Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 29, 2022 - Depositions & Trials

02:42:12

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

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	No, sir.
	Did Wolfgang Halbig ever work for Infowars?
	No, never.
	What is his sort of...
	What community does he belong to?
	At that time or currently?
	At that time.
	He was in, I would say, a truther community.
	Did...
	The people at InfoWars believed him when he said that he had all these credentials?
	Yes, yes they did.
	How would you describe that decision?
	It was the worst decision ever made by the company.
	Is InfoWars a, or was it at the time, an organized place?
	It wasn't and...
	no, it wasn't.
	Is it today?
	No.
	Describe what you mean by it being disorganized at the time.
	Well Firstly, we have very limited personnel to take care of a lot of issues.
	People doing multiple jobs, if there is a separation between departments, they definitely do not talk to each other.
	They don't have time.
	A department may constitute one or two people that are doing the jobs of ten people.
	There's just a lack of communication in general.
	Also, everybody just tries to cater to Allison's needs and orders.
	Anything he asks for tries to satisfy that.
	I want to ask you about some documents That were discussed by Mr. Bankston yesterday.
	And I won't put them up for the jury not to waste time, but the first one I want to ask you about is, we saw Plaintiff's Exhibit 43 was a picture of the Sandy Hook school children at,
	well, the Sandy Hook Hook School Choir performing at the Super Bowl and superimposed on the kids were the names of different victims of the Sandy Hook sheet.
	Correct.
	You recall that document?
	Yes.
	Did InfoWars produce that document?
	Withdrawn.
	Did InfoWars make Absolutely not.
	Do you know where it came from?
	I noticed a stamp on the picture which says ODD TV and just from my browsing YouTube, I know that's a YouTube channel.
	As far as you know, as you sit here today as corporate representative, was that picture ever broadcast by InfoWars to the world?
	I did my best to try to figure that out, and I've come to the conclusion that we most likely did not air that photo.
	The person who that photo was sent to, what's his name?
	Nico.
	He's a producer as well?
	He used to be the producer, yes.
	And based on your knowledge of Nico, do you think he would have aired a picture like that?
	I knew Nico pretty well and worked together and he tended to be a cautious person who would air on the side of not showing images of children.
	There were There's another image, Plaintiff's Exhibit 77. Do
	you recall being shown this email chain?
	Yes.
	Now, where in the United States did you grow up?
	New York City.
	Did you ever have occasion to watch or listen to the Howard Stern Show?
	I used to be a big fan in my high school days.
	Has Alex ever appeared on the Howard Stern Show?
	Multiple times.
	And can you tell us the photograph here of the gentleman missing the teeth with the white t-shirt on, the meme?
	Who is that?
	Yeah, so that has become a prominent meme, and that was also a real person, a comedian, a guest named Beetlejuice, who would be a frequent contributor and guest with Howard Stern.
	And does Beetlejuice really look that way?
	Yes.
	And implying that that picture is racist is projecting your own racism on this picture because as people we tend to project our own decency and lack thereof.
	And I think that's what happened here earlier.
	because this is the comedian that works with Howard Stern and he's doing a meme here.
	Thank you.
	I'd like to go back to exhibit 31 and we're going to talk a little bit about this 2014 to 2015 period.
	As the corporate representative, during that period from 2014 to 2015, what was Alex Jones' belief as to whether children had really been killed at San Diego?
	I believe he was believing that there were children killed at San Diego.
	My question is, during this period, during the Wolfgang Halbig period, During that period,
	Alex, I think, was heavily influenced by Wolfgang Haldig, as well as Steve Kachanek, and he did consider the possibility that there were no certain killed.
	Is he proud of that?
	No, he's not.
	It weighs very heavily on his heart still.
	Thank you.
	So to catch up with our timeline,
	we've now moved, and we're referring to Plainits Exhibit 31.
	We've now moved.
	Am I indicating with my finger that the first episode that aired at that time was on what date?
	February 20th, 2014.
	And we can see that there were, well, how many, can you estimate approximately how many episodes there were between 2014 and July 2015? can you estimate approximately how many episodes there were between 15, 20 maybe?
	Now, on July 8th of 2015, We have the fight for freedom of information in Sandy Hook.
	And then there is a gap in time.
	about how long is that gap?
	I would say about six 16 months or so.
	Do you know why there was no More Sandy Hook coverage during that period?
	Yes.
	Please tell the members of the jury.
	Because Alex had explicitly told writers and hosts not to cover Sandy Hook.
	And you were working there at the time?
	Yes, I was.
	So you personally know that?
	Yes.
	Now, in 2016, There was a big election.
	Do you recall?
	Yes.
	And who was running for president?
	Donald Trump.
	And who was he running against?
	Hillary Clinton.
	Can you describe the atmosphere at InfoWars during that period?
	Well, we were heavily involved in the election.
	We were on a lot of extra broadcasts.
	And Alex put his heart behind Donald Trump.
	Had Alex ever supported a presidential candidate explicitly before?
	No, never.
	And why was that?
	Because Alex has stated on numerous occasions that Democrats and Republicans are on one ilk, they belong to the same family, and they both do not have the interests of American people in their heart.
	If both the Democratic and the Republican Party are corrupt, why did Alex Jones and Infowars support Donald Trump?
	Because Alex believed that Donald Trump was outside of that establishment.
	That he was a self-made man who made his money by hard work with his own business.
	At some point did Did Alex Jones become a talking point for the Hillary Clinton campaign?
	Yes.
	Can you describe that for us?
	Hillary Clinton had called out him by name in one of her speeches, tried to tie him to Donald Trump, and also tie Alex Jones to Sandy Hook.
	And what was Hillary Clinton saying about Alex Jones and Sandy Hook?
	I don't remember the exact quote, but how he's saying nobody says that nobody died at Sandy Hook, things like that, how Calus heals to the parents, something along those lines.
	Now, did this cause there to be another segment produced on the Sandy Hook saga?
	Yes.
	At this time we'll play plaintiff's video exhibit 18, which is in evidence.
	This is a very good one.
	I'm going to play a little bit.
	After Alex published that statement, was there once more silence from Infowars regarding Sandy Hook?
	Yes.
	And what, if anything, caused that to change in 2017?
	I believe that was when Megyn Kelly had reached out to Alex Jones asking him to appear on her show.
	And how did Alex respond to that invitation by Megyn Kelly?
	At first he...
	I mean, he knows they lie, but she convinced him that it's not going to be about Sandy Hook because he explicitly did not want to continue to bring up Sandy Hook and aggravate parents in any way.
	And she convinced him that this was going to be a friendly interview, that Sandy Hook was not going to come up, and that she just wanted to get to know him as a personality, as a man.
	Did she come to Austin?
	Yes.
	Did she meet with him in person?
	Yes, she did.
	How much time did she spend?
	A few days.
	Do you know if at some point Alex became aware that that's not at all what the segment was going to be?
	Do you mean before?
	After meeting him.
	I believe that he didn't realize it until it was already time for the interview and it was already taped.
	And what happened during the taping of the interview?
	Well, she made it all to me about Sandy Hook.
	And she set a trap for him that he fell into.
	How did that go over at Infowars?
	Could you be more specific?
	What was the reaction at Infowars and by Alex to having been entrapped into this interview to discuss something that he wanted to put behind him?
	I mean, everyone was very upset about it.
	There were people who did not want him to do the interview in the first place, but you really cannot tell Alex what to do.
	He's going to do what he wants to do.
	And people were just realizing that it was a really, really bad mistake that he had done.
	And do you recall when the interview was set to air on national television with Megyn Kelly and Alex?
	Yeah, I think it was close to Father's Day around there.
	And how did Alex feel about the idea of this video airing on Father's Day?
	He was absolutely glorified by it.
	And did he come to a decision to reach out to the panelists?
	Yes, you did.
	At this point we offer Defense Exhibit 67. No objection, Your Honor?
	Defense 67 is admitted.
	I woke up this morning on Father's Day and
	I was holding my young infant daughter in my arms, looking into her eyes, sitting out on the back porch hearing the birds sing, and it just brought tears to my eyes thinking about all the parents that have lost their children on Father's Day or Mother's Day who have to then think about that.
	Parents should never have to bury their own children.
	And that's why on Father's Day I want to reach out to the parents of the slain children at the horrible tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut and give you my sincere condolences. - Cheers.
	I'd also like to reach out to any of the parents who lost a child in Newtown to invite them to contact me to open a dialogue because I think it's really essential we do that instead of letting the MSM misrepresent things and really try to drive this nation apart.
	Right now is a time for unity and peace in our country, I think now more than ever.
	This video aired on Father's Day 2017.
	Yes, I believe so.
	Yes, I believe I believe so.
	Yes, I believe so.
	About a year before.
	Do you know if anybody ever reached out to take Alex up on his offer to come together to talk and to work forward as a group to help the parents?
	Not that I know.
	We were hoping somebody would come because Alex could have been an advocate for these parents.
	I think he would have done a lot of good on the side of stopping anybody who were there to harass them.
	And I don't believe the parents ever saw that video too big.
	Okay.
	After that video aired, Attacks on Alex Intensify?
	Yes.
	And I'd like to ask you a couple questions about how they developed.
	One of the groups that we haven't spoken of was discussed by the plaintiffs yesterday, is the Honor Network?
	Yes.
	Do you know what the Honor Network is?
	Yes, the Honor Network was founded and organized by Letty Posner, one of the parents.
	It is a sizable organization that has a lot of volunteers and people working for it.
	And I believe their job is to combat free speech online.
	Did, instead of finding peace, did that result in people being further pushed apart between Alex and the Honor Network?
	Yes.
	What is deplatforming?
	Deplatforming is when you are No judge and a jury just kicked off a platform, a big platform such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter.
	Was Infowars de-platformed?
	Yes.
	And when you say de-platformed, what do you mean?
	What happened?
	Your profile, your account is just deleted.
	All the content of the channel page are deleted.
	Videos, articles, posts, your followers are deleted.
	And off of what platforms was Infowars deleted?
	YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Spotify, Airbnb, A bunch of others I can't think of right now.
	What portion of internet traffic is, in terms of social media, is represented by the platforms that cancel Alex Jones?
	say 80-90 percent.
	Alex Jones sells products on infobers.
	InfoWars store.
	Now, why is it important for an organization, a distant organization like InfoWars, to be self-funded?
	Well, that's the very difference that In Fort Worth has compared to the corporate media like Fox, CNN, MSNBC. They have corporate sponsors that provide salaries to their employees, studio equipment, maintenance fees, rent, all of that.
	We have to do it on our own.
	Get that money by selling supplements that are good for you.
	It's not junk stuff that he's selling.
	He's sourcing very good quality vitamins and tries to do right by the public because he knows karma is going to get back to him if he sells something bad and makes money off of it.
	So in his heart of hearts, he's trying to come up with best products to sell.
	And that's why he always says it's a win-win.
	You benefit, he benefits with the money.
	And he can sustain about 50, 80 employees at the company who have families and are being paid for the job.
	And we can have good equipment.
	We can keep our studios clean and do whatever maintenance we need to do and just keep everyone happy.
	What happens to a dissident Network that is reliant on corporate sponsorship and advertising and big business.
	Well, they're beholden to their advertisers, what advertisers want them, want those people to say their opinions, their narratives.
	And because Alex's advantage and influencers advantage and the reason people, why people listen to us is because he isn't beholden to those entities and the opinions that he projects on air are completely his own and he cannot be influenced.
	Let me ask you, as a producer, are the topics that Alex Jones covers on his show in any way linked to the number of sales that are happening of any given product?
	Say that again, please?
	Perhaps it's easier if I give an example.
	Have you ever observed Do you think the product is being sold when he's discussing a specific topic so that he can discuss it more and sell more products?
	No, absolutely not.
	I mean, even if he wanted to, he wouldn't be able to do that because his mind is racing on his road.
	He wouldn't be able to keep track of that in his head.
