Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 3, 2022 - Depositions & Trials

03:03:51

Alex Jones Defamation Trial: Sandy Hook 'Hoax' Lawsuit - Day Seven, Part One

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	How about Dr. James Tracy? -Pushing me over the edge saying, "No, it is staged." And I really just believed him, and I think he was wrong.
	How about Dr. James Fetzer?
	I knew Fetzer.
	I interviewed Fetzer before Sandy Hook on his questions of 9-11.
	He'd written some books on that, seemed very cogent and intelligent.
	And I really didn't go a lot off his Sandy Hook stuff because I didn't read his book on Sandy Hook.
	His book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, which I don't believe.
	And we kind of had a falling out because as he got a little more wild after 9-11, he was thinking that...
	They used space-based weapons to disintegrate the towers.
	I thought that was a little too much.
	So that was kind of where he was.
	So I didn't go that much off of him on Sandy Hook.
	And he was never on the show, was he?
	Not on Sandy Hook.
	He was on about other things, but not that I remember.
	I do a lot of shows, but not that I remember about Sandy Hook.
	How about Dr. James Tracy?
	He seemed credible.
	He was a university professor, seemed very well-spoken.
	I believe he was interviewed by some of the other shows on Infowars.
	I don't remember interviewing him, but I remember seeing some of his reports, reading some of his articles and interviews.
	Last, a gentleman we've heard a lot about, Wolfgang Haubing.
	Yes, I did interview Wolfgang Haubing, and he seemed incredible when I was first reading what he was saying.
	Do you now realize that that was a big mistake?
	It was.
	And that was part of the reason I started to think Sandy Hook probably happened by 2015, 16 or so.
	When at first I thought that children probably actually died, but there might be some involvement by some nefarious groups.
	It's hard to believe that Adam Lanza would do all that.
	It just seemed so incredible.
	You're kind of in first stages of grief.
	Even watching something is denial.
	And then I kind of bought into what Halbig was saying and what Pacinic was saying.
	And then Halbig began to get mad at me.
	I don't remember exactly when, like 2015 or so, saying I was covering up because I wouldn't have him on.
	And he started visibly degenerating more.
	And so that's when I began to really think that I might have made a mistake, you know, unintentionally.
	Let's rewind and talk about December 14, 2012. The day that Adam Lanza attacked the school.
	Where were you?
	I believe I was gotten to work by the time it was on the news and heard about it.
	I don't remember the exact details.
	I just remember it was just What was your feeling when you saw what had happened?
	Anybody would have just shock, especially if you have children, and I of course already had three children then, that something like that could happen and that somebody could do something like that.
	Just that it was possible.
	It's hard to believe.
	Why did you choose to cover Sandy Hook at all?
	It was a top story in the country and a lot of powerful forces were also using it to blame gun owners in general and so a lot of people had resentment that they hadn't done anything illegal with a gun and they were being blamed for it collectively so there was a lot of anger.
	Back then the show was more driven to calls so we would open the phones up and people were As you sit here today, do you recall about how much coverage InfoWars gave to the Sandy Hook school shooting in 2012?
	I would have to see notes, but I think it was like two and a half hours.
	I'd like to move into 2013. In terms of the Sandy Hook story, What was going on in 2013?
	A lot of pushes to restrict gun ownership.
	I mean, just a lot of political fighting going on.
	During that time, you interviewed Steve Pachenik about the story.
	Why did you pick him?
	Did you reach out to him?
	Did he reach out to you?
	How did that...
	I reviewed the video, but it was a few weeks ago.
	I believe he was on other subjects, and I believe it came up.
	I think I argued with him about it being totally staged, and I found it hard to believe.
	During that time, not you, but another host interviewed Dr. James Tracy.
	Do you recall that?
	Yes.
	Do you know why James Tracy was interviewed?
	It was a big topic on the internet, and I... I mean, the host usually sent up their own guest.
	I don't think I watched it at the time, but I saw it later.
	At the time, were you or anyone else at Infowars taking a strong position that no one had died at the school?
	No.
	We were having, when we did cover it, out of the thousands of hours, it was a discussion of what happened there.
	And I knew that there had been other false flag events before where they actually killed people.
	So I still in general thought that that was what was happening.
	In one recent interview, Pachinik is a psychiatrist who was involved in some stuff in Europe, knew about Operation Gladio and had been involved.
	What's Operation Gladio?
	That's a declassified NATO state-behind network program in Europe, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Southern Europe, to stage terror attacks and blame it on the Russians during the Cold War.
	Operation Gladio.
	And Pacinic had been involved in operations dealing with the response to the kidnapping of the Italian Prime Minister and things like that and the Red Brigade and so I knew that he was on record an expert on false flags.
	Let's move into 2014. The comprehensive report written by Detective Dan Jewis was issued or released around that time, December 2013 or early 2014. Say that again, please.
	We've had testimony that the comprehensive report written by Dan Jewis, the detective for the Connecticut State Police, was released to the general public In either very late 2013 or early 2014. Why didn't that end all discussion?
	I don't remember all the specifics.
	I know that it was a topic that the public was interested in, so it would resurface from time to time.
	It was not one of our main topics.
	Our main topics were wars and surveillance and police state.
	But I do remember that they said a lot of it was, quote, still classified and redacted.
	I do remember there being a controversy about that, and that was what made some people still think that they were being lied to about what really happened there.
	Let me ask you, before we move on into 2014, if you recall, approximately how much time did Infowars devote to the Sandy Hook story in 2013?
	I actually went over and have some notes if I'm able to look at those I should give you those refreshing recollections that they would so I don't want to say the whole numbers your object is there some handwritten notes You have to lay a lot more background.
	He wrote the notes.
	He hasn't said that.
	What you say is your evidence.
	Did you write some notes after reviewing your documents in order to help you refresh your recollection while you testify here today?
	There are evidence that you told me I need to review.
	You also told me to review the rules.
	Without saying what I told you to do.
	Yes, I reviewed that.
	And did you take some notes based on your review internally to refresh your recollection as to what had happened?
	Yes, I did.
	I re-watched them too.
	Would it help you to refer to your notes in terms of time periods?
	Yes, please.
	I'm going to begin to object because of the discovery order that you have entered, which establishes that it's not a complete list of videos, and what could it be used to refresh his memory of what complete list is?
	Yeah, actually, could you approach both of them, please?
	Thank you.
	Based solely on your memory, without reference to any documents that you've reviewed, about how much coverage do you believe InfoWars gave to Sandy Hook in the year 2013? about how much coverage do you believe InfoWars gave to I believe it was four or five hours less than one tenth of a percent.
	So let's talk about 2014. Wolfgang Halbig came on the show for the first time.
	I believe so.
	Can you tell us what led you to have Wolfgang Halbig on in 2014?
	He was on a lot of shows and he had a group of bullet points and my producer set him up on the show so I had him on.
	At the time, what if anything else was going on in your life?
	My family was falling apart.
	I was in divorce I'd like to refer you to the end of 2014 we've had a video received in evidence of you stating your belief at that time that no one died at Sandy Hook
	that the whole thing was fake.
	Do you understand, as you sit here today, how crazy that is?
	I have said before that And I was under a lot of pressure.
	And I truly, when I said those statements, when I say something I mean it, that I really could believe that it was totally staged at that point.
	And I was basing that off of really Steve Pachenik, who has been a very prestigious person.
	Do you understand now that it was absolutely irresponsible that you did that?
	It was, especially since I met the parents.
	It's 100% real, as I said on the radio yesterday, and as I said here yesterday, it's 100% real.
	And the media still ran with lies that I was saying it wasn't real on air yesterday.
	It's incredible.
	They won't let me take it back.
	They just want to keep me in the position of being the Sandy Hook man.
	My son got confronted yesterday.
	Objection speculation as to what the media wants.
	Mr. Jones is just a test.
	Being on the show.
	Sustained.
	I'm going to just remind you, just answer the question that the attorney asks you.
	Thank you.
	In 2014, based solely off your recollection and without having looked at any documents, can you tell us about how much time was devoted by Infowars to covering San Diego?
	I believe it's five, six hours.
	In the whole year?
	Yes.
	Moving into 2015.
	At the end or at the middle of 2015 in July 2015 You stopped Infowars stopped covering Sandy Hook.
	Yes.
	Why did you stop?
	Because...
	Hal Big was saying that I was involved in Sandy Hook because I wouldn't have him on.
	And I started finding out that some of the things that the anomalies they had put forward weren't true.
	And I just ended my divorce and just kind of got my head cleaned up and stopped drinking for a while.
	And realized that it probably did happen and I was probably, I mean, it was a good chance I was wrong.
	So I started basically trying to walk it back long before I got sued because I wasn't sure that I was right anymore.
	Not everything is a false flag.
	Not everything is staged.
	During that time, there was a reporter working, or there's a gentleman who at least we've had in evidence worked.
	At some point, for an infoward named Dan Badandi.
	Are you familiar with that name?
	Yes.
	Can you tell us who he is?
	He was a part-time reporter.
	He was a really nice guy, but we were being more comedy-based part of the show then.
	And so Rob's like, this guy's like a Howard Stern character.
	And so we hired him to do some funny stuff, but he wanted to do serious stuff.
	And then he was officially working for us, then I let him go.
	When he moved to Austin for about six months and it just didn't work out.
	And then he went back and he was doing his own show.
	But sometimes he would go out and say he was doing stuff with them full wars.
	And we were proud of some of it, not so proud of other parts of it.
	Can you tell us specifically what you're not proud of regarding Badandi?
	I mean, I didn't like, once I saw...
	Because I wasn't, at the time, watching a lot of the shows.
	I was going to do my own show.
	I saw some of the reports he put out, both on his platform and on ours.
	And I remember saying, well, that's not how we want to handle things.
	We said, do that.
	Tell them don't do that.
	and then I began telling the crew, "No more Sandy Hook.
	Don't cover it." In that first half of 2015, before you shut it down, do you recall approximately, based off your memory, how much coverage Sandy Hook got?
	I don't think it was much.
	I don't remember.
	I wrote it down.
	I know that for 16 months after that, we didn't talk about it any.
	16 months?
	That's what my memory is, yes.
