Okay.
	So we'll just give you the oldest.
	Yeah, we'll just give you the remainder of the list at this point, which is Dr. Michael Crouch, Dr. Roy Lubit, JT Lewis, Scott Lewis, yeah, us.
	We have two depositions.
	Oh, yeah, we have two depositions.
	Every witness who's left on the list is the family and the doctors.
	What about the internet?
	No, in fact, he's in you.
	He wanted me to call on the day.
	When she asked me who we might call on the day, he's not on the day.
	I was hoping for Ms. Kelly, no?
	I can bring her if you really want her to.
	I'm not sure you want that.
	That was mostly humorous.
	That was a joke.
	Whatever.
	We all know that was a joke and it's not on the record.
	We're not on the record.
	Your Honor, we may want to go on the record.
	Right this minute?
	I just received an email that I think I should bring to the court's attention.
	It's out, don't worry.
	It's not a big deal.
	Everything's still good.
	I'm not worried that there's like a problem.
	I'm worried it's something else.
	So on the record.
	I've just been informed by the bankruptcy lawyers that Free Speech Systems filed for bankruptcy this afternoon.
	They have assured me that despite the bankruptcy filing, there will be no interference with the progress of our trial.
	They have an emergency motion to lift stay that will be heard by Judge Lopez, I think at 8.30 on Monday morning.
	So, I'm happy to report that we can move forward.
	Good.
	Well, I also, thank you.
	Anything else on the record about that?
	Nothing from us.
	Okay, we can go off the record again.
	I thought about that in advance, and I'm not going to say I did a lot of research, but I did think about it, and what, how the competing needs would go, and I had already decided that were that to happen, we would proceed and finish the trial.
	I've been told that Absolutely the desire of the company to finish the trial, to put this part of this odyssey behind us so that we have some numbers and hopefully be able to work forward from there through the bankruptcy process.
	Alright, well, I think I'll just put them out.
	Unless you guys are, sometimes people really want me to leave the room.
	I was going to take a break, but I'm...
	Yeah.
	This makes...
	It's too many.
	It can make people nervous, have the judge sitting around for too long.
	What?
	When you say you receive an email and it's urgent and I have to hear about it, I just want you to know my first thought is that it involves me, and it's very stressful.
	I'm sorry.
	Because I've asked to not be told about anything unless I need to know.
	So that's why I freaked out a little bit there.
	Case-related stuff does not elicit that same thing.
	Well, I wanted to make sure that everything...
	I appreciate that.
	Thank you.
	I do appreciate that.
	That's fine.

▲