	Do you think as corporate representative and as an employee of InfoWars who's been there for the last seven years that Is Alex Jones made money or lost money by covering his questions about Sandy Hook?
	Your Honor, I'm a judge.
	That's been not only violence in my health, but it's irrelevant.
	There's no condition.
	So, can you...
	How long have you known Alex Jones?
	Since I started working for him at the end of 2019.
	And how much time do you spend with him on average on a given day?
	Five, six hours on average.
	Sometimes a lot more.
	Does he also communicate with you by text message?
	Yes.
	Have you observed a personal change in him over the last four years?
	Yes, I have.
	Can you describe that for the members of the jury?
	I think his mood, his health, his general demeanor.
	He's always stressed out.
	Frantic.
	Can't relax.
	Even if he goes on vacations, he just can't relax.
	He has to concept admire the show, has to worry about where the money's coming from, support for the operation to keep going.
	That's mostly his concern currently, so that we don't shut down.
	And I think he's aged a lot in the past few years.
	I just think it's weight.
	This whole Sammy Hook thing has weight heavily on him because people don't know the shooter's name, but they think Alex Jones murdered those children.
	And if you search his name on the internet, that's too much all you see.
	It's the same thing.
	As before, just answer the question you're asked and then let Mr. Reynal ask another question.
	What do you say?
	People think Alex Jones rather than Adam Lanza murdered the children.
	What do you mean by that?
	Because when people are hearing the word Sandy Hook, they automatically think Alex Jones.
	But if you were to ask them who was the perpetrator of Sandy Hook, they would say Alex Jones and they wouldn't know the name of Adam Lanza.
	Thank you.
	That's Linus.
	I do.
	Alright.
	Any more questions?
	Can we approach before I begin?
	You can.
	Whatever you're ready.
	Mr. Banks.
	You might want to move your iPad or whatever.
	All right.
	I want to ask you about something.
	I'm going to kind of go backwards from what we heard most recently and work our way back.
	And what I think I heard is that when people pester you, it negatively affects you in numerous ways, such as health and well-being.
	Is that what I'm hearing?
	We were talking about Alex Jones getting pestered, and that it has negatively affected him in numerous ways about his health and well-being.
	That's what you just testified to?
	No, I didn't use the word pester.
	Let's not quibble about the words.
	What word would you like me to use to describe the people who are bothering Alex Jones?
	If he's being lied about.
	When people lie about you, it affects you negatively.
	It can affect your well-being and your health.
	That's what's happened to Alex Jones.
	On the level that The irony and hypocrisy of making that statement in this courtroom right now.
	Do you understand that?
	Your Honor, I'm going to reject argumentative to calling her a hypocrite.
	Well, I'm going to overrule it.
	I wouldn't go past this question.
	Sure, okay.
	Let me ask the question again, please.
	Do you understand that Mr. Jones claimed that he has suffered health effects, negative things in his life, from people lying on him on a grand scale?
	Do you understand how that could be viewed very hypocritically in this courtroom right now, because of why my plaintiffs are here?
	It's just the truth, what am I supposed to say?
	Let's talk about Honor.
	The Honor Network.
	You said it was a sizable organization.
	You said that under oath?
	Yes.
	How many people?
	Dozens.
	How do you know that?
	I saw it in the book, the New York Times writer's book.
	Saw that there were dozens of people working in the armed network.
	She talks about the alternative to the armed network.
	Is that what your testimony is?
	There were dozens of people working in the armed network?
	To my recollection, she puts it as a pretty sizable organization.
	Okay, so right now, you're not even doing this off your base.
	Your personal knowledge, you think you read this somewhere.
	That's what you're saying.
	No, I'm saying it's in the book about Sandy Hook by the New York Times writer Elizabeth Williamson.
	That's what I'm saying.
	You think that's what you read in that book?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	You aren't familiar with the fact that the Honor Network existed before Sandy Hook.
	Did you know that?
	The letters H-O-N-R? Did you know that that existed before Sandy Hook?
	I'm not sure.
	Did you know that that was, you know that it was started by Mr. Foster, right?
	Yes.
	Did you know that that was just, he had a web domain business, and that was a web domain, he had lying around?
	Did you know that?
	I'm not sure.
	Okay.
	And did you know that, is there any money in the honor network?
	I'm not sure.
	Okay.
	In fact, you don't know, do you?
	And did you know, we talked yesterday.
	Were you aware that it was simply a method for a couple of parents to stay anonymous while making complaints?
	Haven't you heard that before?
	That's what you're saying.
	That is what I'm saying.
	I'm wondering, do you disagree with me?
	Do you, sitting here saying under oath that it's a sizable organization, do you disagree with me?
	I'm not part of that organization, so I cannot tell you for sure.
	I just can tell you what I've read.
	You can just report hearsay that you've heard somewhere else.
	You have no personal knowledge of that, right?
	Let's just make that clear.
	I'm not part of that organization.
	Okay.
	You also said it combats free speech, right?
	It's my opinion.
	Do you understand, sitting here today, that what Infowars is in this courtroom for is not free speech?
	Respectfully disagree.
	Okay.
	So in other words, going forward, after this trial is over, Infowars believes that the things it did in this case, it's allowed to do again.
	Right?
	I've already testified to...
	How Alex admitted that he's made mistakes.
	Objection, non-responsive.
	What I'm asking you is, does Enforce feel going forward, it has the right, under the law, to do this sort of thing?
	Could you define this sort of thing?
	Everything you're on, this company's on trial for in this court.
	Can you do it?
	The company believes it has the right to question public events to the best of their ability, try to search for the truth, and welcome debate on all sides.
	You said in this 2017 apology that he wanted to talk to the parents, right?
	Yes.
	Parents had already tried to talk to him, right?
	Didn't they send them emails?
	Right?
	Is that correct Ms. Carpova?
	Could you remind me of the email you referred to?
	You read one on the stand yesterday from Mr. Posner, didn't you?
	I've read a lot of emails.
	That's not the only people who try to get a hold of Mr. Jones, is it?
	Objection vague, Your Honor.
	It's not the only parents of Sandy Hook who brought their complaints to Mr. Jones' attention.
	Could you remind me of the specific thing you referred to?
	I want to know if you know.
	My testimonies are saying you would get a lot of emails.
	Most of them are unopened.
	You said Mr. Jones would be a great advocate for the parents, right?
	Correct.
	Didn't he tell them he's not somebody to mess with?
	Didn't we see that?
	Out of context.
	Okay.
	You said that you were talking about the Megyn Kelly piece, right?
	In 2017?
	Yes.
	She did a profile on Jones, right?
	Yes.
	She said it was going to be about the scope of his career, but what I believe you testified to is that the entire piece was about Sandy Hook.
	The vast majority of the piece was about Sandy Hook, and the interview had become known for her asking him about Sandy Hook.
	And that's a profile, you've watched the Magnicolor profile, you know what it's called.
	Yes.
	right your honor this time we move to admit planes videos at 22 to the Meghna Kelly profile in its entirety so we can see what it's actually Any objection?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	Authentication and hearsay.
	Response?
	It's for impeachment.
	The whole video?
	Because she says the entire piece is about Sandy Hook, yes.
	Well, so admitting it not to...
	Okay, so it's going to be admitted for that limited purpose, to impeach the testimony that you just heard, not to take the content of it as truth.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	Your Honor, can I be heard right now?
	Yeah.
	That is, it's not the witness's prior statement.
	It is How long is it?
	It's about 17 minutes, I think.
	Now, I can tell you, Your Honor, obviously I'm not offering anything in the video for the truth of what is assertive, and I'm offering it purely for entry to my mind.
	I'm even willing to compromise to say I just want to publish it to the jury and not admitting it to that.
	Wow.
	I can't read more from it at the same time.
	Thank you.
	I'm going to overrule the objection and submit the plaintiff's video 22 for the limited purpose, so not for the truth of what it contains, but for impeachment.
	Mr. Carpoco, at this time we're going to play this video at 22, so I'd like you to pay close attention while we watch that.
	Thank you.
	Thanks for checking out our YouTube channel.
	Subscribe by clicking on that button down here and click on any of the videos over here to watch the latest interviews, show highlights, and digital exclusives.
	Thanks for watching.
	Mr. Carpoco, we just watched a 17 and a half minute video, correct?
	Correct.
	By my count, four minutes of that was about Sandy Boat.
	Does that sound about right to you?
	Does that sound about it?
	I disagree.
	Did you have a stopwatch up there?
	No, but I can tell you from behind the scenes, the stuff before Sandy Hook was an introduction, that was the Sandy Hook reason for the interview, and then there was a cherry on top afterwards.
	Alright, well what I'm trying to get at, Ms. Karpova, is you told us the entire thing was about Sandy Hook.
	Yes.
	Hold on, Ms. Karpova.
	You told us the entire thing was about Sandy Hook.
	But in fact, we saw statement after statement A statement of false things Mr. Jones has apologized for that have nothing to do with Sandy Hook.
	Do you agree with that?
	I stand by my statement when I said the interview had become about Sandy Hook entirely because the clips that got reposted to Twitter and YouTube were exclusively on the Sandy Hook segment.
	So the interview got famous for the Sandy Hook.
	So it became about Sandy Hook and that's what I said.
	I'm going to show you right now a document I know you and I have looked at before.
	You recognize what this is, don't you?
	Could you remind me, please?
	Yeah.
	You know, see these dates right here?
	You can see it has totals.
	Invoice, refile, sales tax, shipping, sales discount.
	Now do you remember what this is?
	I'm not sure this doesn't have a title on it as to what it's referring to.
	Didn't you testify to me that this is the daily sales revenue of the InforWars store?
	We went through all through this chart, right?
	Again, we had an eight-hour deposition.
	I don't believe that's true, Ms. Garfield, but that's okay.
	We can pull up your deposition.
	If you want to see how long you're in, we can do that.
	But what I'm asking you right now is you clearly remember testifying about info which says that during your deposition, right?
	That was one of the things you were supposed to prepare on, right?
	How was this specifically told to prepare on this today?
	That's not what I'm asking you, Ms. Garfield, and I think you know that.
	And I think you also know that you were asked to prepare on this information, correct?
	I was prepared the best I could.
	Right.
	And one of the things you testified about is this document.
	Do you need me to go pull the exhibit from your deposition?
	If you'd like to do that.
	Okay.
	Let me see if I'm going to need to do that.
	First, Your Honor, I would like to offer and see if Mr. McDonnell has an objection to Ms. Carpova's Deposition Exhibit 35, which is not right.
	This is going to be a new exhibit.
	Yes, sir, in the Plan of 35. Oh, it's Plan of 35. It's already in the Plan of 35. Yeah, it's already in evidence.
	I'm going to just show her when it was her Deposition Exhibit.
	I'll be happy to go forward.
	Oh, I see.
	Yes, so Plan of 35 is already admitted.
	No objection.
	Are we creating a new exhibit?
	It's actually your current Exhibit 35. Okay.
	No, I was just trying to clear up her that it was an exhibit to her depositions.
	So my question is, are you seeking to admit something that's for actual depositions to show that it was an exhibit there?
	I'm a little confused.
	No, we're actually, Mr. Reynold has agreed to admit Plendish 35. Okay, it was already admitted.
	Oh, was it really?
	Yes.
	Submitted at free time.
	I'm going to start over.
	I'm going to show you here.
	Lewis can you bring up 35?
	Leave that in front of you okay, you know screen there as well.
	I want you to have all pages First date on the stock September 18th Can you flip to the last page?
	You can tell me what the last date on that document is.
	December 31st.
	So you would agree with me that this chart includes a couple of months in 2015 and then 2016 through 2018, right?
	Correct.
	Okay.
	And you see that there are totals at the bottom of the page, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And one of the things that you testified to me, isn't it true, is that Is that over that period of time, InfoWars generated $165 million in revenue from the InfoWars store.
	That's what you testified to?
	That's what the document says.
	I have no more questions for you, Mr. Carpella.