	Let's talk about 2016. Was that an election year?
	Yes.
	How did the election effect enforce?
	Before we'd been seen by the right wing as leftists and by the left wing as kind of crazy libertarians, but I was popular with populists everywhere.
	So I was popular with, you know, land rights groups and anti-police corruption groups and it was really well known for being anti-police brutality at that time and anti-war.
	And as soon as I got involved thinking that Trump was an outsider, I got what politics is really like.
	And I got thrown in the deep end of the weaponization of politics and experienced what that was like at a very, very personal level.
	How did the...
	Clinton campaign, weaponized, Infowars, Sandy Hook coverage.
	Well, they looked at...
	The media went with, okay, this guy's bombastic, he's colorful, he said a lot of wild stuff.
	We're going to use that and say he's Trump's brain.
	And then all these shows said, Alex Jones tells Trump what to do.
	And people believed him.
	Can't tell us what anyone else has said...
	There are a few exceptions that I do not think will come up in your testimony.
	So if somebody else said it, you can't tell us.
	Okay.
	Based on your participation in the campaign, just being in the country at the time, can you tell us the volume from your perspective of campaign ads linking you to Sandy Hook?
	In the last two months of the campaign, I'd already been a big part of the Clinton campaign, tying me to Trump, and then they spent a huge ad buy for two months talking about me, playing edited clips of me.
	Mr. Jackson, he doesn't know what their ad buy was or how huge it was.
	This is just absolute speculation.
	Speculation.
	Thank you.
	Sustained.
	Sustained.
	How did you feel about that?
	Well, when I read in the newspaper, there was a $28 million ad buy.
	Don't say what you read in the newspaper.
	Just tell me how you felt about it.
	Things that you have read are also hearsay.
	Okay.
	Because you didn't say them.
	Somebody else said them.
	Okay.
	Right?
	A writing is speech.
	Do not tell the jury anything that came from someone else that you've read or heard.
	You'll have to disregard that sentence.
	Okay.
	Go ahead.
	How did you feel about the political advertising that was happening regarding you and Sandy Hooker?
	I felt it was highly deceptive.
	I felt it stole my identity and was building me into a monster as a political tool.
	And I wanted my identity back and did not want to be tied to the twisted things that they were saying I did by making me the Sandy Hook man.
	And I wanted to be able to try to set the record straight because it wasn't just hurting me, it was hurting my family.
	And I also realized that it was going to get other people or possibly to make it a big issue And it did.
	It made it bigger.
	It made it a thousand times bigger than it ever was when other people covered it.
	It was just huge.
	And I had people on the street, shopping malls, grocery stores, saying, Stop talking about Sandy Hook.
	You made a video in November of that year.
	Do you recall that?
	Yes.
	Called Final Statement on Sandy Hook.
	Yes.
	What was your purpose in making that interview?
	To tell the media why I questioned things, but that I thought that it probably did happen and that I did not want to talk about it anymore.
	So that was basically where I stood because I was getting a lot of calls from the media saying they wanted to interview me.
	And I was saying I don't want to talk about Sandy Hook.
	As you sit here today, do you realize what a mistake it was to allow yourself to be baited into making that video?
	I feel I was completely baited, not just that time, but many other times after, and just caught in this situation where I've been basically Typecast as someone that runs around talking about Sandy Hook, who made money off Sandy Hook, who was obsessed with Sandy Hook when it was less than 1-10% over those six years of what we covered.
	So it was extremely frustrating.
	It was frustrating then.
	It's infinitely more now.
	In 2016, how much coverage did you give to Sandy Hook?
	I believe almost none.
	That video?
	I think in my notes it's like 20 minutes or something.
	I'm not sure.
	Let's go into 2017 and I want to ask you some questions about Megyn Kelly.
	Did you know Megyn Kelly before 2017?
	No.
	How did she approach you?
	She kept calling my cell phone.
	And at some point Without telling us what she said, did you agree to the interview?
	Yes.
	About how many phone calls did it take before you agreed?
	I don't remember.
	A lot.
	Why did you agree to the interview?
	Because I was told that I would be allowed to say that I thought Sandy Hook happened and apologize to the families.
	Did that turn out to be the case?
	No.
	Tell us about the process of filming the profile.
	How did that go?
	She came to the office at about 9 a.m.
	and we were done at about 10 o'clock at night and then I was like three minutes of the program all edited together with jump cuts.
	What's a jump cut?
	It's like with the refrigerator magnet game where you can move the words around however you want and you know you got jump cuts because the shots keep changing and we're talking every four or five words being jump cut so that it would make it appear that I wasn't sorry or that I wasn't sad about it and that I was continuing to do it.
	Do you recall around when the filming occurred I believe it was in April.
	When you realized what was going on, did you make a video Addressing the media and what had happened.
	I made several.
	I actually released the audio of Megyn Kelly.
	I recorded her once saying, we're going to let you set the record straight and say that you think Sandy Hook happened and all the rest of it.
	And then I also shot a Father's Day video to the families saying I'd like to have you on the show and I'm sorry for what happened.
	I believe that these mass shootings happened and that was my attempt because the media was saying on Father's Day he will attack the families coming up in BC. Just promos everywhere on all the major news channels.
	How dare he attack them on Father's Day.
	I hadn't seen the report yet.
	Hearsay.
	Sustained.
	Hearsay.
	Sustained.
	Remember, Mr. Jones, if you heard it, It's hearsay.
	Yes, that's why they're there.
	If you heard it, it's hearsay.
	So, TV, let's hear a say.
	Okay.
	- Okay. - There are some exceptions, but I don't think any of your testimony is going to qualify for an exception. - At this point, but I don't think any of your testimony is going to qualify for an exception. - At this point, we All right.
	Didn't happen.
	When I explained to her both sides of it, and I explained that I only had debate...
	I'm sorry, I'm just trying to get the volume more.
	Sure.
	Alright, let's try.
	She may sound like I'm saying, Sandy Hook, didn't happen.
	When I explained to her both sides of it, and I explained that I only had debates, and looked at the full story...
	This is the heart of 1776. Ladies and gentlemen,
	In the last 24 hours, according to Twitter, according to Google, according to Facebook, the number one trending story in the United States, one of the top stories in the world, has been Megyn Kelly and Alex Jones.
	Those two names together.
	Now, you would think that having this huge firestorm controversy taking place, MSM would actually interview me or would actually go to the live feeds and videos that I put out concerning the controversy.
	But they won't do it.
	Only a handful, USA Today, New York Daily News, and others have actually run with the fact that I have said to end this controversy that I think the Megyn Kelly interview coming up on Father's Day this Sunday that she did with me last week here in Austin should be shelved.
	Now, the reason I say that is, Megyn Kelly misrepresented my views and where I stand on Sandy Hook.
	In the edit for the promo piece she put out, and I'm sick and tired of it.
	And I'll bring more of that down in a few minutes.
	But notice the big secret here is hidden in plain view.
	I put out a video a year ago saying I believe Sandy Hook happened.
	I put out a video two years ago saying I believed it leaned towards the official story, being at least partially true, though they had some PR firms there and were trying to exacerbate and use the crisis.
	As Rahm Emanuel said, don't let a good crisis go to waste.
	And they will never actually quote what I said.
	They will take a devil's advocate statement I made out of context.
	Hillary Clinton ran ads in the campaign featuring me, very, you know, manipulated and edited.
	It's ongoing.
	So imagine this.
	I had come out and said again in a video yesterday and the day before, two different new videos, that I believe Sandy Hook happened and they will not Run it anywhere but three publications when there are thousands and thousands and thousands.
	Number one story.
	Now think about that.
	That is the deception.
	What are they doing here?
	They want to demonize new media, alternative media, by misrepresenting what we say and do.
	They want to come in and start censoring new media and the internet.
	And they're using Infowars.com as the poster child for it.
	And if they're able to do it to us, they can do it to you.
	Now, some will say that, well, then why are you saying pull the interview if they're trying to misrepresent you at MSM to restrict your speech?
	It's because Megan is playing along with it.
	She's in with the Sandy Hook groups.
	She speaks at their events.
	This is all a big PR event.
	Having them protest her, then use it more hype, and puts it out there like I'm the ultimate demon on the earth.
	Imagine this.
	A week and a half ago, she interviews Putin.
	Supposedly the evil, mass murdering criminal, they claim.
	But it's okay for her to talk to Putin.
	Only Alex Jones is so bad.
	Only Alex Jones is so evil that we can't see his interview, and on top of that, we can't hear what he actually has to say.
	So the reason I'm saying, sure, don't air the interview, is because it's going to be edited to misrepresent what I said in the promo piece.
	She makes it sound like I Sandy Hook didn't happen.
	When I explained to her both sides of it, and I explained that I only had debates and looked at the full story, it's incredible.
	And so I'm tired of being misrepresented.
	And despite the fact I came out yesterday and said, pull the interview.
	Almost no coverage of that, even though it's sensational.
	Well, this is the top story in the country to have the person being interviewed to say, yes, go ahead and pull it.
	And almost no coverage.
	That's because they want the straw man, the edited straw man of Alex Jones, the doppelganger, the imposter.
	They want to use that and hold that up and then misrepresent what I've said or what I've done.
	I'm talking about the 28 pages and our government ordering a stand-down for Saudi Arabia that's now been declassified and the 28 pages.
	They say that I say that firefighters blew up the World Trade Center.
	Firefighters were heroes, so were the police.
	They were some of our witnesses to the bombs that were in the buildings.
	Again, that's how they misrepresent.
	I point out that in the Iraq war, they staged events.
	And lied us into that conflict, claiming that babies were being thrown out of incubators, that babies were being killed, and all the rest of this garbage.
	And that we can't just sit here and trust an MSM that has shown itself to be such incredible liars.
	Why is this happening?
	This is happening because dinosaur media, The term I coined is in crisis.
	It's falling apart.
	The dwindling waterholes they have of corporate money are evaporating.
	And new media that questions their lives in real time is popping up everywhere.
	Just today on InfoWars.com, there are tons of links to mainstream media being caught interviewing actors, interviewing political consultants, and claiming that they were just people on the street.
	There's new articles coming out with a little boy that was bombed in Syria, supposedly by the Russians, and his family coming out and saying it was actually ISIS that bombed them.
	I mean, everything they say is being reversed.
	Everything they promote is being disproven.
	So what do they do when they're the fake media?
	They go and they pick somebody who's prominent like myself, Who supports Americana.
	Who supports the restoration of our republic.
	Who supports President Trump.
	To try to destroy his base.
	They try to destroy me.
	And they try to also intimidate all of you.
	That if you ever question official narratives, you will be destroyed.
	But I want to be clear.
	Before I go to these articles.
	Megyn Kelly.
	Told me I'm not going to get into Sandy Hook or any of this other stuff.
	I might just mention it and just let you clarify.
	And then she interrogated me, asked me five or six times on each subject, never stopped, and then edited the promo piece together deceptively.
	And that's why I'm saying don't air it because I don't want to be used in another deception to drive wedges in this country.
	And again.
	Undoubtedly.
	For years, this whole Sandy Hook PR deal with Bloomberg and Big Money and MSM, not the families, but Big Money and MSM clearly is synthetic, is fake, and is pushing this like it's war propaganda or something against myself and the independent media, just hammering and hammering and hammering and hammering where I stand and what I believe.
	It is the fact that MSM is so untrusted.
	That the public didn't buy Sandy Hook.
	And there were anomalies.
	And we'll go over some of those.
	And we're allowed to ask questions.
	And we're allowed to investigate.
	Because that's what a free society is based on.
	And governments are famous for changing things, or using real crises, but then exacerbating them.
	And everybody knows that.
	So again, all they're doing is building us up.
	More traffic, more viewers, more supporters.
	We're selling more products.
	We're getting more sponsors knocking down our doors.
	Which shows how pathetic MSM is.
	But it also shows the fact that they are targeting people who are on the fence and don't know if MSM is telling the truth or not.
	They're trying to bully and intimidate anybody that asks questions.
	So let's look at these.
	Stories here.
	A new Ben Garrison cartoon based, of course, on my original term.
	Dinosaur media.
	You've got ISIS working with MSN, CNN. You've got NBC. They're down here in the waterhole getting their money.
	And here comes Stefan Molyneux.
	Here comes Paul Watson.
	Here comes Cernovich.
	Here comes Infowars.
	Here comes Drudge.
	Here comes Breitbart.
	And just like the meteors, just like the asteroid, just like the comet coming down and killing the dinosaurs, that's exactly what's happening.
	What's happening here?
	And then continuing, this is a new story on Infowars.com by Paul Joseph Watson.
	Fake news, MSNBC pretends Obama campaign director is random woman on the street.
	That's how dumb they think you are.
	There's a bunch of examples where they also have actors and staged events just lately below it.
	Remember this, when they You know, on election night, had their own camera people being interviewed and claiming that they were just citizens.
	This is why people don't trust them.
	This is why people don't believe them.
	This is an excellent article from Zero Hedge.
	Alice Jones implores NBC not to air interview with liar Megyn Kelly.
	This article, better than anyone I've seen, I'm going to post on Infowars.com.
	That's exactly how I feel.
	What's actually happened is from iBankCoin.com originally.
	We're selling more products.
	We're getting more sponsors knocking down our doors.
	Which shows how pathetic MSM is.
	But it also shows the fact that they are targeting people who are on the fence and don't know if MSM is telling the truth or not.
	They're trying to bully and intimidate anybody that asks questions.
	So let's look at these stories here.
	A new Ben Garrison cartoon based, of course, on my original term.
	Dinosaur media.
	You've got ISIS working with MSN, CNN. You've got NBC. They're down here in the waterhole getting their money.
	And here comes Stefan Molyneux.
	Here comes Paul Watson.
	Here comes Cernovich.
	Here comes Infowars.
	Here comes Drudge.
	Here comes Breitbart.
	And just like the meteors, just like the asteroid, just like the comet coming down and killing the dinosaurs, that's exactly what's happening here.
	And then continuing, this is a new story on Infowars.com.
	I apologize for Watson.
	Fake news.
	MSNBC pretends Obama campaign director is random woman on the street.
	That's how dumb they think you are.
	There's a bunch of examples where they also have actors and staged events just lately below it.
	Remember this, when they, uh...
	You know, on election night, had their own camera people being interviewed and claiming that they were just citizens.
	This is why people don't trust them.
	This is why people don't believe them.
	This is an excellent article from Zero Hedge.
	Alice Jones implores NBC not to air interview with liar Megyn Kelly.
	This article, better than anyone I've seen, I'm going to post on Infowars.com.
	It's exactly how I feel.
	What's actually happened is from iBankCoin.com originally.
	It's from Zero Point Now is who posted it.
	This article, I need to get this person to write for InfoWars.
	They absolutely get where I stand.
	They're journalists.
	They actually reported on what I said.
	They showed my quotes going back over years, saying, I don't know what happened, but it's got more holes out of it than Swiss cheese.
	And, you know, I believe kids die, but it needs to be investigated.
	And there's definitely a cover-up.
	The particulars, they really get it together here.
	Very, very important article.
	And they also understand it's big news.
	Well, this is a top story, and I'm saying, hey, I want the interview pulled, but nobody will cover it.
	USA Today and a few others.
	Now, let's continue right here with this.
	I've got the computers locking up.
	Maybe they'll shut down here in just a minute.
	The point is, ladies and gentlemen, The globalists are absolutely panicking right now.
	When we come back from break here in a few minutes, I will get into some more of the history and some more of these articles and go over documented cases where our government claims kids are being killed.
	When children aren't being killed.
	Not just the babies and incubators having their brains stomped out in Kuwait by Saddam Hussein's forces, a PR firm totally fake.
	Fake video, fake photos.
	But so many other modern cases of ISIS rebels hitting people with nerve gas and then blaming it again on the Russians.
	And the UN even found that that was a state's event.
	So if you have these staged events over and over and over again, it's okay to question them.
	But the bigger question is, why are they attacking Infowars?
	Why are they so desperate?
	Why are they coming after us?
	Because they're scared of the fact that we're the leading independent media, that we understand the paradigm, and that the operating system of the American reboot Restoring our republic was basically re-engineered by Infowars and is now being adopted across the board.
	We are writing the talking points now for conservative talk radio, for the libertarian movement, and for so many others.
	We take the hit, we get demonized, we get attacked, but we don't care because we popularize it and make it safe for others, just like Trump is smashing political correctness.
	We'll be right back after this break with more, and then Owen Schroyer's coming up.
	I'm taking off a little bit this morning to take my daughter to the dentist.
	Stay with us.
	Ladies and gentlemen, we are back live.
	MSM, the downstream media, is absolutely panicking.
	They do not know what to do.
	And so now they're attempting to say that I'm even more evil than their top demon, Putin, and that I cannot be seen on NBC. That will legitimize me.
	No, actually, that will upset our listeners and folks that absolutely hate MSM. The only reason I would go on it would be able to reach out to people that are still in The Matrix and also experience the deception of Megyn Kelly for myself.
	Which I did.
	Megyn Kelly needs the alternative media.
	They need us, not the other way around.
	She needed this publicity.
	And from my research, I think the whole thing is basically staged.
	She works with the Sandy Hook groups.
	And this whole protest thing is about giving her massive attention so that the interview gets record ratings.
	Failed Megyn Kelly.
	Megyn Kelly dropped his host for Sandy Hook Group's gala over Alex Jones' interview.
	See, she's deep in bed with this.
	Bloomberg admits he's used the Sandy Hook Group's as a red shirt to wave around and demonize The Second Amendment and then blame all gun owners for the deaths.
	Again, talk about a frame-up.
	Talk about criminal and disgusting and using these poor grieving families.
	Alex Jones doubles down Sandy Hook conspiracy theory in disgusting Megyn Kelly interview because of the way she edited the promo.
	Not what I said.
	I said I believed that people died.
	So again, ladies and gentlemen, this is the type of garbage that we're dealing with.
	Look, I know I'm moving fast here.
	It's because there's so much evidence.
	Remember the British ambassador coming out and saying that, clearly, the false flag chemical attack a few months ago in Syria was carried out by the rebels as an attempt to get the U.S. to come into the war?
	I mean, think about how our government funded the Arab Spring that's killed almost a million people and put radical jihadists in power, and Hillary makes jokes about, I came, I saw, you died.
	Think about Madeleine Albright, who was Secretary of State under the Clintons, saying, yeah, half a million kids is no big deal dying in Iraq for our war.
	Again, these are cold-blooded monsters.
	And they turn around and say, if we question events that clearly have big PR firms involved, then we somehow are monsters and evil.
	It isn't going to work.
	Nothing can put mainstream media back together again.
	Everybody knows about the baby in the incubators.
	Everybody knows about other staged events.
	Everybody knows about CNN caught staging fake halls and town halls and CNN caught, you know, giving the questions to Hillary from the debate beforehand and the WikiLeaks and how they're all colluding and the fake polls.
	You guys are the globalists.
	You're the enemies.
	You're the people that have hijacked America.
	You're the threat to our children.
	You're the people that are cold and heartless and don't care.
	Not us.
	But again, I want to encourage people to read the Zero Hedge article that breaks it all down because they absolutely are on target with this report.
	Where they asked the questions that the media seemed so scared that I might even actually talk about if the Megyn Kelly interview aired.
	Why did the Sandy Hook Elementary School website have zero traffic for four years before the event and show it was closed?
	Why were there several reports of other shooters dressed in camouflage in the woods that fled, of whom the police allegedly detained?
	Port-a-potty, sandwiches and fruit drinks and chips brought up and set up for the crime scene in just an hour or so.
	Sandy Hook, it just goes on and on.
	An FBI crime stat which shows no murders occurred in Newtown in 2012. Why didn't they let paramedics and EMTs in the building and 27 children were declared dead in 8 minutes?
	Why was Adam Lanz's home burned to the ground by the bank?
	Why have they declared all the records totally secret?
	These are questions the public has.
	They're the ones asking it.
	They're the ones demanding it.
	I've said I believe children did die there, but PR firms were involved, admittedly, hyping it up as much as possible.
	But there's been a cover-up, and Anderson Cooper got caught faking where his location was with blue screen.