	Thank you.
	You were at Infowars when Megan Kelly was shooting her show.
	Yes.
	And you had a chance to watch the clip.
	Sorry, the video that we just watched together.
	Yes.
	As a producer and somebody who works and watched it be filmed, has it been heavily edited?
	Very heavily with a very distinct bias to make Alex look bad, having him sweat on camera, having him there for hours under hotlines, making him just look like a maniac.
	Other questions?
	Thank you.
	Alright, thank you.
	At this time, we're going to take our afternoon break a little bit early for Alex Jones and his beliefs.
	Where is Mr. Reynold?
	It's not quite 3.15 right here.
	Right, I said 3.10, I think, and that was with the jury, and he knows we have to go over the questions before the jury comes back.
	He was on his way up on the...
	Well, no.
	You represent everyone.
	You're happy to be your own.
	Alright.
	What have you...
	Okay, so we're not asking anyone because it's not a complete sentence.
	This is the one that I feel like has been asked a million times.
	But I'll hear what you say.
	Do you search for true evidence before Mr. Jones starts his topics on the show?
	I feel like we've asked that a lot.
	Certainly an allowable question.
	It says, it has a grammar problem.
	It just says, that Mr. Jones allowed his employees to double check about what he is going to talk about on his show is true.
	That's just not a question, so I just can't ask that.
	It's not a question.
	What companies are part of free speech systems?
	What is the average annual revenue of free speech systems circa What does Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed mean?
	Is this referring to actual vampires, or is this metaphorical?
	Who are the globalists?
	What is Fast and Furious?
	Why did Rob Du leave InfoWars?
	What is your annual salary?
	Is this what most InfoWars employees make?
	Why do you think you were chosen to represent the company?
	To your knowledge, has Alex ever mentioned the plaintiff's names on air?
	If so, what was the The plaintiff showed a profit loss, I think he's talking about the exhibit, for the period of 2015 through 12-31-2018, indicating the InfoWars store generated.
	Okay, I think we can skip the intro.
	What other revenue streams did InfoWars have during this period?
	How much revenue was generated via these other revenue streams?
	So I'll just say during 2015. Who walked in?
	Okay, this part's on the record.
	How much revenue did InfoWars generate as of 12-31-2021 and as of the most recent quarter ending in 2022?
	Who vets or qualifies guests prior to their appearance?
	If nobody does, is the public aware of that?
	Do you think the company has a responsibility to vet guests?
	How many radio listeners on average listen to the show?
	How many viewers watch the show on the website, on average?
	How many listen on shortwave?
	On how many unique broadcasts or stories was Wolfgang Halbig featured or interviewed on any Alex Jones related medium?
	A. Specific to Sandy Hook.
	B. On any other topic.
	2. What is the total Would you say that Alex is being his true self when he responds to the news on his show, or do you think he is adopting a personality like how an actor or influencer might?
	This is a long one.
	Under oath, in whatever capacity as a witness you choose to answer, is it your opinion that InfoWars is a trustworthy news organization dedicated to investigative journalism?
	Or an infotainment organization?
	That only purports to be a news organization in the pursuit of making money and purposely focuses on unsubstantiated and unprovable claims of a fantastical nature in order to tantalize its viewers.
	If neither are valid representations in your opinion, then will you say under oath that InfoWars is not a trustworthy source for news?
	While working at InfoWars, has Alex Jones ever knowingly presented false How many are there now?
	How would you compare the anguish suffered by Alex Jones from people accusing him of lies or killing the Sandy Hook children to the anguish suffered by the parents from Alex Jones claims that the Sandy Hook shootings never happened or that the parents were stage actors?
	Do you believe that this whole trial is somehow a staged event?
	Asking you as a person and also as the corporate representative.
	Any objections?
	No objections to any of those.
	Nor do we.
	Alright, I guess we'll hear what she has to say.
	We can bring the witness in and we can bring the jury in.
	I am going to give her an instruction to answer briefly and directly.
	Come back up to the witness stand, please.
	Please.
	I'm going to wait for the jury.
	Perhaps.
	May I say something else?
	You may, but it's not on the record because my court reporter is standing up.
	I understand, but perhaps there's a question about why she was taking support.
	You can't.
	Okay.
	You can't.
	First of all, if you want to talk about it, she needs to go in the hall.
	You're up.
	So are you asking me to send her back out to the hall so we can talk about it?
	I don't think it's that big.
	All right.
	may be seated all right miss Karkova What's going to happen now is I'm going to ask you some questions and you're going to answer them.
	And I'm going to instruct you to please carefully listen to the question and answer only the question and nothing else.
	Do you understand?
	Yes.
	Great.
	So it's going to be pretty rapid fire, just question-answer questions.
	For my jury, remember, if you don't hear your question or one of your questions or part of your question, that's because I made a decision that it wasn't appropriate for some reason.
	Do you have a question?
	Sure.
	Do you search for true evidence before Mr. Jones starts his topics on the show?
	Alex talks about whatever articles that he's being presented with.
	What companies are part of free speech systems?
	What is the average annual revenue of Free Speech Systems from 2014 to 2016?
	I don't have that information anymore.
	What does Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed mean?
	Is this referring to actual vampires or is this metaphorical?
	It is definitely metaphorical.
	It's meant to compare those who exploit the tragedy to somebody who would feast on your blood.
	Who are the globalists?
	The globalists are people who have a worldwide agenda that they want every country to follow and have control over without there being sovereign nations that can determine their own future.
	What is Fast and Furious?
	Fast and Furious was a drug-running operation in South America.
	Why did Rob Du leave Infowars?
	As far as I know, he wanted to move on.
	What is your annual salary?
	About $125,000.
	Is this what most Infowars employees make?
	I'm not sure.
	Why do you think you were chosen to represent the company?
	The council at the time thought I'd be the best person for the job.
	To your knowledge, has Alex ever mentioned the plaintiff's names on air?
	Not that I'd call.
	What other revenue streams, besides the InfoWars store, did InfoWars have during the 2015-2018 period?
	I don't know of any other revenue.
	How much revenue did InfoWars generate as of December 31st, 2021?
	I don't have that breakdown on me right now.
	How much revenue did Infowars generate as of the most recent quarter end of 2022?
	Don't have any information.
	Who vets or qualifies guests prior to their appearance?
	Producer.
	Do you think the company has a responsibility to vet guests?
	To an extent of our ability.
	How many radio listeners on average listen to the show?
	It's hard to say.
	How many viewers of the show view it on the website?
	The show has a wide reach.
	Millions.
	How many listeners are on shortwave radio?
	Don't have those statistics right now.
	On how many unique broadcasts or stories was Wolfgang Helbig featured or interviewed on any Alex Jones related medium specific to Sandy Hook?
	On how many unique broadcasts or stories was Wolfgang Helbig featured or interviewed on any Alex Jones related medium specific to Sandy Hook?
	The number was calculated to be a fraction of a half a percent of the entirety of the auction.
	Ms. Karpova, let me read the question so you can answer the question you were asked.
	On how many unique broadcasts or stories was Wolfgang Halbig featured or interviewed on any Alex Jones related medium Specific to Sandy Hook?
	Less than half a percent.
	That is not a number.
	Do you not know the answer?
	You may say, I do not know.
	I do not know the number.
	On how many unique broadcasts or stories was Wolfgang Kalbick featured or interviewed on any Alex Jones related medium on any other topic?
	Zero What is the total number of known unique videos and articles?
	I'm going to read that again so you can listen carefully.
	What is the total number of known unique videos and articles related to Sandy Hook on any Alex Jones related medium?
	I don't know the number.
	Would you say that Alex is being his true self when he responds to the news on his show Or do you think he is adopting a personality like an actor or influencer might?
	100% his true self.
	Under oath, in whatever capacity as a witness you choose to answer, is it your opinion that InfoWars is a trustworthy news organization dedicated to investigative journalism or an infotainment Neither.
	If neither are valid representations in your opinion, then will you say under oath that Infowars is not a trustworthy source for news?
	Could you repeat that please?
	If neither are valid representations in your opinion, then will you say, under oath, that Infowars is not a trustworthy source for news?
	I would not say that.
	While working at Infowars, has Alex Jones ever knowingly presented false information?
	No.
	How many employees were with Alex Jones Infowars when you joined in 2015?
	Between 50 and 80. And how many are there now?
	Roughly about the same.
	How would you compare the anguish suffered by Alex Jones from people accusing him of lies or killing the Sandy Hook children to the anguish suffered by the parents from Alex Jones claims That the Sandy Hook shootings never happened or that the parents were stage actors?
	Well, losing a child is a lot worse.
	I'm going to read the question so you can listen to it and answer the question that you were asked.
	How would you compare the anguish suffered by Alex Jones from people accusing him of lies or killing the Sandy Cook children to the anguish suffered by the parents from Alex Jones' claims that Sandy Cook shootings never happened or that the parents were staged actors?
	The
	grief of the parents could not be compared to the effect that Alex has suffered from the lies that we've been told about him.
	and it's hard to compare these two.
	Do you believe that this whole trial is somehow a saved event?
	asking you as a person and also as the corporate representative.
	I think this trial isn't about Alex Jones or Sammy Cook.
	I think this trial is about chilling free speech.
	I'm going to read you the question one more time and ask you to answer the question that you are asked.
	Do you believe that this whole trial is somehow a staged event?
	I think you did that for us earlier.
	Because...
	No, no, no, no.
	Listen again.
	Last chance.
	Do you believe that this whole trial is somehow a staged event?
	Yes or no?
	Yeah, we'll do it.
	To a large extent, yes.
	Thank you.
	Ms. Karpova, you may step down.
	May this witness be released from the rule and any subpoena if there is one?
	Yes.
	Yes, Your Honor.
	It should be released from the subpoena on the rule.
	Thank you.
	Do you also agree to what I do?
	Thank you.
	All right.
	Ms. Karpova, you are free to go about your business.
	Thank you so much for your time and testimony.
	Your next witness, Mr. Mason.
	Mr. Schreuer has not been sworn in yet.
	yet is he here the deputy will call him mr. Schroer come stand in for any please Your Honor?
	Yes?
	May I review my motion to 41-11?
	Motion to 41-11.
	Sure.
	Overruled.
	Ms. Schroer.
	Overruled.
	Yep.
	Denied.
	Every time.
	Raise your right hand to be sworn, please.
	Do you solemnly swear or affirm, under penalty of perjury, that the testimony you are about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
	Yes.
	Thank you.
	Come have a seat here, Mr. Schroer.
	Once you do, you'll see there's glass cups, they're not glasses, and water.
	There are microphones.
	If you have a pretty good projection, you shouldn't need to lean in too much.
	I'll let you know if you do.
	A couple more instructions in case you haven't described before.
	It's not a conversation.
	It's a question and answer.
	So you have to listen.
	Do you understand that?
	You also have to let the question be completed before you begin your answer, even if you think you know what you're being asked.
	So you have to let them completely finish asking, make a feat, and then answer.
	Do you understand?
	I also need you to answer out loud in words, so head shakes and ah-hums make for a poor record.
	Do you understand that?
	Thank you so much.
	Okay, thank you.
	Go ahead, Mr. Ball.
	I'm sorry, Mr. Farah.
	There's so many people.
	I knew that.
	I knew that.
	I didn't want to check my notes again.
	I should have.
	I'm so sorry.
	My apologies.
	Mr. Farron.
	Mr. Farron, can you introduce yourself in the third place?
	My name is Colin Schroyer.
	I work for InfoWars.
	I'm 33 years old.
	When you say you work for InfoWars, your actual employer is Free Speech Systems LLC, correct?
	Correct.
	So we're going to kind of use InfoWars as slang because it's InfoWars.com and that's sort of the name out in the community.
	But just to be clear, the broadcasts that go up, the one that you did today or yesterday, those are Free Speech System LLCs broadcasts, correct?
	Yes.
	You've worked for InfoWars or Free Speech Systems.
	I'm just going to call it InfoWars.