	I mean, it's all there.
	We don't know what happened.
	I believe kids died.
	But the same media that's faking a bunch of other stuff and faking war propaganda is saying that I have said things that I never said that have been taken out of context.
	And now we'll report what I'm saying.
	saying don't air the interview on Father's Day to hurt fathers and demonize men, and that you got it to be out of context, and that I don't want it aired.
	Why won't they actually report on what I'm saying?
	I'm Alex Jones.
	This is the InfoWars.
	Coming up, Owen Schroyer in the studio for the next 30 minutes, and I'll be back in the studio coming up live.
	Please spread the word, because the truth lives at InfoWars.com.
	At the time you filmed that segment, Had you ever heard the name Neil Heslin?
	I don't believe so.
	In addition to filming this clip, going after the mainstream media for the way they were covering the event, Did you also film a piece reaching out to the families?
	Yes.
	Are you talking about the Father's Day message?
	Yes.
	And why did you film that?
	Because I wanted the families to know that I believed their children died and I was being used as a pawn It's like putting two pit bulls in a cage to have us attack each other.
	I wanted it to stop.
	I didn't want to cause them any more pain.
	It was also causing my family a lot of problems.
	I wanted it to stop.
	I didn't want to be sucked into it anymore.
	That's why I agreed to the Megyn Kelly interview.
	She said, I'll just talk about it a little bit.
	bit.
	I said, well, I'd like to be able to clarify that I think it happened, but she didn't let that get out on air.
	So, I'm sorry.
	Sorry about this.
	so that's that's why I shot the Father's Day report at this time we play Alright.
	I woke up this morning on Father's Day.
	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.
	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.
	Right now is a time for unity and peace in our country.
	I think it's a time for unity and peace in our country.
	Do you recall that?
	Yes.
	Did you know he was going to cover it?
	To your knowledge, before that piece aired, had anyone on InfoWars ever mentioned Neil Hesslund by name?
	No.
	Why haven't you fired Owen Troyer for airing that segment?
	Because I asked him why he did it, and he testified that he wasn't denying his son died.
	He was saying, why did Megyn Kelly put two conflicting things out, obviously knowing, journalistically, that would stir up a larger debate.
	And also, go ahead.
	You know though that the gist of that report as found by the court was as found by the court defamatory to Mr. Hessler.
	Well it was not my intention.
	I didn't know that and Owen, it's his opinion that he didn't mean to be that way.
	And also Owen came to work after I put out the directive to not cover Sandy Cook anymore It was an oversight that while they're just printing out hundreds of articles and bringing in newspapers for the host to look at, you're not told to cover this.
	They just bring in news articles and stacks of things.
	He saw that, thought it was interesting, and covered it.
	I don't think he intentionally, in my view, I understand the judge has said that That's the case, but I know that's not the case with me.
	And Owen's a really classy guy and really is sad about what happened.
	So he would never, in my view, want to do anything to just randomly hurt people.
	I didn't even know who Mr. Hessler was.
	Never said his name.
	He's a really nice person now that I know him.
	His ex-wife's an amazing person.
	Very, very touching what she's doing.
	I really support.
	I'd like to work with your network.
	I agree we've got to choose love.
	and fix this evil that's ripping our country apart.
	And I'm just very blessed to be able to be here and actually say what I think and what I stand for instead of a bunch of edited, out-of-context takes.
	But I do acknowledge that I unintentionally took part in things that did hurt these people's feelings, and I'm sorry for that.
	To your knowledge, did you make money off of your Sandy Hook coverage?
	No, we lost money.
	It really hurt us.
	We're the large part of the audience.
	And Paul Watson basically ended up quitting over it.
	And he was saying, you cannot get sucked in by Pacinic and all this.
	This is not good.
	And...
	And around the time that happened, I guess 2015 or so, I listened to him, but it was just like a cold sore resurfaced occasionally.
	This is a talk show.
	And so, I mean, look, now any mass shooting, like I said, I almost didn't air the tape with the head of the state police saying there's a cover up in the Evaldi.
	I'm sure children die is terrible, but I'm like hands off now because I don't want to be sucked into this black hole of mass shootings anymore.
	We've had some testimony about 2018 deplatforming of your business.
	What has that meant in terms of your audience reach?
	What it does is you're technically still on the internet, kind of like if you're in a prison, you're still on the earth.
	People have to come visit you in the prison.
	They have to come to Infowars.com.
	You can't get it anywhere else other than edited things your enemies put out.
	So you're not just locked in a prison.
	It'd be like being locked in your house.
	You're still in Austin, but you can't go to the store.
	Hundreds of platforms have barred us being there.
	And even things like Airbnbs and Uber.
	The social credit score is being tested on us that China has and they admit that.
	And so it's been horrible and it has crippled The number of people we're able to reach.
	And again, the worst part is people in the establishment and the corporate media then can misrepresent what you've said on Twitter or Facebook and you can't respond.
	That's why big newspapers have gotten rid of comments.
	They don't even want people to go respond when they gaslight people.
	They can just say whatever they want about you and cobble things together and then you can't respond.
	They edit a tape, they air it, and then you can't go show them the tape.
	Of what really happened.
	And they make sure, that's their key, is that you can't ever respond.
	And then they steal your identity, basically.
	Then they build this demon out of bad things you did and good things you did.
	But the point is, they magnify your faults.
	They blow it up.
	And then now they own you.
	They can say what they want about you.
	They can do what they want.
	They can falsely quote you.
	And they can basically do it with impunity.
	And it's next level, 1984. So that's been the worst part about demons.
	And all the persecution and all the things that have come with it is that you don't have a voice anymore in the utility that is the internet.
	Because these companies have utility protections.
	They're not publishers.
	That's how they're protected.
	And so they have immunity.
	Basically.
	And then can say whatever they want.
	Everybody else can attack you on those platforms.
	But then you can't respond and defend yourself.
	So it's identity theft is what it is.
	Let me switch gears.
	And we've touched on this already.
	As you sit here today, what are your Beliefs around the Sandy Hook school shoot?
	Oh, I've certainly studied it now, and I should have done a better job studying it.
	There was an initial cover-up of what happened, in my view, because the local government was covering its hind like they've done in Uvalde.
	Those children really died.
	And they had a cover-up there.
	It's admitted.
	There's now state investigations of the cover-up.
	The Texas Rangers are on it.
	And the governor said it's an outrageous cover-up.
	And it's incompetence is what it was.
	And I thought it was incompetent what happened in Florida a few years ago.
	What's the question?
	Sorry.
	My question was, as you sit here today, what is your position, your view on what happened, the murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012?
	A young man on psychotropic drugs, The inserts on those say can make you do mass shootings, mass murders, as he says it on the insert.
	I think we're coming really close to contempt here.
	We object again for your say.
	Sustained.
	I'll move on.
	I think Sandy Hook happened, and I think it's a terrible event, and I think we need to protect our children from mentally ill, Because they had warnings.
	The FBI knew about it.
	They knew he was planning to attack the school.
	That's been in even the New York Times.
	And I think once that...
	Well, right now there's actually no question.
	You're just talking.
	And this is not a conversation.
	And it's not a show.
	It's a question.
	Answer to the question asked of you.
	So that objection is sustained and we need another question.
	I'm wrapping up here, and I want you to tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what it is that you're trying to accomplish within full wars.
	I'm trying to challenge the military-industrial complex.
	I'm trying to challenge the powerful international forces that I believe are taking control of our country.
	And I want to try to get people to ask questions and to not believe the official story and to try to investigate things for themselves.
	And I'm trying to promote American values of the First Amendment and of the people's right to think and to make decisions on their own and for the public's right to be able to listen to what they want to listen to and watch what they want to watch and read what they want to read and that's really what in my view this is all about is The worst speech out there is,
	even if you disagree with it, even if it's the KKK and horrible people like Nazis, I want to protect their right because if we take their right of speech away, we're going to end up all losing our rights.
	It is more than a slippery slope.
	And I regret that I, by my mistakes...
	When you look back on your...
	20 plus years in the media.
	What are you most proud of?
	I'm most proud of early on exposing that the WMDs were in Iraq and it was a fraud and it was a lie.
	And I'm very, very proud of being the first to expose Jeffrey Epstein and his child trafficking rings.
	We're on record being the first to expose that a decade before anybody else by name.
	Even exposing the island and the rest of it from our sources.
	And I am proud of the fact that we have inspired a lot of great people and independent journalists that are doing great work.
	We've inspired a lot more good people than we have bad people.
	And, you know, I'm actually proud of the fact that I got a chance to have Neil and Scarlett come over to me and shake my hand and, you know, talk to me yesterday so I could tell them face-to-face that I'm sorry.
	This is Fain.
	Pass the witness.
	All right.
	Mr. Branson.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Jones, you see I got a lot to talk to you about.
	Before I do that, though, before I talk to you about the details of the history of this case, I want to know.
	You taking this trial seriously?
	You're approaching it in good faith?
	Absolutely.
	Okay.
	The truth is, you and your company want the world to believe that this judge is rigging this court proceeding To make sure that a script, a literal script, is being followed.
	That's what you want the world to believe, right?
	Aren't I barred from talking about this?
	I'm asking you the question, Mr. Jones.
	The way the court works is you answer a question until there's an objection.
	Let me go back to your question again, Mr. Jones.
	Make sure you understand it very clearly.
	You and your company want the world to believe that this judge is rigging this court proceeding so that a script, and I mean a literal script, is being followed.
	That's what you want the world to believe.
	That's what InfoWars want to believe.
	I believe when you're given a court order that you cannot say you're innocent, that that's not America, and the court order's right there on the table.
	I've been told I can't say I'm innocent.
	So you need to answer the question that is asked.
	I asked you this question.
	Yes or no, that's what you want the world to believe.
	No, I believe the jury's real, and I believe that I'm innocent until proven guilty, and I believe a jury should decide my guilt.
	Your Honor, at this time we'd like to offer a clip from Infowars on Friday for the purposes of impeachment in which those exact words were said.
	All right.
	Do you have an objection?
	I haven't seen the clip, Your Honor.
	Do you want to see it before we play it?
	I would.
	Alright.
	How long is it?
	That one in particular, I think it's about 15 seconds.
	Can you...
	is there something to watch it without making the whole jury leave?
	I guess we can maybe go outside the courtroom in the industry right now?
	Do you have the ability to do that?
	Do you have the ability to remove the show too much?
	No police.
	Do you think that's not the most problem?
	We need the context.
	Yeah, it'll take her a minute to unplug and plug back in.
	Alright, well, why don't we do this?
	Why don't we go ahead and let the jury take a morning break, so 20 minutes or less, maybe 15 minutes, and we'll make sure we get through as much that has to be done outside of the jury as possible before you come back.
	So go ahead and take your break.
	great remember my instructions all rise
	just shut the door for me everyone may be seated so here's what I want to do We can send Mr. Jones into the hall if we need to.
	I don't know if you have other impeachment evidence.
	I don't want to do this over and over and over and over.
	Correct.
	Okay.
	I also do want to avoid disclosing the He then gets a break to go talk to his client at some point about that.
	That's my other question.
	Well, you know, really, I'm the one who probably needs to see it more than anybody else, so why don't you send it to me, and I'll watch it in chambers by myself.
	Do you want me to send any video I might use for?
	It's pretty short.
	It's not long.
	I was just to say, how long will it take?
	I would probably take you two minutes to go next.
	Yes, that would be fine.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Mr. Jones, you can go down next to your counsel while we take this break.
	Yes, Mr. Enoch.
	I object to the process that has just been described between the court and the plaintiff's attorneys.
	I think it amounts to an ex parte communication.
	Okay.
	So you want me to bring the jury in and out, in and out every time?
	If Mr. Bankston wants to keep playing little video clips that he got off the internet a week ago, yes.
	For impeachment purposes.
	I understand, Your Honor.
	He's got eight years, a decade of videos to play.
	It seems...
	Unnecessary.
	And if that's the process, that's the process.
	My only other request, and if we want to do it in a way in which Mr. Reynold is allowed to see all of my impeachment evidence, while Mr. Johnson, I understand, is to sequester Mr. Reynold and Mr. Jones in any break in the testimony.
	I don't think that that's appropriate either.
	I mean, I'm not going to discuss anything with mr. Jones, but I'm not supposed to Well, let's watch the one we've already talked about okay Okay.
	So let's watch that one.
	The door is shut.
	Can we shut the door, Deputy, please, all the way?
	Yes, 33. No.
	Oh, yeah.
	I'm not sure that that's necessary.
	Okay, fine.
	Is that alright with you, Mr. Raynell?
	It's fine with me.
	I'm not telling you to leave.
	You said you needed to use the restroom.
	Okay, sure.
	Let's do this one this way
	you wouldn't do feedback very frequently so so so so so so so so so so so so belinda
	the judge is ringing the court proceeding to make sure that the script, this is literally a script, a script gets told in a certain way for future audiences.
	That will definitely be allowed for impeachment.
	Thank you Your Honor.
	It's free speech systems.
	No, you're right.
	I heard it say you were on your show saying these things.
	We can go back, but he said your company.
	Fair enough.
	Fair enough.
	And I think, Your Honor, maybe a way we can do this is that we can have Mr. Ray now come back and listen to it on your phone as a temporary testimony.
	As long as it doesn't play...
	In the courtroom, loud.
	Yeah, I mean...
	I mean, the truth is, it's for impeachment.
	I don't know what it is.
	Obviously, I haven't seen any of them, so...
	It probably won't be that helpful until you see the question.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So, I think maybe the way we can do it is if we can figure out a way to let us run all this into it on headphones at the stand.
	We might need to practice that.
	Yeah, can you see if we can do that?
	Just try it with this clip we just swatched.
	It would have to not show at the same time, right?
	I think that's probably pretty sure it will.
	No?
	Yeah, I think that's right.
	I have some headphones.
	I'd rather use my headphones.
	They're headphones that don't connect.
	Sure, that's fine.
	I don't care what headphones you use.
	Well, he wants to get his own.
	Yeah, that's what he's saying.
	He wants to connect to our computer with his Bluetooth.
	Oh, you don't want him to do that.
	That's fine.
	I understand that.
	That's fine.
	We'll just take a break.
	Mr. Raynall will stand up and say, don't play it, and I'll make the jury go in the back, and we'll do it 900 times.
	I'm sure they will love that.
	All right.
	My tech said they may have some packaged headphones that we can use, so I'll just have them bring those up.
	Those sound like they have a cord.
	Does your computer have an input for a cord?
	All of this part is not going to be on the record.
	record I'm so sorry mr. blocker not telling you off the record the hardest working person so we're ready ready We're ready for the jury to come back.
	Okay.
	We're ready.
	Although, you know what?
	It's 10-18.
	Let's just, everyone just take a break.
	Ten minutes.
	No more who can possibly manage it.
	Thank you.
	All rise.
	I'm sure you want to be done.
	I'm sure you want.
	All right.
	So you all have to go break first.
	I'm sure you want to go break first.
	That's for your show, isn't it?
	Thank you.
	That's Justice on Fire.
	Huh, okay.
	That's from your show, isn't it?
	Yes, I've seen this.
	And you've been running this video repeatedly, haven't you?
	No, I've not been there a lot of the time.
	You haven't been there a lot of the time.
	You've been there every day this last week, haven't you?
	Every single day?
	No, I've taped some of the shows.
	No, I've been there today.
	Your Honor, I'd like to move 132-129 into evidence.
	Is this impeachable evidence?
	I'm not exactly sure what Mr. Bankston wants to do with it.
	I think he wants to impeach Mr. Jones with it.
	Does he want to introduce it?
	Is it just the show to the jury or does he want it to go into evidence?
	No, I think he's moved it into evidence.
	He's moving that it be accepted into evidence.
	Do you have an objection?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	What is the legal objection?
	401-403.
	Can I see it, please?
	Yes, you may go.
	Planets 129 is admitted.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	Can you just lighten the camera?
	The person on the left of this image is our judge, correct?
	Yes.
	The person on the right is another judge you don't like, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	One of the things you've been talking about a lot recently on your show, even within the past couple months, is your allegation that government officials are aiding in pedophilia, child trafficking, and the grooming of children, right?
	Sure, if that's a yes, is that a yes?
	Yes.
	And on Thursday, you and Infowars started connecting those allegations to our judge, didn't you?
	No.
	In fact, Mr. Jones, you're telling the world not to believe what happens in this courtroom.
	Because the judge worked with Child Protective Services, who you say is involved with pedophilia and child trafficking, correct?
	Not all of it, but the Texas Youth Commission got caught doing it, and there's been a lot of that here.
	I'm not asking you that, Mr. Jones.
	I'm asking you, you're telling the world not to believe what's happened in this trial, because this judge is involved with CPS, who is working with child traffickers and pedophilia, correct?
	No, that's not what I'm saying.
	Your Honor, at this time, we would like to show a clip from Mr. Jones' show on Thursday, where those words are said.
	For impeachment purposes?
	For impeachment purposes, yes, Your Honor.
	I'd like to hear the clip.
	All right.
	Do we have a system, or does the...
	Okay.
	Yeah, it's not going to come up on.
	And it won't show yet, right?
	right?
	Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay.
	Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank
	you.
	We'd argue this is impeachment on a collateral matter.
	Not appropriate to get into improper impeachment.
	Well, those are two different objections and a statement.
	So is it impeachment on a collateral matter or an improper impeachment?
	It is an improper impeachment because it is on a collateral matter.
	And the collateral matter...
	Is what he's saying about me.
	Correct.
	And the question is about whether he's taking this seriously.
	Correct.
	Overruled.
	later judge maya gamble
	comes from cps who has been exposed for human trafficking in working with pedophiles That's what you mean when you say you're taking this seriously?
	I take this as serious as cancer.
	And, I mean, I don't know, you show somebody else's clip that they're always a few seconds long.
	Why don't you play the whole thing?
	Mr. Jones, that's not someone else's clip, is it?
	Well, I didn't direct it or produce it, but I'm saying...
	You certainly published it.
	I'm not standing behind it.
	I have to see the full thing.
	So you don't stand by the things you publish about our judge on your show repeatedly?
	No, I said I don't not stand behind it.
	I need to see not just five second clips.
	Well, we can talk about what you said before that.
	How long's the clip?
	Can you play the whole clip?
	Mr. Jones, you're not asking questions today.
	You understand that, sir?
	Oh, I thought I could ask to see a full document.
	If somebody showed me something, I could see what it was.
	This is a question from the lawyer, answer from the witness.
	Okay.
	Not the other way around.
	The only thing I want to ask you about is not all the other weird stuff you said in that video.
	I just wanted to ask you about the question that I asked you, which you said, no, I'm not saying the judge is connected to the pedophile and child trafficking.
	This is you taking this trial seriously and in good faith?
	That's what this is?
	It's a five-second clip.
	I don't know what you've cut off or on.
	Does it matter?
	Is there anything before and after that that would make it great to show pictures of our judge on fire and telling the world she's involved in pedophile?
	Can you tell me the context that would occur before or after that makes that great?
	I'm sorry.
	Excuse me.
	Sorry.
	I believe you.
	If you only want me to go off five seconds, I believe the thing is the judge is the fire burning Lady Liberty.
	It's not the judge.
	The judge is consuming freedom.
	Wouldn't you agree with me, Mr. Jones, that I sure hope some of your viewers are able to make that distinction if you just put on that hair, don't you?
	All I know is, I take this very seriously.
	You tell this jury you're taking this trial seriously, but you're telling the world that someone inside Travis County government Rigged the jury summons and picked these jurors specifically who don't know what planet they are on.
	Correct?
	That's what you're telling the world.
	I'm saying that that could potentially be a danger if they don't know what's going on.
	Because potentially is what you're saying.
	Potentially.
	You didn't go on your show and say those words is what you're going to tell me.
	Can you show me?
	I would be happy to.
	Please do.
	We would like to now offer a video from this is drone show on Friday saying those words and then we would like to know how
	to use the drone show on Friday.
	We would like to know how to use the drone show on Friday.
	We would like to know how to use the drone show on Friday.
	We would like to know how to use the drone show on Friday.