	Can we make that agreement?
	Yes.
	And know that we really need free speech, okay?
	Yes.
	You've worked for them since 2016, correct?
	Correct.
	What is your current title?
	Show Host.
	And reporter.
	Okay.
	Show those means you're on the air, right?
	Correct.
	All right.
	We're going to get to that in a minute.
	I hate to ask you this in a public form, but I need to.
	Can you tell us what your salary is?
	I don't know the exact number, but I believe it's about $120,000 a year before taxes.
	Ms. Karpova just testified there was around 50 to 80 employees at Free Speech Systems or InfoWars, correct?
	I don't know the exact number, but I would say at least 50, yes.
	Okay.
	And that's been the same since you Yes, I believe so, yes.
	Infowars.com is obviously on the internet, right?
	Correct.
	If somebody said that Infowars lost all access to the internet, that would be an incorrect statement.
	Fair?
	Yes.
	Have you ever heard the saying, lawyers that lie should lose?
	I don't believe I've heard that.
	I didn't need it until Tuesday.
	I thought it was interesting, though.
	InfoWars is on right now, right?
	And we can pull it up and there's a video.
	Somebody's probably on live right now, right?
	Yes.
	You've got to like pull up InfoWars and InfoWars.
	Okay.
	He wants to show InfoWars on me.
	And this is a direct connection to the internet, I take it?
	It is.
	Okay.
	So this is, am I going to walk over there?
	This is Infowars.com, the homepage.
	It's active, it's up, it's live, it has been since...
	As far as you work for the company, right?
	I'm sorry, I was distracted looking at the screen.
	Can you repeat that?
	Yeah, my fault.
	It has been active and live for as long as you've been working for the company, right?
	Infowars.com?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And you create content.
	if you click on band band here this is the content that's created and uploaded to band band out video.
	It's hard to see, but at least I'll scroll down just a little bit.
	You can see how long, obviously the names, how long they are, and when they're uploaded.
	That's good.
	So I know the jury can't see this, so I'm just going to say it out loud.
	Up here is 17 minutes and change, uploaded an hour ago.
	13 minutes and change, uploaded two hours ago.
	Eight minutes and change, uploaded an hour ago, two hours ago, an hour ago, and so forth.
	So you guys make a lot of content every single day, right?
	Yes.
	Half since you've been there, right?
	Yes.
	There's not been any...
	Limitation to your ability to make videos and put them on infowars.com, correct?
	The videos go to band.video.
	Sometimes we'll write articles that embed the video to infowars.com.
	Okay.
	Bandvideo.com is owned by Free Speech Systems also, correct?
	Band.video, I believe, is owned by Free Speech Systems, but I don't know that for a fact.
	Okay.
	Point is that there's no sort of drop in ability to make content and put it on your website for your viewers to watch.
	Has it been since 2015, since you started, correct?
	Or 16?
	For us to upload content to Band.video?
	Yes, sir.
	No, other than tech issues on our end.
	And then one of the things that are really the only source of revenue for InfoWars or free speech is, can you go back, Lisa?
	Is your store, InfoWars store, correct?
	Yes.
	Will you click on that?
	So we got to prove we're not a robot.
	Put you on the spot, Lisa.
	Robots deciding whether we're robots or not.
	Mr. Perry, you talk pretty fast.
	You'll just try to be careful, please.
	I just want to adjust a little bit if you wouldn't.
	So we see we have a diet force meal.
	How do you pronounce this meal?
	Bodies.
	Bodies.
	Some toothpaste.
	Is this the toothpaste that you guys claim cured COVID? Is that a different one?
	No.
	Is that a different one?
	I'm not familiar with that claim.
	You're not familiar with the FDA and the state's attorneys general saying stop making that claim?
	Could I see that claim presented in front of me?
	That's not important.
	There's different things.
	There's preparedness, media, specials, gear.
	Just different items that InfoWars sells and that is really their source of revenue, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	During the broadcast, sometimes there will be breaks to promote different items, right?
	Different things that you sell in your store, correct?
	Yeah, we have breaks where we run commercials that feature our products.
	Sometimes it's just live, kind of as you're going, Mr. Jones will just say, also buy this pill or supplement or whatever it may be, right?
	Sure, that's referred to as a live read.
	Okay.
	I heard it said that about a third of the content, a third of the show, is some form of advertisement for supplements or whatever it is you guys sell.
	Does that seem about right to you?
	No.
	You think it's less?
	Yeah.
	25%?
	Probably less.
	Okay.
	I'm in the ballpark.
	I really, I mean that's, you're getting into math, but if I was How long have you been hosting shows live on InfoWars?
	The show that I host is called The War Room that launched in September of 2017. I would fill in as a guest host on other InfoWars live shows previously to that, but that was not a regular thing.
	You co-host with Mr. Jones often, correct?
	I've been a guest on Alex's show, yes.
	You would call it a guest?
	Let's take, for example, Tuesday afternoon, while we were here in court, you and Mr. Jones were live for three hours, right?
	I don't remember the exact amount of time.
	Aren't your segments three hours?
	No, the segments were about ten minutes.
	You were live for three hours, and that's uploaded to bandvideo.com, right?
	Which day are we speaking?
	We're talking about Tuesday, which was the 26th.
	I took a screenshot of you and Alex on it.
	The park, this is Planner's Exhibit 124. It's not an exhibit of this, Your Honor.
	Obviously, it's happening Tuesday.
	Right.
	Thank you.
	124?
	Yes, sir.
	I was trying to get the next one.
	That's fine.
	Does this look like a screenshot of you and Alex, or Mr. Jones, I'm sorry, from Tuesday?
	Yes.
	And we're going to move to PX-124, doesn't it?
	Any objections?
	No.
	Who put that in?
	- Planit's 124 is admitted.
	- Do you remember the show?
	- Yes.
	- Okay, so you were on for three hours.
	Does that seem right?
	I don't want to miss her to admit it. - I think Tuesday I was on for seven hours.
	Sure.
	This show was three hours, and then you did another 30-minute special with just you and Mr. Jones really about this trial, right?
	I don't recall the exact content of the discussion.
	Do you remember yesterday having my website up and talking bad about me and my partners?
	Yesterday?
	The day before, I guess it was.
	Again, I don't recall.
	Like I said, I was on air for seven hours, so there was a lot of discussion.
	Okay.
	So this is the studio with the TVs Ms. Carbova talked about and the fancy graphics, right?
	Yes.
	Because you guys are a media company, you can do fancy graphics, right?
	Yes.
	Oh, and then there's links to things you sell.
	InstaHard, that's a pill you guys sell?
	I'm not too familiar with the product.
	It's a new one, but I guess it's a pill.
	Okay.
	Oh, well, I'm sorry.
	It is a product, though, that we sell, yes.
	Fair enough.
	Diet Force, something you sell?
	Yes.
	Do you have any idea of where that stuff is sourced from?
	Infowars Life?
	The pills.
	You mean the...
	The actual...
	The actual...
	The ingredients?
	No.
	You don't?
	No.
	Do you know if any of the stuff is approved by the FDA questions?
	I don't.
	Do you know if any of it's been tested to see if it's effective or any good at all?
	Well, we test the product for ourselves.
	You mean you take it?
	Yes.
	And you're still here, so it must be okay?
	Yeah, it works for me.
	All right.
	There is an exaggeration.
	Pretty much every day...
	Well, since this trial started on Tuesday, Wednesday, and even this morning, Alex Jones has been on live broadcast, right?
	I'm not sure.
	Which day are you not sure about?
	yesterday Let me show you what I'm watching today.
	I'm sure the Marxist -1:26 Thank you This is a screenshot from a show that Mr. Jones was on yesterday, correct?
	Do you want to see the date?
	7-27?
	Yes.
	We'll move to 126. Any objections?
	Yes, you're on the relevance and also when this show is taped.
	When this show is taped is not an objection.
	So relevance overruled.
	And 126 is admitted.
	Can you put 126 up?
	Just putting it up to point out that Mr. Jones was on the show yesterday when he went in court.
	Did you know when he stormed out of court today, he went and was on the show again today?
	No, I was not watching.
	Okay.
	We could probably pull it up on the band video and see, but can we take my word for it that he was live today?
	Sure.
	In fact, he was with Mr. Barnes, right?
	I think I saw in the courtroom.
	Yeah, Mr. Barnes right there, his former attorney, right?
	I can't see Mr. Barnes.
	He's right behind the camera.
	I'll have to take your word for it, she's a perfect blockade.
	Yeah, he's right there.
	Or he, sorry.
	Excuse me, I don't want to miss you.
	Did you know that one of the first things this jury was told was Mr. Jones won't be at this trial very much because of a medical condition?
	I'm unaware.
	Truth is, he's not at the trial much because he's on air selling pills, right?
	I'm not sure.
	That's where he is when he's not here.
	We just established that, right?
	Today?
	Well, I know you don't know he was here today.
	Let's talk about Tuesday and Wednesday, okay?
	Okay.
	When he wasn't in trial, he was on air saying whatever he's saying and trying to sell pills or supplements or whatever products you guys have, correct?
	I'm trying to recall correctly.
	I believe Monday, I don't know if he was on air Monday, and I think Tuesday he may have had pre-recorded segments that we aired. - I agree.
	That's my best recollection of Monday and Tuesday.
	If the show on Tuesday happened in court on Tuesday, it wasn't pre-recorded, right?
	Okay, yes.
	Okay.
	Can you put up 124?
	I mean, Mr. Schroeder, you lived this, right?
	That's you sitting right next to Alex Jones at 124, right?
	Yes.
	You know when you did it.
	Did you do it Tuesday?
	I guess that was Tuesday.
	Yeah, I'm sorry.
	It's all been a blur when I'm on seven hours a day and then I'm sitting in the board house for seven hours, eight hours.
	I'm sorry.
	It's just kind of a blur.
	I understand.
	I know you've been here for a couple days and I apologize for making your way because I know you have to sit outside.
	How much content does InfoWars make a day?
	We have 10 hours of live transmissions every day, and then there might be some other reports as well.
	Do you consider yourself a journalist?
	Sometimes.
	That's an interesting answer.
	Can you give me a little bit of an explanation?
	Sure.
	When I go to cover a live event at the scene, I've covered sporting events, I've covered weather events, political events.
	I would consider that journalism when I'm live on the scene doing something.
	But when I'm hosting a talk show, not necessarily a journalist.
	Okay.
	Looks like saying whenever I go home and go to bed, I'm not a lawyer.
	I'm still a lawyer, right?
	You consider yourself a journalist by trade Would you agree with me that it is not right for a journalist to edit video clips to fit an agenda?
	Yeah, that would be bad Okay.
	It is not good practice for a journalist to take an edited video clip, not ask any questions about it, not do any fact-checking, and air it.
	Do you agree with that?
	Yes.
	Because when you do that, mistakes are made, right?
	Yes.
	And when mistakes are made, people get hurt, right?
	Sometimes.
	Sometimes, right?
	That damage can be serious, right?
	Sometimes.
	Life-changing, right?
	Sometimes.
	Devastating, right?
	Sometimes.
	Right.
	You don't consider yourself a conspiracy theorist.
	Fair.
	Sometimes. Sometimes.
	Mr. Shorter, I'm going to hand you a notebook.
	I just got this deposition.
	I'm going to hand you a notebook so it may make things easier.
	In front of it is your, under tab one, is your deposition that you gave in this case.
	You were called to give a deposition?
	Yes.
	I'm just going to show you because sometimes people don't know exactly how these cables work.
	If you look, Orient you to a couple of pages and lines, okay?
	Sure.
	Right now, if you go to page 151...
	Did you say line or page?
	I'm sorry, that's the wrong page anyway.
	Oh yeah, page 151, line 14. And you were asked, this is December 2nd, 2021, you were asked, Do you think you're a conspiracy theorist?
	Your answer?
	No.
	That's what you said under oath December of last year, right?
	Yes.