	This time, let's go ahead and play that video.
	Yeah, a lot of people are awake to the new world order.
	But they're experts in leftist jurisdictions in sending out jury summons And hitting, let's just say this, extremely blue-collar folks.
	I mean, half that jury panel does not know who I am.
	They said that.
	And when they were asked during the jury paneling yesterday, do you believe the media has ever gotten anything wrong about Alex Jones?
	They all unanimously said no.
	So, people do live in all these different bubbles.
	And there's the bubbles that are awake and the bubbles that are questioning, but then there's the blue city bubbles.
	Where people do not know what planet they are on.
	Mr. Jones, you don't like that this jury is made up of blue-collar folk.
	You think that's wrong?
	No, I don't think that.
	You don't think they know what planet they're on?
	I'm saying some people, like you said in your opening statements, that live in bubbles.
	We all live in bubbles.
	And if people live in a mainstream media bubble, they might not have ever seen what I really say or done.
	That's what I was saying.
	I understand that you've been unable to attend a good portion of this trial due to a bad portion.
	Is that correct?
	Only a few, some of it, yes.
	Sure, sure.
	And you told the press outside this courthouse that it was because of an untreated hernia?
	Well, I'm going to have to get that taken care of and a bunch of other stuff.
	It's absolutely inappropriate for Mr. Bankston to question Mr. Jones about his health issues.
	He wasn't under subpoena.
	He didn't have to be here.
	It's private information, what is right or wrong with his health.
	Okay, okay.
	Mr. Jones has the right to talk about his health with anyone he wants.
	We don't.
	Other people don't.
	You can talk to him about attendance.
	He's not required to be here.
	It's his choice.
	But let's not go into his...
	Let's not...
	Let's move on.
	I hear you, Your Honor.
	There wasn't a real legal objection.
	It's kind of a...
	Okay.
	You've been on your show most of last week.
	Pretty much every day of last week?
	I did an hour here.
	I taped some as well.
	Okay.
	And you've been screaming and yelling on your show, right?
	The media's been doing that.
	You haven't been coughing on your show, have you?
	All these coughs in court.
	They don't happen on the full hour of your show.
	You don't ever cough, right?
	I mean, I've got cough drops right here in my pocket.
	I've got laryngitis and a torn larynx.
	It comes and goes.
	It starts burning, and then it's uncontrollable.
	And I have actually been coughing a lot on air.
	If you guys have been watching my show, we'll have a cough button I can step on and cough.
	There's a button I step on, and I've been hacking and coughing.
	It's 100% real.
	You were talking about how you've done thousands of hours of programming, right?
	More than that over the years, yes.
	Not all of it's been about Sandy Hook, right?
	You talk about a lot of other stuff, right?
	Oh, in our estimation over 99 plus percent has not been Sandy Hook.
	I want to talk about some of the other stuff.
	Boston bombing.
	You said it was fake, a DHS stroke.
	Your Honor.
	We're going to object 403. No relevance to Sandy.
	We can get into it some because it's been already introduced.
	Some.
	Well, I'm going to show the pattern here.
	I'm talking Boston Bomber.
	You can tell the world.
	Fake.
	Not real.
	A Department of Homeland Security drill.
	Right?
	There was a drill.
	I think real people got bombed.
	But we've asked questions on both sides years ago.
	Yeah, you've said the exact opposite.
	You've, in fact, said that some of those people who were claimed to be injured were crisis actors in other tragedies.
	Just like in Sandy Hook, you said.
	No, we reported on other people saying that.
	And, in fact, you've said about some of the people at Sandy Hook.
	During your coverage of Sandy Hook, you have said they were actually some of the people pretending to be injured in the Boston bombing.
	You said that.
	I don't remember that.
	Okay.
	Shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords.
	Do you remember when that happened in Arizona?
	Yes.
	Okay, and you said that was a government mind-control operation, right?
	I said the guy fit the bill.
	Did you say you fit the bill or did you tell your audience explicitly that was a government mind control operation?
	What did you do?
	I didn't know you were going to bring this up.
	That was a long time ago.
	What about the Sutherland Springs church shooting just down the road from here?
	That wasn't that long ago.
	You said that that was fake, an Antifa false flag staged operation, right?
	I believe we said that happened.
	We questioned like Evaldi.
	Everybody's questioning that.
	About Oklahoma City, you said that's a false flag inside job.
	Absolutely.
	I've interviewed the police officers and others that were there, found the other bombs inside.
	They've been on my show.
	You remember the shooting in Parkland, Florida in 2018?
	Yes.
	You called a bunch of people, crisis actors there.
	You said crisis actors were used in Parkland, Florida.
	No, I didn't.
	I said they had the...
	The drama club then go do interviews about it because they had skills to present themselves.
	I said that I believed that that happened and I had students on the day after the shooting saying it happened and that there had been a police stand down.
	And then CNN said I had actors on and it wasn't true.
	I had real people.
	You don't remember saying on the day of and the next day that it was a false flag engineered to start a civil war.
	Did you say that about parking?
	They knew about the young deranged man.
	He was known as a school shooter.
	That was his nickname.
	And he was kicked out of school for threats at the time.
	And he was, again, left alone.
	Sustained.
	Mr. Jones, I asked you, in that day, in the day after, do you remember saying that Parkland was a false flag engineer to start a civil war?
	I said it could.
	I mean, I believe it could be.
	Okay.
	Las Vegas was shooting there at the concert.
	Said that's a false flag.
	Government operation.
	Right?
	So Mr. Jones, sustained.
	Mr. Jones, I know you want to tell what you want to tell us, but this is a question and answer.
	And so, just like Mr. Reynold can ask you questions later and you'll get to answer them right now, you have to just listen to the question that Mr. Bankston asked you and just answer that question.
	Okay.
	Alright, let's try again.
	Las Vegas shooting.
	You said it's a false flag, government operation.
	I'm going to object 403 again.
	I think we've got enough down this road you're on.
	We'll finish with this one.
	Okay.
	I believe it should be investigated.
	Would you agree with me that there is not a mass tragedy, mass bombing, mass shooting that has occurred in America in the past 15 years that you have not attached the words false flag?
	I have asked a question because I believe a lot of things are provocateur or allowed to happen.
	I believe children died in Uvalde.
	Objection, non-responsive.
	Sustained.
	Mr. Jones, please listen to my question.
	It's a very, very simple question.
	You would agree with me.
	That every single mass tragedy, mass shooting, mass bombing that you can recall right now in the past 15 years, you have attached the words false flag to it.
	Yes or no?
	No.
	You remember yesterday you were testifying about what the word synthetic means over on that board?
	Yes.
	Okay, and you testified that when you used the term synthetic, that means real stuff happened, but that it was being provocatorized, with provocateurs, right?
	It can mean both, but yes, generally.
	Okay.
	Well, I'd like to show you right now, from Planers' Exhibit 13A, I mean Planers' Video Exhibit 13A in evidence, an example of you talking about something being synthetic.
	So when we played Planers' Video And to decipher cloak and dagger, dirty tricks, it's pretty hard to do.
	It's just that then you learn that they were funded by Western funding.
	Then you learn that it was the same Amaral, the Lockheed Connection, underwear bomber.
	Then those are big red flags that they were patsy provocateurs.
	The classic MO has been followed.
	And then, yeah, it kind of becomes a red herring to say the whole thing was staged.
	Because they have staged events before.
	But then you learn the school had been closed and reopened and you got video of the kids going in circles in and out of the building and they don't call the rescue choppers for two hours and then they tear the building down and seal it and they get caught using blue screens and an email by Bloomberg comes out in the lawsuit.
	Where he's telling his people, get ready in the next 24 hours to capitalize on a shooting.
	Yeah, so Sandy Hook is a synthetic, completely fake, with actors, in my view, manufactured.
	I couldn't believe it at first.
	I knew they had actors there, clearly, but I thought they killed some real kids.
	And it just shows how bold they are that they clearly used actors.
	I mean, they even ended up using...
	Photos of kids killed in mass shootings here in a fake mass shooting in Turkey or Pakistan.
	The sky is now the limit.
	I appreciate your call.
	Now, I think you'll agree with me, Mr. Jones, that when you were testifying yesterday about what the term synthetic means, you did not tell the jury it can mean both.
	You told them, would you agree with me, that it means something really happened.
	That's what you mean.
	That's what you said yesterday?
	No.
	No, I mean, I'm saying that's totally synthetic.
	Back at the time for that one year, I was saying that it totally didn't happen in like 2014 or whatever it was.
	Rejection non-responsive?
	No, I mean, that's not...
	Okay, after the beginning, sustained.
	We'll move on.
	Let's talk about Jim Fetzer for a minute.
	I believe you just testified that you figured out...
	You figured out, Jim, we're crisis actors in other tragedies.
	Just like in Sandy Hook, you said.
	No, we reported on other people saying that.
	And in fact, you've said about some of the people in the Las Vegas shooting.
	You said it's a false flag, government operation.
	I would object for...
	...my question, 13A, I mean, playing this video exhibit, 13A in evidence.
	An example, if you're talking about something being synthetic.
	So can we play those videos in a 13-8?
	Yeah, when you're trying to decipher flunk and dagger, dirty tricks, it's pretty hard to do.
	It's just that then you learn that they were funded by Western funding.
	Then you learn that it was the same Amaral, the Lockheed Connection, Underwear Bonner.
	Then those are big red flags that they were patsy provocateurs.
	The classic MO has been followed.
	And then, yeah, it kind of becomes a red herring to say the whole thing was staged.
	Because they have staged events before.
	But then you learn the school had been closed and reopened, and you got video of the kids going in circles in and out of the building, and they don't call the rescue choppers for two hours, and then they tear the building down and seal it, and they get caught using blue screens, and an email by Bloomberg comes out in a lawsuit where he's telling his people, get ready in the next 24 hours to capitalize on a shooting.
	Yeah, so Sandy Hook is a...
	Would you agree with me that there is not?
	You use the term synthetic.
	That means Yeah, when you're trying to decipher cloak and dagger dirty tricks, it's pretty hard to do.
	It's just that then you learn that they were funded by Western funding, then you learn that it was the same Amaral, the Lockie Connection, Underwear of Honor, then those are big red flags that they were patsy provocateurs.