	Are you changing that?
	have you become a conspiracy theorist in that last uh no you're gonna stick with no?
	yes.
	That's a little bit difficult.
	You try this again.
	Everyone please remember put every device off or on silent before you walk in the courtroom.
	I'm going to ask the question again.
	Or leave it somewhere else.
	That's what I do.
	I'll ask the question again from the start.
	Do you consider yourself a conspiracy theorist?
	No.
	Okay.
	You do, however, How about that?
	That's what you said, right?
	Yep.
	Still agree with that?
	Yes.
	You did a show on June 25, 2017, where you were the sole host.
	Do you remember that?
	Yes.
	That was a Sunday, correct?
	Yes, which is why you were doing it time, right?
	That's why you were listening to do it for Sunday No The Sunday Alex Jones Show has been on air for a long time.
	I was filling in that night.
	Okay.
	It airs from 4 to 6 Central Town?
	Yes.
	This is the one where you challenge whether or not Neil Hessler ever held his son, Jesse.
	Right?
	No, I challenge that the videos presented didn't add up and that Megyn Kelly had done harm to the story being removed from the public consciousness and just caused it to be brought up again.
	I'm not going to quibble about you because we're going to watch it.
	It is the show about Neil Heslin and whether or not he held Jesse's arms, right?
	That's what the show's about, or that second's about.
	Not the whole show.
	At least the last four minutes, yeah.
	It was the last four minutes?
	I believe so, yes.
	Of the four to six?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	That show was on InfoWars, correct?
	Yes.
	So Free Speak Systems is the one that's publishing that, correct?
	Yes.
	Before you did that show, you had no idea who Neil Hessler was, right?
	Correct.
	You were, I mean, you didn't care who you were talking about, right?
	No.
	Yes, what I just said is correct.
	You didn't care who you were talking about.
	Can you rephrase the question or repeat it?
	Did you care who you were talking about?
	Yes.
	Did you care that you were talking about Neil Heslund?
	Yes.
	Why don't you go to page 110 of your deposition?
	You know you're under oath here, right?
	Yes.
	You know you were under oath when you gave the deposition, right?
	Yes.
	Thank you.
	Line three through six, I'll read the question.
	Okay, so you didn't care who you were talking about.
	What was your answer?
	I was just covering a story that was given to me.
	You didn't care who you were talking about?
	It didn't matter to you, right?
	No, I didn't say that.
	Okay.
	You were handed the story while you were on air live.
	You ran with it, right?
	Yes.
	You did zero to determine if it was accurate, right?
	Correct.
	You did no betting of the story at all.
	Correct?
	Correct.
	You did nothing to determine if it was a joke or a parody.
	Right?
	There are video clips in it.
	You didn't watch them, right?
	Correct.
	Before you played them.
	Correct.
	How many people do you think were watching that day?
	Millions?
	Tens of millions?
	No, I'm not.
	How many people do you think were watching that day?
	A couple hundred thousand.
	You know the reach.
	You're going to sit there under oath and say a couple hundred thousand?
	Well, I'm under oath to tell the truth, and the truth is I don't know.
	Okay.
	You don't know.
	You know it's over a million.
	You know it's closer to 10 million, right?
	No, I don't know that.
	Okay.
	You didn't check the source, right?
	You're referring to Zero Hedge?
	Right.
	You didn't check the source?
	You didn't check the author?
	Well, I mean, I saw it said Zero Hedge on it.
	Okay.
	That's the website, right?
	Yes.
	That's not where it originated from though, right?
	Well, to me it was.
	That wasn't the question.
	It's not where it originated from, right?
	Well, it was published on Zero Hedge.
	That's where I saw it.
	But, obviously, I understand the author was, I believe, something called Zero Point Now.
	Right.
	Do you think it's a real name?
	I doubt it.
	Right.
	Somebody called Zero Point Now writes something on a website called iBankCoin, which is then picked up by Zero Hedge.
	You do absolutely nothing to determine if any words in this have any accuracy at all, and you play it on air and make comments about it.
	Right?
	Yes.
	Let's play 23. PDX 23. So, folks, now, here's another story.
	You know, I don't even know if Alex knows about this, to be honest with you.
	Alex, if you're listening and you want to, uh, or if you just want to know what's going on, Zero Hedge has just published a story.
	Megyn Kelly fails to fact-check Sandy Hook's...
	Sandy Hook father's contradictory claim in Alex Jones' hit piece.
	Now, again, this...
	this broke...
	I think it broke today.
	I don't know what time.
	But featured in Megyn Kelly's expose, Neil Hesslin, a father of one of the victims, during the interview described what happened the day of the shooting.
	And basically what he said, the statement he made, fact checkers on this have said, cannot be accurate.
	He's claiming that he held his son and saw the bullet hole in his head.
	That is his claim.
	Now, according to a timeline of events and a coroner's testimony, that is not possible.
	And so one must look at Megyn Kelly and say, Megyn, I think it's time for you to explain this contradiction in the narrative.
	Because this is only going to fuel the conspiracy theory that you're trying to put out, in fact.
	So, and here's the thing too.
	You would remember...
	Let me see how long these clips are.
	You would remember if you held your dead kid in your hands with a bullet hole.
	That's not something that you would just misspeak on.
	So let's roll the clip first.
	Neil Heslin telling Megyn Kelly of his experience with his kid.
	Okay, so making a pretty extreme claim that would be a very thing vivid in your memory, holding his dead child.
	Now here is an account from the coroner that does not cooperate with that narrative.
	We did not bring the bodies and the families into contact.
	We took pictures of them, of their facial features.
	It's easier on the families when you do that.
	There is a time and a place for a plus and personal in the grieving process.
	But to accomplish this, we felt it would be best to do it this way.
	And you can sort of control the situation depending on your photographer.
	I have very good photographers.
	It's got to be hard not to have been able to actually see her.
	Amen.
	Well, at first I thought that and I have questioned maybe wanting to see her.
	Okay, so just another question that people are now going to be asking about Sandy Hook, the conspiracy theorists on the internet out there that have a lot of questions that are yet to get answered.
	I mean, you can say whatever you want about the event.
	That's just a fact.
	So there's another one.
	Will there be a clarification from Heslin or Megyn Kelly?
	I wouldn't hold your breath.
	So now they're fueling the conspiracy theory claims.
	Unbelievable.
	but we'll be right back with more.
	After four years of research, the next big game changer has arrived.
	Z-SHIELD, toxic metal and chemical defense support.
	It's made in the USA. It's filled with known compounds from nature that are absolutely associated with detoxifying the body, and it supports the InfoWars.
	It is a classical 360 win.
	We're changing the world.
	Now it's time to change our bodies with Z-SHIELD at InfoWarsLive.com.
	So right after you called Neil Heslin a liar, played a commercial to sell Z-Force, Z-Shield, you got that up, Alisa?
	Objection, CPRC, 4111. The same?
	Yeah.
	Okay, overruled.
	Can I have a running objection?
	Yeah.
	- I'm gonna kill the stuffer. - Correct?
	No.
	Because you don't think you called Dale Huston a liar, right?
	I didn't.
	Right after you ran that piece, and we'll get to that part, right after we ran that piece, you ran that piece, you ran a commercial trying to sell Z fuel, toxic, metal, and chemical defense support, right?
	I didn't run that.
	That was probably pre-programmed into our commercial system.
	One of the things that you said about Neil Heslin.
	Right after that, they ran a commercial for a product that they sell on their website called ZShield, right?
	Well, yes.
	When we go to a break, we run commercials.
	Right.
	Because InfoWars is actually an infomercial, right?
	- No. - Take that.
	I want to look at the source.
	Can you put up PX20, which is in evidence?
	This is the article.
	If it's useful to you, just have a... ...that for you know book there.
	Alisa, can you blow up where it says...
	Actually, can you blow up where it says content originally?
	It's not a good thing.
	Content originally published at iBankCoin.com.
	You see that?
	Which page is this?
	It's also on your screen.
	Oh, okay.
	I'm sorry.
	It may be easier that way.
	I see that, yes.
	Okay.
	That is not a reliable source.
	You and I can agree on that, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	The author we've talked about before, and we'll just click on the top.
	By zero point now, you have no idea who that is, right?
	You've never heard of that person before.
	Or at least so, no.
	pseudo name or whatever it may be, right?
	You definitely never run a story by 0.4, correct? - I don't believe you. - This was republished, as you said, by a website called Zero Hedge, right? - Yes. - Also, not a reliable source, correct? - Sometimes it is. - Sometimes it isn't, right?
	Correct.
	So let me ask you this.
	If you get something from a source and you look and say, you know, this source sometimes is reliable.
	Sometimes they're way out there and unreliable.
	Isn't it incumbent on you to check it and do some sort of vetting before you put it on air?
	Yes, I could have done a better job.
	You could have done an A job.
	Right?
	You did nothing.
	You could have done something.
	Right?
	Well, I was live on air at the time, so it was given to me and I covered it.
	Is it an excuse to say, I didn't have time?
	Is that an excuse to defamation?
	To defame Mr. Hessler?
	Is that an excuse to you?
	I just didn't have time?
	Can you repeat or rephrase the question?
	Is it an excuse to say, I didn't have time?
	Is that a proper excuse to go defame somebody?
	No.
	Is it a proper excuse to devastate them?
	I just didn't have time.
	I don't agree that that's what happened.
	Which part?
	That he was devastated?
	That I had, that even if I had the time, then I wouldn't have run the story.
	So it would never run.
	It comes to me, I'm on air.
	Time is in the essence, is what you're saying.
	Gotta get that news story going now, right?
	Got to get to the end to sell the metal ions, right?
	Whether I covered this story or not, that commercial was going to run.
	Well, the difference is whether you covered it or not is if we're sitting here today.
	That's the difference, right?
	Can you repeat the question?
	The difference is it doesn't destroy these people if you don't run the story, right?
	That PowerPoint's up.
	I think we can agree on some points that we bring on before Before you ran the story, you had one, never heard of Mr. Heslund, correct?
	Yes. - Never heard of Mr. Heslam, correct?
	Correct.
	You did nothing to fact check the accuracy of this report or story, correct?
	Correct.
	You didn't watch the video, right?
	Not prior to the segment.
	Did InfoWars cut those clips?
	I do not know.
	So editor of InfoWars, as far as you know, could have been the one who cut those clips.
	You know they were cut, right?
	It's my understanding that they were cut by whoever published the story.
	You know they were cut, right?
	Well, yeah, the video clips.
	Yeah, you know the interview, we're going to get to it with Dr. Carver, the medical examiner, that's 15 and a half minutes long, right?
	I don't know that.
	You know it's a lot longer than what was shown on that story, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	You know the families of the McDonald family that lost their daughter Grace, do you understand that?
	Okay.
	Do you believe that?
	Do I believe what?
	That they lost their daughter Grace?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	You know that that was a long interview with Anderson Cooper, right?
	Again, I was not familiar with the interview prior.
	Do you sitting on this seat right now know that that interview with Anderson Cooper was significantly longer than what was played?
	I will take your word for it.
	Do you know that her answer, Ms. McDonald's answer, is actually cut off a good answer?
	there's a lot more to that answer that explains what she's saying.
	No.
	Did you know that what she's saying is she didn't want to open the casket at the funeral home to bring all the toys that she brought to Grace to put them in there because she wanted to remember the way she looked when she was at school that day.
	You know that?
	No, I don't know.
	Because she didn't do anything to find out, right?
	Yes.
	You may not have even actually read the article before you put it up, right?
	Started just kind of reading as you're going.
	I don't recall for sure, but yeah, could be the case.
	You've never heard of I Bank Point, right?
	Yes.
	And you've never heard of the author Zero Point Now, correct?
	Yes.
	Despite that, you had no problem putting that on the air, right?
	Yes.
	You have testified, I think you just tried to say it again earlier, you don't believe you called Gil Hessen a liar, right?
	Yes.
	I want to play a couple clips out of this.
	Let's be clear.
	That piece and what you say in it is Neil Heslin did not hold the sun, right? - Okay.
	I don't believe I said that.
	That's what the message is.
	Let's take the full message, whether it comes from the article, the clips, or you.
	The message is Neil Heslin never held Jesse, right?
	No.
	What's the message?
	The message is that the intention of Megyn Kelly to bury these conspiracy theorists failed miserably, and it's going to make it worse.
	So you're...
	We know this, right?
	This we can agree on.
	Alex Jones was angry at Megyn Kelly for that piece that ran.
	Right?
	On him?
	I don't know.
	I'm sure that Alex Jones was unhappy that he was lied to by Megyn Kelly.
	He was pissed.
	I mean, yeah, he was lied to.
	Right.
	So he wanted to get retaliation to Megyn Kelly, right?
	No.
	If he had a stomp on Neil Heslin on the way to do it, so be it.
	What you have to try to say, because what you're not saying is that Neal Eslin lost his son and he just didn't hold him, that that's why.
	What you're saying is he's a crisis actor who forgot his lines.
	That's what you're saying.
	I never said that.
	That's the message.
	No, it's not.
	Because to say it's a hoax, to say it's a hoax, you have to say all these people are actors.
	And when you find a glitch in the matrix, when somebody says something just a little bit wrong that you think is out of character or out of line, they forgot their lines, that's the attack.
	That he's an actor, right?
	No, I never said he was an actor.
	I never said it was a hoax.
	Hey, video clip one, please.
	He's claiming that he held his son and saw the bullet hole in his head.
	That is his claim.
	Okay, so making a pretty extreme claim that would be a very thing vivid in your memory, holding his dead child.
	Those are two parts that are spliced together, but the point is both times you say he's claiming, Yes.
	That's like a...
	You're saying, maybe it happened, maybe it didn't.
	That's his claim.
	Not that it happened.
	He's claiming it happened, right?
	Well, yeah, that's what he claimed.
	I'm not doubting that.
	I never said that.
	So he was a liar.
	To be clear, I just want to make sure I understand this perfectly.
	When you three times say, he's claiming it, and then show evidence that you say refutes it, You're saying you're not doubting?
	I didn't show evidence that refuted his claim.
	I showed evidence that was presented to me that says this doesn't add up.
	You don't think an edited clip of the coroner saying the parents were never united with the kids and a clip of a mom saying I didn't get to see the child is evidence to refute his claims that he held Jessica.
	That's what your testimony is.
	Under oath to these 14 folks, Can you repeat the question?
	I'll try.
	You're saying that playing the coroner's clip saying that the parents and the children are never united, and also playing a mother's interview where she said she did not get to see her daughter Grace, right after you say he claims to help Jesse, you don't say that that's evidence that he's not being truthful?
	No.
	And what was in my head that day was never that.
	The only thing that was in my head that day was questioning Megyn Kelly because she lied to Alex about what she was doing there.
	And then here, the conspiracy theory that she was trying to bury is rearing its ugly head again.
	I could have done a much better job that day.
	Absolutely.
	I probably should have known more about those videos and that story before I ran it.
	But I never called Mr. Heslin a liar.
	I never said Sandy Hook didn't happen.
	I never said that they were crisis actors You said it was you said it was to get back at Megyn Kelly because she lied - Down as soon.
	That's what you just said, right?
	Okay.
	That's what this was about, is to get back to Megyn Kelly, and if you stomp on some people on the way, who cares?
	You didn't even know who it was, right?
	I wasn't trying to stomp on anybody.
	It's not a matter of what you're trying to do.
	It's the result that matters, right?
	Well, when do we begin?
	What's the result of what?
	Play a quick video, Calvin O2, please.
	So, and here's the thing, too.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	You would remember, let me see how long these clips are.
	You would remember if you held your dead kid in your hands with a bullet hole.
	That's not something that you would just misspeak on.
	You're saying he misspoke.
	No, I said he wouldn't misspeak.
	Okay.
	So what you're saying is Neil Hesley was telling the truth the whole time.
	That's your position?
	That's what this whole piece, from start to finish, the message anybody should get is that Neil Hesley is telling the truth.
	I am taking a neutral approach to this, and I'm simply saying that is a serious memory in your head that you would not forget.
	And then you challenge that it ever happened.
	Because you say the parents weren't allowed to see their kids, right?
	You put on evidence that the parents weren't allowed to see the kids, right?
	I played a clip of the coroner saying that the kids weren't released or that the bodies weren't released, so just as easily you can infer that the coroner was lying.
	And then you played a family, a grieving mother, who said that she wanted to see her child and decided not to, right?
	Yes, that clip followed.
	I did not edit that clip.
	you played?
	Yes.
	You don't know who edited it, right?
	Could have been somebody free speech, could have been somebody else.
	I don't know.
	Okay.
	A couple more clips I want to play.
	Can you go to the full one and just stop it at 43 seconds?
	Can you just tell me which exhibit?
	Sure, I'm sorry.
	Yeah, it's the same.
	- Just the same 20. - 20 groups. - 20 groups. - 20 groups. - I'm featured in Megan Kelly's expose,
	Two things I want to point out.
	You see this three shares?
	Yes.
	Alright, this isn't an article that's sort of breaking the internet, right?
	I guess not.
	Alright.
	You see the time it was published?
	3.35pm?
	Yes.
	That was the same day, right?
	Okay, let's call it 335 Central to make it more favorable.
	You said you published this around 5.55, right?
	I believe so.
	So, info or somebody, your folks in the back, I don't know what you call them, writers or editors or whatever it may be, had hours to try to fact check this before they came in, right?
	Not necessarily.
	They might not have seen it until 5.35.
	Okay, and they had 20 minutes.
	They might not have seen it until 5.55.
	Most likely, yes.
	We saw with this Karpova earlier today that the defense played a clip of Alex Jones saying that he gives his sincere condolences to the family.
	Are you familiar with that clip?
	I have heard Alex Jones apologize and basically correct himself many times.
	Let's be clear, that was not an apology.
	An apology is, I'm sorry for what I did.
	Sincere condolences is not an apology.
	It's something, but it's not an apology, right?
	If I said, I'm sorry for your loss, I'm not apologizing to you.
	Fair?
	That sounds like an apology to me.
	If you lost a loved one, and I came over and said, Mr. Schroyer, I'm really sorry for your loss, that's not an apology.
	I would say it is.
	What am I apologizing for?
	If your loved one died and I said to your employer, I'm sorry for your loss, what am I apologizing for?
	You were sympathetic and I'm grieving.
	Sure.
	It's different than an apology.
	An apology is if I knocked over your bag and I said, fine, I'm sorry I knocked over your bag.
	I feel bad about that, right?
	I did it, right?
	I'm not going to get mixed up.
	There is a video.
	There's a video that was played where Alex Jones says, I am sincerely, sincere condolences to the families.
	Are you familiar with that?
	Is this the same video that you asked me about?
	Same one, right.
	I'm just trying to figure out if you're familiar with this one single video.
	It aired exactly, I think it was exactly I'm not familiar with the exact video.
	It's DX67, we're not going to play it.
	But it was before this.
	Take my word for that?
	Sure.
	Will you play the fact checkers clip?
	This is still part of the saying, I'm just...
	Basically what he said, the statement he made, fact checkers on this have said cannot be accurate.
	Who are the fact checkers?
	I'm not sure.
	I'm looking over this right now.
	It may have been, that text may have been in the story, that phrase fact checkers.
	Hey look.
	Mr. Troy, we've got time.
	The article's not long.
	If you want to read it and find out, I'm happy for you, or I can point you to where I think you want to look.
	Okay, would you?
	Yeah, if you look at page 2, would you put this up?
	This is a PX20.
	Is your water good for empty?
	Yes, sir.
	Ms. Mattishek-Steele, can you bring in another water pitcher out, please?
	Defense table.
	Page 2, Melissa.
	Take this one and be right.
	What am I staffing for?
	Can you go up the bottom?
	Okay.
	Is there any in the way?
	You see at the bottom of page two of the story, it says Jim Fetzer, a professor of merit at the University of Minnesota, who wrote a book claiming seniorhood was staged, and goes on to kind of skew whatever that is.
	That's the fact checker, right?
	that's most likely what I was referring to yes okay this fire from Minnesota for this stuff I'm saying you're putting okay I did not know that at the time I do understand that he no longer is employed at that university.
	The book, Sandy Hook, I'm sorry, this book's not called Sandy Hook, it's called Nobody Died in Sandy Hook.
	You know that, right?
	No, I'm unfamiliar.
	Wasn't it on the Infowars website as a PDF? Orient the jury.
	This is June 25th, 2017. We ran the court, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Let me see if you put up PX73. You know who Paul Watson is, right?
	Yes.
	Remember what his title was in 2015 or 2016?
	What do you mean by title?
	What was his job?
	He worked for InfoWars.
	What was his job?
	I believe he was the editor-in-chief.
	Let's see what he says in an email on December 17, 2015. So about six months before you run that story.
	I'm gonna read this along and see if I read it right.
	This Sandy book stuff is killing us.
	It's promoted by the most batshit crazy people like Ritz and Fetzer who all hate us anyway.
	Plus it makes us look really bad to a lot of people who've harassed the parents of dead kids.
	Plus, the event happened three years ago.
	Why even risk our reputation for it?
	I read that right?
	Yes.
	And you see it up top there that said, send this to Alex, right?
	Yes.
	You understand that to me?
	This is the message he sent to Alex, and he's now sending it to Buckley, Anthony, and Anthony and InfoWars, right?
	Yes.
	Six months before you ran your story, InfoWars knew that Fetzer was not a well-known, right?
	I'm sorry, can you repeat that?
	Six months before you ran your story, Who the fact checker in the story was Fetzer, six months before you did that.
	In Fort Worth knew that he was not a well man, right?
	Your Honor.
	Oh, I looked at it wrong, my bad.
	So, I'm sorry.
	A year and a half.
	My fault, not six months.
	A year and a half before you ran your story, Infowars knew that Fetzer was not well, right?
	Yeah, I mean, clearly via this email, Paul Joseph Watson did not trust Fetzer and called him that shit crazy.
	And there was an email that went out and said stop this.
	Let's stop for the San Diego stuff, right?
	Yes.
	But you didn't, right?
	I never saw this email.
	I didn't say you saw this email.
	you clearly saw the ones that stopped working at the Sandy Hook stuff, right?
	No, I just told you I've never seen this email.
	Not this email.
	Was there a message, email, smoke signal, memo, whatever it may be that says stop it at InfoWars with the Sandy Hook stuff?
	I believe those memos may have gone around.
	I don't exactly recall them.
	That didn't happen, no.
	There was more videos and then there was yours since 2017, right?
	Yes.
	Can you play the Carver video?
	So, before you play it, This is the clip from Dr. Carver, the medical examiner.
	And you can hear his answer well.
	I'm going to turn this as loud as I can.
	I want you to try to hear the question that he's answering, okay?
	Have you ever thought about that?
	Have you ever considered it?
	I'm not sure.
	You don't know if you've ever heard the question that he's actually answering?
	I don't call.
	It's not for me.
	I mean, it is for me, but it's for the record, too.
	So this is your plaintiff's video 23. Yes, PBX 23. And it's loud.
	I just want to be prepared.
	Turn it down right after the question.
	We may have listened to it a few times.
	I'll tell you what, I'm actually going to tell you what the question is, and then you can just, it'll help you hear, if you actually know what it is.
	The question is, what shape were the bodies in when the families were brought forward to identify them?
	Okay.
	What shape were the bodies in the families?
	We did not bring the bodies and the families into contact.
	We took pictures of them, of their facial features.
	It's easier on the families when you do that.
	There is a time and a place for a person personal in the grieving process, but to accomplish this we felt it would be best to do it this way and you can sort of You can control the situation depending on your photographer.
	for I have very good survivors.
	- Sound like the question that I said? - It sounded like it.