	The classic MO has been followed.
	And then, yeah, it kind of becomes a red herring to say the whole thing was staged.
	Because they have staged events before.
	But then you learn the school had been closed and reopened and you got video of the kids going in circles in and out of the building and they don't call the rescue choppers for two hours and then they tear the building down and seal it and they get...
	...in Turkey.
	So, yeah, or Pakistan.
	The sky is now the limit.
	I appreciate your call.
	Now, I think you'll agree with me, Mr. Jones, that when you were testifying yesterday about what the term synthetic means, you did not tell the jury it can mean both.
	You told them, would you agree with me, that it means something really happened.
	That's what you mean.
	That's what you said yesterday?
	No.
	No, I mean, I'm saying that's totally synthetic.
	Back at the time for that one year, I was saying that it totally didn't happen in like 2014 or whatever it was.
	Rejection non-responsive?
	No, I mean, that's not.
	Okay, after the beginning, sustained.
	We'll move on.
	Let's talk about Jim Fetzer for a minute.
	I believe you just testified that you figured out.
	You figured out Jim Fetzer was a little nutty.
	Who came to that conclusion?
	Right?
	Yes.
	Around 2015?
	That's what you testified to?
	I don't remember the exact text.
	No, you seem to remember pretty well when Mr. Raynaud was testifying that you apparently put a ban on Sandy Hook coverage in 2015. Right?
	Objection compound.
	I told him I can't remember.
	I had notes.
	Okay, when you hear objection, that means you wait.
	Objection compound.
	Yeah, we began with Fetzer and we ended with...
	Sustained.
	One question at a time, please, Mr. Bankston.
	By 2015?
	You're claiming you put a ban on Sandy Hook stuff, right?
	Just testified to that?
	I believe that's around the time I told people to stop covering it.
	You knew Fetcher by that time.
	You figured out he was not well, right?
	Yes.
	And were you here for the testimony of your corporate representative, Brittany Paws?
	I don't know if you were here for that.
	No, I wasn't.
	Were you aware, either from seeing her testimony at an earlier point, or from hearing about it secondhand, were you aware that she testified that at the time the company was using Jim Fetzer's material, that they knew he was not a well man?
	Did you see that testimony?
	I didn't see that testimony.
	Okay, if Ms. Paws testified then, if your corporate representative got up here and testified, when we were using Fetzer's stuff, we knew he was not credible, would you disagree with that?
	Did she tell them the truth?
	I mean, I think she would have to be mistaken.
	We didn't have a corporate rep, so we went and hired someone to come look at all our books and everything and try to figure out what was going on.
	So, uh...
	But I never interviewed Fetzer.
	None of us interviewed him on Sandy Hook.
	So did we cover a news article that might have had a quote by him or something in it?
	I saw that.
	But we weren't closely associated with him at that time.
	Here's my memory.
	Again, an objection on responses.
	With respect to Mr. Halbig, I believe you testified also just now.
	You figured out he was crazy in 2015. Right?
	Sometime around then, yeah.
	Okay.
	And in fact, though, did you see Mrs. Pau's testimony?
	Where she said the company received emails from Wolfgang Halbig as early as 2014 that they thanked him for, that they knew were crazy.
	Did you see that testimony?
	I did not see that testimony.
	Okay.
	And you understand that she talked to all your employees, right?
	She went and interviewed people and figured out what they thought about Mr. Halfway.
	Do you understand that happened?
	That's what we hired her to do.
	She talked to you too, right?
	Yes.
	And she went in there and testified under oath on behalf of the company.
	But the company, in 2014, knew he was crazy and was thanking him for the things he was providing that were crazy, right?
	Well, that's not my understanding of it, so...
	Okay.
	Well, at least you, you here are saying that you knew by 2015 he was crazy, so certainly, certainly we shouldn't see any things that Mr. Halbig said on your show after 2015, should we?
	I told you that the dates all were together.
	Sure, Mr. Jens.
	I understand.
	So it could have been, heck, maybe just yesterday you realized that Mr. Halberg was going to be a huge liability for you, right?
	No, it was a long time ago.
	Okay.
	Let's talk about a little 2015. You said you stopped covering Sandy Hook in 2015. At some point.
	Right, and I believe Mr. Raynaud put Exhibit 31 in front of you, right?
	You know the list of videos?
	Yes.
	When you made notes on them?
	No, I wasn't allowed to have the list.
	Right, but you made notes on that video?
	On that list?
	I watched it, and I made some notes so I could try to accurately answer the questions.
	Okay, and you've testified from that, that stopping in July 2015, Which is the last video we have on that list in 2015. That for the next 16 months you didn't cover San Diego.
	I did not testify from it.
	I wasn't allowed to have it.
	No, I'm telling you right now.
	I'm just telling you the video.
	July 2015 is the last one we have on that list.
	And we know you reviewed that list to calculate how long you didn't cover San Diego.
	And you're going to tell me from July 2015 for the next 16 months you didn't cover San Diego.
	Not in the list we have.
	We've tried to find everything.
	Can you put up Exhibit 73 for me?
	Now you understand I don't have all your videos about Sandy Hook either.
	You understand that, right?
	Correct, Mr. Jones?
	If you say so.
	No, how about you say so?
	You understand that, right?
	We have located what we're able to find.
	We believe it's almost all of it.
	Now, you remember Rob Dew testifying as your corporate representative.
	God knows where all the videos are.
	you remember that that's the platforming because I think objection on responsive remember just answer the question Thank you.
	See this email right here?
	You've seen it a few times in this lawsuit, haven't you?
	Yes.
	This is Mr. Watson, warning you, not in June 2015, not in March 2015, but he is warning you in December 2015 that this Sandy Hook stuff is killing us, correct?
	Yes.
	I think we can surmise pretty easily from this email that in July 2015 we did not put a ban on Sandy Hook.
	And in fact, there are videos that we don't have that Mr. Watson is talking about.
	Do you agree with me?
	I mean, I don't know that.
	And that's us trying to not talk about it.
	Is that what that is?
	I think that's Mr. Watson telling you, Mr. Jones, a warning.
	Right?
	No.
	I'm Wynton.
	I was telling them not to cover it, too.
	Really?
	Who were you telling them not to?
	Don Salazar, Rob Dew, because they were still convinced it didn't happen.
	Now, I know you said that Mr. Schroyer came later, so maybe he didn't hear the instructions, right?
	Yes.
	Okay, we'll get to that in a minute.
	Let's talk a little more about 2015. You talked about Dan Badandi, right?
	Yes.
	During that period.
	And you described him as a part-time reporter, right?
	If that, by the end, yes.
	If that.
	Maybe not even a part-time reporter.
	Well, he was a full-time reporter for a while, and then we let him go, and he went back to Connecticut, or I think Rhode Island's where he lived, and then he went out.
	Before we go any further, I just want to make sure now we have what the testimony has.
	He was a part-time reporter but now he's a full-time reporter?
	No.
	He first came, he entered some contests and stuff.
	He wasn't a reporter then.
	He came down to Austin and was a full-time employee for like six months if memory serves.
	Then we let him go.
	Over the years and did some things.
	Do you see his testimony in the courtroom when it was played?
	Are you here for that?
	No.
	So I'm guessing you also, even unless you heard it second hand, you didn't see Mr. Badani testify that he was a producer for the Alex Jones Show and spent six days a week with you.
	You didn't see that?
	Well, that's not true.
	Okay.
	Mr. Badani's lying.
	I think he's mistaken.
	Okay.
	And the truth is, you didn't fire him.
	Until late 2016, when he embarrassed you at a Trump rally.
	Do you remember us talking about that?
	Me and you?
	I don't remember that.
	Okay.
	I want to talk a little bit about your final statement on Sandy Hook.
	And you testified that the reason that you did that final statement in 2016 is so that you can tell the world that you thought it really happened.
	That was at the beginning of me doing that.
	The beginning of you doing that.
	And I think as we've seen in this case, that is the video in which you said, if children were killed at Sandy Hook, my heart goes out to those parents.
	But the problem is, I've seen actors before, and I know when I'm watching a movie, and I know when I'm watching something or anything.
	Do you remember seeing you say that?
	Yes, I did say that.
	And that was your final statement.
	Looking directly at camera, addressing the people who say they're parents I see on TV. Right?
	That was your final statement.
	But it wasn't my final statement.
	Sure wasn't.
	But it certainly wasn't to go on the world and tell the world that it probably happened.
	In fact, it was the exact opposite, wasn't it, Mr. King?
	I believe I actually say I think it happened on the tape.
	The jury has that in evidence.
	Let's talk about 2017, the Megyn Kelly interview.
	you remember you talked about how that was filmed in April right didn't remember I'm not allowed to have notes but I think it around them I don't understand mr. Jones that when you were asked questions on direct examination about when these events happen and we're very quickly able to say it happened in April 2017 why when I asked the same question you're very confused I said I think that too then.
	I don't remember exactly.
	I think so.
	Alright.
	Well, in April 2017, the other thing we did right after that interview is film a video called Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed, didn't you?
	Yes.
	And in that video, You were saying a lot of things like Sandy Hook wasn't even an operating school.
	Do you remember seeing that being played in this court?
	I believe so.
	Yeah, and that's something that Halbig told you.
	Or that you were relying on Halbig for, right?
	I had seen articles and things about it.
	You have seen articles that Sandy Hook wasn't an operating school.
	Is that what you're testifying to, Underwood?
	I've seen people do articles about it.
	I don't remember the exact articles.
	But what we can know is that in 2017, shortly before these people brought their suit, you were on Infowars saying Sandy Hook wasn't an operating school, right?
	If you say so, play the video.
	No, I want you.
	You can testify to that.
	Do you even remember what was played in this quarter?
	I've seen a lot.
	I think I did say that.
	I think you did too.
	You also remember you and Mr. Dude talking about how much you wanted to see the bodies.
	There's no bodies.
	They never showed us any bodies.
	And you'll agree with me in that video you were saying a bunch of the same stuff from Wolfgang Halbin that the company knew as far back from 2014 was crazy.
	Are you going to admit to that now?
	Or are you going to deny that?