	- Okay, it's close.
	It's something about how were these children's bodies, what condition were they in when the poor family had to come identify That was the question being asked, right?
	It's tough to hear, but it's something like that.
	Right.
	You think the state of Connecticut just somehow wouldn't allow parents to ever be reunited with their kids after they were murdered?
	Is that a real thought you have?
	I'm not sure.
	You think that's possible?
	What's possible?
	That the state of Connecticut just wouldn't give the bodies of murdered children back to their parents for the mourning and grieving process?
	I'm not sure the process of coroners receiving, retrieving dead bodies and the process of that getting released.
	All I had was that clip.
	And in the clip, what Dr. Carver says is to accomplish this.
	What is the this he's talking about?
	I'm not sure.
	It's the identification of their kids and matching them up with their parents, right?
	Do you think he would be wise To have a morgue full of 20 dead first graders and bring parents in and say, go find your child.
	Or is it a little bit better practice to have photographs and try to do it that way?
	I have no idea.
	I've never worked with a coroner.
	I don't know that process.
	Which one makes more sense, Mr. Schroer?
	Again, I don't know.
	Maybe it's harder to identify with a picture.
	Maybe it's harder to identify a body.
	You're asking me a line of work I have zero experience in.
	You never listened to the whole interview, Dr. Carver, right?
	I don't believe so.
	If you look at tab six in your book.
	Tab six?
	Yes, sir.
	Oh, you may not have one.
	My book goes up to four.
	I'm not going to introduce this.
	I'm going to just show it to you.
	Oh, C.
	Maybe.
	Don't worry, it's something.
	Thank you.
	I don't think we need to listen to it.
	But what I did is just a screenshot and blew up the little stamp at the end.
	It shows 1528. You see that?
	Yes.
	Does that help show you that the whole video is 15 minutes to 28 seconds?
	I'll trust your word for it.
	Alright, can I just screw up the demonstrators?
	Any objections?
	No objection.
	Yeah, 125.
	You edited out what?
	In your piece, there was a part edited out of what?
	Maybe 30 seconds, 45 seconds?
	Something around there, yes.
	You can take a demo.
	That was available, right?
	You could have went and found that video, figured out what was being discussed, right?
	You mean?
	What do you mean?
	When you heard it?
	No.
	You don't think that video is available when you heard it?
	It might have been available, but I'm saying I never had access to it, and I have four minutes left until break, and that was all the videos I had.
	Four minutes left until the ion, metal ion, whatever it feels?
	Yeah, the break.
	Right.
	The commercial, infomercial.
	Commercial break, yeah.
	Right.
	Infomercial break.
	you testified that this was a vape was on it was you could have found it if you wouldn't right that's the full interview of the court Okay.
	You're agreeing with me, right?
	Well, again, I don't know that, but I'm taking your word for it.
	Okay.
	Well, if you could, look at your deposition on page 110, 514. The question that you're asked is, because available was the whole coroner's press conference, is it true what you're What was available was the whole coroner's press conference.
	True?
	My answer was not too mean, but it was out there.
	It was available if somebody just looked, right?
	Yes.
	Your whole story.
	This whole story is wrong because you didn't know the clip from the interview with the coroner was edited.
	That's fair, right?
	Yet the zero-head story, I had that clipped out.
	Let me ask you that question again, and I'm not responsible.
	The whole story you ran, the free speech system put out on the air to however many people would watch it and then probably loaded it up somewhere.
	That whole story was wrong because you did not know the clip from the interview of the coroner It's
	all wrong.
	Not true.
	Actually inaccurate.
	Fair?
	Yeah, I'd say that it's my recollection that the timeline presented in that story was inaccurate.
	And the story was wrong because you didn't know that the interview with the corner was A, right?
	Correct.
	You said a second ago, in too much of a hurry to get that on the air, to do that, right?
	No, it wasn't a hurry, it was just a news story was brought to me and I covered it.
	And in the process, I feel awful for greeting parents from that horrific event.
	That is not what I asked you.
	In the process of hurrying up and putting that story out to a worldwide broadcast, you hurt real people.
	Do you understand that sitting here right now today?
	I'm sorry if that hurt anybody.
	And it's hard for me to accept that As we're continuing to talk about it, for me to say, understand this hurts someone, but yet we just keep talking about it, so we're just going to keep hurting people.
	Do you think they shouldn't exercise their rights to the court system, because that might hurt them and just let you off?
	that's what you think okay okay these folks were hurt by what you did I'm very upset if I caused any further grievance.
	I'm very upset that this continues and I hope that their grieving can end sometime.
	Well, I would imagine going through this process has to still hurt.
	You signed an affidavit in this case.
	Do you remember that?
	Yes.
	Let me pull up PX14. And before you do it, Your Honor, I believe it is evidence that I want to confirm.
	I couldn't do the number.
	PX14, sorry.
	PX14, sorry.
	PX14 is in evidence.
	It's tab 2 in your book.
	At least we'll pull it up to the...
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	You asked me about...
	Y'all is the number in the system.
	Not a video.
	Let me double check.
	I look at the wrong thing.
	Okay.
	14 is in evidence yes if you look pages in where your signature line is you see that part that says sworn to Let me just ask you an easier way.
	You know, when you do it after David, that's sworn testimony, right?
	Yes.
	Under penalty, right?
	I want to look at paragraph 10. And you say,
	I then played the referenced, unaltered, widely distributed video clip of a news conference with a medical examiner cited in which he told reporters that parents were not given access to their children.
	Unaltered?
	Yes.
	That is inaccurate.
	No, there's nothing altered about that clip.
	I just showed you the clip's 15 minutes change, right?
	That's a different clip.
	Okay.
	What you're saying is you just took whatever zero point now did and did whatever he wanted to do, right?
	I'm saying that the clip that you played in the corner was not altered.
	It may have been cut out of a larger cliff, but that cliff itself was not altered.
	At least I'm not aware of it.
	If I take a cliff and take a piece out of it, haven't I altered the cliff?
	No, you just made a new cliff.
	Okay, so by unaltered, what you mean is you didn't like dove over it or something like that?
	Yes.
	Okay, all right.
	I'm taking it down a little bit.
	I want to play one more, actually a couple more parts from PDX 23.
	We're going to play that McDonald family clip, if you would.
	It's got to be, you know, not to have been able to actually see her.
	Well, at first I thought that, and I had questioned maybe wanting to see her.
	Okay.
	Early on, I asked you the question, it is not right to edit a clip to fit an agenda.
	You agreed, right?
	Yes.
	You know that clip was edited to fit an agenda, right?
	Not at the time.
	I didn't ask you that at the time.
	I still don't know that.
	You don't?
	You've never seen the full transcript?
	No.
	Okay.
	Planes Exhibit 19 is under tab 3. This is the transcript of the whole article with Anderson.
	Any objection?
	authentication I've got a question to see him website perhaps it that offers the truth of the matter sir about it just showing him that he edited a clip right so he he has objection is often to be authentication not hearsay so do you have something to show me where it came from Okay.
	Can I read the rest of the answer?
	Can I have a read the rest of the answer to that question?
	Who will read the rest of the answer to what question?
	I'm sorry, Ms. McDonald's answer that was cut off in the clip that he played.
	We have the rest of the answer.
	Do you have the video?
	You only have a transcript.
	I'm unable to ever find it.
	And you got the transcript from the CNN website?
	or expect very sort of okay I think we might need to wait for the expert and then bring it back up mr. Schroer have you seen the full video No, ma'am.
	Do you, Mr. Schroyer, understand that what she was saying about seeing her child was in the funeral home?
	That the McDonald family, what they did is they brought racist things that she loved.
	Seashells.
	They brought sunglasses.
	They brought Taylor Swift.
	That was a Christmas party that she loved.
	A frying pan that she loved to cook.
	And they were going to put it In the casket with Grace.
	But they didn't, because they didn't want to see her body like that, so they gave it to the funeral director.
	You understand that's what she's saying right there?
	I wasn't aware of that.
	That would be an important thing to know, right?
	Before you run a piece like that?
	Yes.
	Obviously she saw her child, right?
	I don't know.
	Obviously she was allowed, that's a bad question, obviously she was allowed to you do not know as a general proposition whether or not parents of murdered children are ever allowed to see the child's body.
	I'd have to make an assumption but I mean I Okay,
	so just another question that people are now going to be asking about Sandy Hook, the conspiracy theorist on the internet out there that have a lot of questions that are yet to get answered.
	I mean, you can say whatever you want about the event.
	That's just a fact.
	So there's another one.
	Will there be a clarification from Heslin or Megyn Kelly?
	I wouldn't hold your breath.
	So now they're fueling the conspiracy theory claims.
	Unbelievable.
	but we'll be right back with more.
	Why in the world would Neil Kessler owe you an explanation?
	He doesn't.
	Why in the world would Megyn Kelly owe you an explanation?
	She doesn't.
	What about any of that was funny?
	As I explained earlier, if Megyn Kelly's goal was to stymie conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook being a hoax, it did the exact opposite of its effect.
	I don't find Sandy Hook funny.
	I don't find the tragic loss of life funny at all.
	Do you think to prolong and increase grief around a murdered child or something?
	No.
	Because that's what happened.
	Right?
	You understand?
	That's what happened.
	You prolong and you compounded grief.
	Do you understand that?
	By covering an interview with Megyn Kelly?
	By saying Neil Heslin never held Jesse after the murder of Sandy Hook Elementary.
	I never said that.
	I think, Sarana, you'll deserve better than what you did that day?
	Yes.
	2016 is when you started at Hinton Ford for free speech assistance.
	You knew and know that really the only people that were spreading this lie about senior was you Why
	were they so important to you in this video?
	You mentioned them twice, and you answered, I think it was more a matter of, from my perspective, Alex Jones was catching all this flack for Sandy Hook.
	But the other people that were questioning it weren't.
	To my best knowledge, the question, well, what do you mean by other people?
	Answer, Wolfgang Kaldig.
	Question, anyone else?
	Answer, not that I'm aware of.
	That's what you said under oath.
	Eight months ago, right?
	Yes.
	Have you learned something different now?
	Can you rephrase that?
	Have you learned something different?
	I mean, the people spreading the lies about Sandy Hook was Alex Jones and Wolfgang Hawker.
	Those are the two main people, right?
	Well, I guess Zero Hedge as well.
	With his three shares?
	Well, that was at the time.
	I don't know how many times it's been shared now.
	So...
	I just want to make sure you've got Let me go back to the deposition.
	I'll ask you a different question.
	You say in your deposition on page 191 that the other people catching flack about Sandy Hook was Wolfgang Hallbeck and you're not aware of anyone else, correct?
	That's what you said under oath.
	No, I said Alex Jones.
	Alex Jones and Wolfgang Hallbeck.
	Those are the two, right?
	Those are the two names mentioned in my deposition, yes.
	There was another question that said, anyone else?
	And you said, not that I'm aware of, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	But today you want to say zero heads.
	We'll throw them in the mix.
	Zero heads, zero point now, and I guess I think one too.
	Alright.
	You would agree with me that to spread, whether it be the truth or a lie, you have to have a way to reach the audience, right?
	A platform, if you will.
	Wolfgang Calder, Infowars was his voice.
	You were his megaphone, right?
	No.
	He didn't have a TV show, right?
	You don't need a TV show to have a voice.
	I'm going to go through some other items, too.
	So I'll ask that question again.
	He doesn't have a TV show, right?
	Not that I'm aware of.
	He doesn't have a radio show, right?
	Not that I'm aware of.
	He doesn't have some big internet presence, right?
	I don't know.
	He doesn't have any way to get his brain to crazy out other than through influence, right?
	That's who he used, right? - I don't know. - Let's play PBX 15G. - You have no reason to be doing this to be going public.
	I mean, I would imagine you've lost a lot of business.
	And you tell that to my wife.
	I have a body kicked out of my own house after being married 39 years.
	Alex, I'm about to lose my family because I'm simply asking the questions that you and your stations are looking at.
	And I'm asking you right now.
	I'm asking all your listeners.
	It's all gone.
	Support Infowars.
	Become part of the Warriors.
	We need this show.
	We need the truth.
	If you find it in your heart to donate a few dollars to our legal funds, let me tell you, we have them.
	We have the lawsuits filed, we are closed, but we can't do it without people helping me.
	I'm too old for this, but I do need help.
	The big thing is, support info more, because if we don't have your voice, nobody's going to hear the truth.
	Well folks, you need to donate, and briefings are going to break.
	Tell us the specifics of where it was filed.
	I filed here in Seminole County because all of my businesses, Children's Safety Institute, the National Institute, this is my home, this is where I live.
	And so instead of going to Connecticut where everything is crooked, we're going to come in the back door and therefore we file it.
	It's in the Seminole County court system.
	The judge, I mean the female judge, she saw what we're talking about and she could not hesitate issuing those 10 subpoenas David, sir, and we're not just waiting for all of the responses.
	Wow, well this is big national news.
	Did you hear Mr. Holbeck say, if we don't have your voice, nobody's going to hear the truth.
	I don't remember everything he said, but I believe something along those lines he said yesterday.
	Close enough, right?
	That was the message you just said.
	Rather than play it again, I'll trust you.
	Fair enough.
	your in your voice is in towards or Alex Jones right or the audience yeah we're gonna play it again I'm gonna stop it right he says it's not supposed to go home okay let's make sure you have no reason to be doing this to be going public I'm I mean, I would imagine you've lost a lot of business.
	And you tell that to my wife.
	I have a body kicked out of my own house after being married 39 years.
	Alex, I'm about to lose my family because I'm simply asking the questions that you and your stations are looking at.
	And I'm asking you right now.
	I'm asking all your listeners to do it.
	Support InfoWars.
	Become part of the Warriors.
	We need Al.
	We need this show.
	We need the truth.
	If you find it in your heart to donate a few dollars to our legal funds, let me tell you, we have them.
	We have the lawsuits filed, we are closed, but we can't do it without people helping me.
	I'm too old for this, but I do need help.
	The big thing is, support Infowars, because if we don't have your voice, nobody's going to hear the truth.
	Support Infowars, because if we don't have your voice, nobody's going to hear the truth.
	Mr. Holbeck knows he needs InfoWars to get his message out, right?
	I don't know that.
	That's what you just said.
	Not necessarily.
	Tell me what other interpretation that we all just heard of we need InfoWars if we don't have, right?
	Say it perfectly.
	If we don't have your voice, nobody's going to hear the truth.
	What other interpretation is it that he needs InfoWars to get his message out?
	He addressed before that, he said something along the lines of, I need your listeners, or I need all your listeners.
	So, that could be viewed as, we're all in this Support InfoWars by giving money, right?
	Yeah, I think he mentioned that legal fund campaign, too.
	Yeah, so, because in addition to selling supplements, I mean, that's what he's saying, support InfoWars, he's not saying go buy the supplements, he's saying just give it money, right?
	No.
	You have a donate button, just donate money, right?
	We do have a donate button, yeah, but I don't Just give me money.
	If you want to hear the truth, if you want to hear the truth, just give us money.
	Give us some more money, right?
	Yeah, everybody does that.
	PBS, everybody does that.
	Does PBS sell Rainforest 2?
	No, they just take our money.
	Is that the Brain Force P-bills?
	Brain Force plus a pill, yes.
	Brain Force plus a pill, sorry.
	PBS doesn't have to sell anything to get funding, they just get it for free.
	You know, PBS is a non-profit, right?
	Non-profit?
	Yeah.
	Did you not know that?
	Well, it might be a non-profit, but people are getting paid.
	Yeah, that's how non-profit is working.
	Mr. Shorty, I'll have more questions for you.
	All right, Mr. Regal.
	Mr. Scherner, please tell the members of the jury where you're from originally.
	I am originally from St. Louis, Missouri.
	And did you go to college?
	I did go to college.
	And what did you get your degree in?
	I studied psychology and media studies.
	- What, how did you first get involved with broadcasting? - In high school, when I wasn't starting on the varsity teams, teams I realized I was not going to be a professional athlete so I began writing for our school newspaper and doing reporting from our high school sporting events.
	After you graduated from high school while you were in college did you continue to work in broadcasting?
	I did.
	When I was at college, I was actually working professionally at multiple radio stations in St. Louis, and I was also the editor-in-chief of our student newspaper called The Current.
	And what type of reporting were you doing?
	For The Current, I was reporting on everything, because we were very understaffed.
	So, movies, concerts, sports.
	Just general activities on campus.
	And then professionally, I was in the sports media covering local sports in St. Louis, college, professional.
	Was this on the radio?
	Yes.
	And about how much time would you spend on the radio talking about sports?
	At one point in time, I was producing, I believe, four shows a day, weekdays.
	And I was not the host, but I would engage So we're talking maybe 10-12 hours.
	And did there come a time when you became interested in covering things beyond just sports?
	Yeah, I believe it was about 2013 when I wanted to pivot from sports Was there an event, something that happened that made you want to switch from sports to current events?
	There was.
	It was the Boston Marathon bombing.
	It was the first time in my life that I ever watched a news broadcast at all.
	I was not really watching television news, but I had the same fervor for being accurate Talking on the radio back then, so I started to watch news reports on the Boston Marathon bombing, and I started to follow up on some of those, do some digging, and what I realized was that we're not getting a full story from our government or our mainstream media, and it was kind of a shocking experience for me that really just changed my career path.
	How did you go about making the transition from The Boston American bombing that so stuck out to you and made you want to look into it more.
	Well, for one, the FBI put up the Sarnia brothers mugshots and they were looking for information on them.
	But they claimed at the time they didn't know who they were and it later came out that the older Sarnia brother was actually a government asset and had been flying back and forth from the United States to parts of the Middle East.
	So they knew well, they were well aware of who he was and they didn't tell us that.
	And then when I saw the I don't know if lockdown is the right word, but basically they were going door to door looking for them and then somehow he's in a boat covered in blood and they didn't find him.
	So I didn't really know what I was getting into at the time.
	I just had more interest in that in that moment than I did in sports for the first time in my life.
	And how did you go about making the transition from being a To being somebody who covered politics and training?
	I was extremely embedded in the sports industry in St. Louis, so it really wasn't even a transition.
	I continued to work all the jobs that I had in sports, but I started doing some political stuff on the side, doing some YouTube live videos, starting to interject some political stuff on the radio shows.
	So it was really just more of an add on top than it was a transition at the time.
	Your, the, when you were five, when you got a radio show that allowed me to talk about politics when you got a radio show that allowed me to talk about politics
	I think I was 23 at the time and really most of my political coverage at that time was on YouTube because anybody could start a YouTube account and fire up a live stream and have an audience.
	And from what time to what time did the broadcast?
	There was no frequency of time at It was really just a matter of if I had a free hour or so.
	That was a poor question.
	When you finally got a radio show, what time was it aired?
	9 to midnight.
	Were you paid to do that?
	How did you get the radio station to put you on from 9 to 9?
	Well, I won a civil suit against the radio station because they owed me thousands of dollars.
	And the GM at the time offered me a time slot on the radio in exchange for me not being paid the funds.
	I knew I was going to get paid.
	I wanted the air time.
	So that was the deal that was made.
	Alright, it's 5 o'clock.
	We're going to break for the day.
	For my jury, please remember and follow all of the instructions I've given you so far.
	And we'll see you tomorrow at 845 so that we can start right at 9.
	Thank you so much.
	All right.
	And whoever's outlasts, just shut that door for me, okay?
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	You may all be seated.
	You can stay on the record.
	Mr. Schroyer, I'm going to ask you just a few questions.
	One second.
	You testified just today that you were a guest or a co-host with Mr. Jones on Tuesday.
	Is that right?
	Yes.
	And you testified that you did a show and then a second show, is that right?
	Yes.
	And what were the topics of those two shows?
	Were any of the topics of those two shows this trial?
	Yes.
	Did you and Mr. Jones talk about anything that happened at the trial?
	I don't recall exactly what was discussed.
	Are they still available for viewing?
	I believe so.
	So you think you talked about the trial without talking about what happened at the trial?
	I'm not sure.
	Well, you just told me that the topic included this trial, didn't you?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And I'm asking you, did you talk about what happened in this report?
	And you said, I don't remember.
	Well, I just don't recall the exact details.
	I'm not asking you for any details.
	Did you talk about things that happened in this courtroom?
	Probably, yes.
	Didn't Mr. Reynold inform you that you were under the rule?
	What rule?
	So is that a no?
	Did he have a conversation with you about being under the rule?
	He did.
	He told me I not to watch any other witness testimony.
	Did he not tell you you weren't to speak with any other witness?
	I don't believe so.
	Did he not tell you you weren't supposed to discuss anything that happened in this courtroom during your trial?
	No.
	Any further questions?
	On this topic only.
	Any other questions on this topic?
	And be careful.
	Mr. Schroeder, during your conversation on Tuesday, what time was that that you were I believe Mr. Jones got into the office that day at about 2 o'clock.
	2 p.m.?
	I believe so.
	And what time were you on the field?
	6 p.m.
	And did you discuss any of the witness testimony from the day or hear anything about any of the evidence that was presented Have you had any other show appearances this week with Mr. Jones?
	I posted on Monday and Tuesday, and I believe that's it.
	So you weren't on the show yesterday?
	No.
	Were you on the show today?
	No.
	And these are all available online, right?
	Yes.
	You may step down.
	Actually, I'm going to read something to you first.
	To anyone who is listed as a potential witness, that includes you, you're currently a witness.
	You have been placed under the rule, which means, this doesn't apply to parties or experts, but it does apply to you, That it will be necessary for you to remain outside the courtroom while other witnesses are testifying.
	You are not to talk with each other or with any other person, including the parties, about the case except by permission of the court.
	You may, however, discuss your testimony with the attorneys in the case.
	You are not to read any report of Or comment upon the testimony in the case while under the rule.
	Any witness or other person violating these instructions may be punished for contempt of court, and it may result in my striking the witness's testimony.
	Thank you.
	You may step down.
	Mr. Reynold, on Tuesday, when you invoke the rule in this case, I also, in addition to reading what I just read, read the following portion.
	Counsel, inform your other witnesses that the rule has been invoked and the effect of the rule.
	Did you hear me say that on Tuesday?
	I did, Your Honor.
	Did you follow my instructions?
	Clearly not the way your Honor intended.
	I can assure, Your Honor, that they did not discuss anybody's...
	It will be easy to find out if they discussed the case, won't it?
	Certainly, Your Honor, I misunderstood, based on my experience and my practice, that...
	Because you're just a brand new lawyer, right?
	Enough with the aw shucks.
	I don't know the rules of court.
	I understand Now I Want to make it clear?
	Anyone who might be a witness needs to be informed tonight about the rule that it has been invoked and what it means, which is that they will not speak to any other person except one of the lawyers, not a party, lawyer, about anything having to do with this case and this trial.
	Do you understand, Mr. Reynold?
	Crystal.
	Thank you.
	Do we need to do anything else on the record today?
	Mr. Reynold?
	No.
	We may go off the record.
	You're not excused yet.
	Thank you.
	Because I allow the jury to ask questions, we lose a little bit of time from the total 44 hours that's assigned to the parties.
	I think I mentioned that to you before.
	We also lost a considerable amount of time this morning dealing with exhibits and the other stuff.
	So, we're running at about 42 hours total.
	As you know, it's divided unevenly.
	Rough math is 25 hours, 17 hours.
	That's not a promise.
	That's rough math.
	You've used 9 hours and 24 minutes on the plaintiff's side and 5 hours and 7 minutes on the defendant's side.
	Who will be our witnesses tomorrow?
	We'll finish with Mr. Schroyer and then who will we call?
	All right, and we know our plan for tomorrow.

▲