	I thought we were talking about how they were in 2015. Well, we're now in 2017. You said 2015. Do you remember I asked you about Mrs. Paul's testimony in 2014?
	Do you remember that?
	Yes.
	So what I'm asking you now is that whether it's you in 2015 knowing it, or whether Mrs. Paul says the company knew it in 2014, Regardless of which one of those, that was years later in 2017, Infowars is still publishing the things from Halbig it knows are crazy.
	I hadn't read those emails, so I don't...
	Hold on, Mr. Jones.
	Hold on.
	You testified, you, that in 2015 you knew Halbig was crazy.
	Because he started saying that I was covering up Sandy Hook.
	Correct.
	So now, in 2017, two years later...
	You're repeating all the things Halbig says, knowing he was crazy.
	Halbig wasn't the only one saying that.
	The other...
	Conception non-responsible.
	Sustain.
	Let's talk about...
	Plaintiff's Exhibit 21, which is the video that your attorney played, that 17-minute video that was on, I believe, the day before your Megyn Kelly video was going to air?
	Yes.
	I think you would agree with me that you were trying to urge NBC not to air it.
	Correct?
	Yes.
	Now, I noticed that you said in that video that the media never quotes what I said.
	They always just try to paraphrase it.
	They don't actually use the real quotes.
	In general, yes.
	But Zero Point Now, this anonymous blogger, he did quote what you said, and you said he did a good job, I want him to write for me.
	Remember hearing that in the video?
	Yes.
	And then you went through what Zero Point Now was quoting about what you said about San Diego, right?
	Yes.
	And one of those things, in 2017, Was you saying that the Sandy Hook website had no internet traffic during the years when the shooting supposedly happened?
	That was my memory.
	Right.
	And that wasn't true.
	I meant the quotes where I said I think Sandy Hook happened.
	I like the fact that that was quoted.
	That was the whole point.
	Mr. Jones, in that video you went down and read these questions about these false things about Sandy Hook.
	You did that in that video.
	Yes.
	And I noticed you skipped the one about Robin Parker.
	You started to read it, and then you stopped reading it.
	Did you see where that happened?
	No.
	Okay.
	And the reason that you were a little hesitant, though, at that time, to mention a parent's name is because you knew legal threats were on the horizon, didn't you?
	No.
	The things you did say, though, that were quoted from you that you wanted to repeat to your audience, because they had done such a good job of covering you, was also that the police were eating their food inside of the school in the crime scene, right?
	You remember that?
	I don't remember.
	You don't remember what we just watched 10 minutes ago?
	I missed that part.
	Do you remember them talking about the FBI crime stats saying no one killed in Sandy Hook that you read in that 2017?
	That was the headlines, yes.
	What headline?
	Your headline.
	But that's what it said.
	No, it didn't, Mr. Jones.
	Do you admit that now?
	The FBI did not have a crime stat?
	I mean, I admit we later learned that in the full report, they don't report those in that state.
	They do, I think, everywhere else.
	Mr. Jones, we've heard a lot of testimony about the FBI crime stat and how that got wrong.
	We heard that from Mr. Salazar.
	Were you in the courtroom for that?
	I think I was a different part of it.
	Okay.
	So you probably heard Mr. Salazar how he messed that up, right?
	I mean, I think we admit we messed that up.
	Right, but you were still saying it in 2017. At a time where you want this jury to believe you were saying it really happened, you in 2017 were saying the FBI says nobody died.
	I said it on the video.
	I thought I'd have one five times.
	Yeah, just like Megyn Kelly said in your interview, you want to have it all ways, don't you, Mr. Jones?
	No, I think Sandy Hook happened.
	Yeah, but if Sandy Hook happened, then that means there's not an FBI crime stat where nobody died.
	It means that there was website traffic.
	It means that nobody ate their food inside the school.
	All these things you're saying are false.
	Right?
	I'd have to review all of it again.
	Two minutes ago we saw a video of you saying no EMTs entered the building.
	Do you remember that?
	You remember saying that?
	I'd have to see the timelines of what you're speaking about.
	I'm asking you if when we broke from your break, when your attorney put up the video that he really wanted this jury to see how fair you were being about Sandy Hook, you said no paramedics entered the building.
	Right?
	In a certain time frame.
	What do you mean by that?
	I'd have to see the time frame you're talking about.
	What do you mean time frame?
	You said they never entered the building.
	Never entered it?
	That's what you said.
	And you said that for years.
	I think you're taken out of context.
	Right?
	Because they had to keep them out of the building because otherwise you'd have to pay off all the EMTs because they'd get in the building and they'd see there's no bodies.
	That's what you told your audience.
	You've told them that many times.
	I don't remember what you're talking about.
	Sure.
	One of the things you talked about yesterday is you complied with Discovery, right?
	Cough You said that on a witness stand?
	That's one of the things I talked about.
	Okay.
	One of the things that you were ordered to do in this lawsuit, you were ordered to turn over any text messages amid Gene Sandy Hook, right?
	Yes.
	And you didn't have any, right?
	Not that we could find.
	And you, in fact, told me, in your testimony, sworn testimony before coming to this courtroom, you searched, right?
	I did.
	Okay.
	Do you remember, were you here for Mr. Schroeder's testimony?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	You remember what Owen said, the company has learned from its mistakes about San Diego's.
	Do you remember that?
	I did hear him say that.
	Do you agree with that?
	Yeah, we've certainly learned from our mistakes a lot better.
	Mr. Jones, I'd like to show you what's been marked as a plaintiff's exhibit at 1/3.
	You've got it upside down.
	That's text messages between you and Paul Watson, isn't it?
	Yes.
	And they mention Sandy Hook, don't they?
	Yes.
	Plaintiff's move 130 into evidence?
	any infection oh What's that?
	You want to show me?
	I'll show you where I'm well.
	Claimers 130 is admitted.
	Can you bring the 131 at the end?
	Let's zoom in on the little article up in the corner.
	I'm going to walk over to this to you so I can kind of point it.
	I know it's a little hard to read.
	You might be able to read it a little better on your screen.
	But this is a Zoom of...
	Mr. Watson has sent you a screenshot from Infowars.com, correct?
	It appears to be.
	Yeah, and it has an article here, right?
	Yes.
	And it says, staged.
	Video shows hospital using dummies in ER for coronavirus footage.
	I believe so.
	Let's go to the first message from Mr. Watson.
	Read along with me, Mr. Jones.
	He says, this is a video.
	Sorry, excuse me, one second.
	No problem, take your time.
	You ready?
	Yeah, he may not think it's a problem, but it's a real one.
	Sure.
	Just give me a second.
	All right, go ahead.
	Mr. Watson says this is a video of a medical student training to intubate.
	Makes us look ridiculous, suggesting this means COVID is fake.
	Sandy Hook all over again.
	Did I read that correctly?
	Yes.
	Here's the next message.
	What did you tell Mr. Watson?
	I get it.
	Thank you.
	Mr. Jones, it's true that this article is right now live on Infowars.com.
	I can pull it up.
	Right?
	I've never seen this text message.
	I guess you guys got Paul's.
	My phone didn't save him.
	So that's fine.
	Your phone didn't say the second thing?
	I told you guys.
	I gave it to the lawyers.
	They said they'd drain the phone.
	They'd find that stuff.
	You gave it to the lawyers.
	They were supposed to find it.
	Is that what your testimony is?
	No, I searched it as well.
	You guys have all this stuff and you say we didn't give anything.
	It's ridiculous.
	Mr. Jones, you know how an iPhone works, right?
	You've had an iPhone text messaging for several years now.
	Yeah.
	What do you mean if the messages are in blue?
	Whose messages are those?
	Whose phone is this taken from?
	I don't know if this phone is taken from them.
	I turned the phone over and said, take the stuff off.
	Can I have you look in the very bottom, below the very bottom left corner?
	Is that your phone number?
	Yes.
	So you did get my text messages.
	I said you didn't.
	Nice trick.
	Yes, Mr. Jones.
	Indeed.
	You didn't give this text message to me.
	You don't know where this came from.
	Do you know where I got this?
	No.
	Mr. Jones.
	Did you know that 12 days ago, 12 days ago, your attorneys messed up and sent me an entire digital copy of your entire cell phone with every text message you've sent for the past two years, and when informed, did not take any steps to identify it as privileged or protect it in any way.
	And as of two days ago, it fell free and clear into my possession.
	And that is how I know you lied to me when you said you didn't have a text message about Sandy Hook.
	See, I told you the truth.
	This is your Perry Mason moment.
	I gave them my phone.
	Mr. Jones, you need to answer the question.
	Did you know this happened?
	No, I don't know this happened.
	But I mean, I told you.
	I gave them the phone over.
	That just answered the question.
	You said in your deposition, you searched your phone.
	You said you pulled down the text, did the search function for Sandy Hook.
	That's what you said, Mr. Jones, correct?
	And I had several different phones with this number, but I did, yeah.
	I mean, that's why you got it.
	No, Mr. Jones.
	That's not why I have it.
	My lawyer sent it to you, but I'm hiding it.
	Okay.
	Mr. Jones, please just answer questions.
	There's no question.
	Mr. Bankston also only asks questions.
	Sure.
	Mr. Jones, in discovery, you were asked, do you have Stanley Hook text messages on your phone?
	And you said no, correct?
	You said that under oath, didn't you?
	I mean, I was mistaken.
	I was mistaken, but you blocked the messages right there.
	You know what murder is, right?
	I just want to make sure you know before we go any further.
	You know what it is.
	Yes, I do.
	I mean, I'm not a tech guy.
	I told you I gave, in my testimony, the phone to the lawyers before or whatever, and so you've got my phone, but we didn't give it to you.
	No, Mr. Jones.
	One more time.
	Please remember, if you need to assert the Fifth Amendment, you can.
	I need to know that you can do that.
	But you testified under oath previously that you personally searched your phone for the phrase Sandy Hook and there were no messages.
	You said that under oath.
	Yes.
	And you lied when you said it.
	No, I did not lie.
	Emails.
	You testified yesterday.
	You got rid of your email ten years ago.
	Infowars email.
	Oh, so now it's Infowars.
	You do use email though, don't you?
	Not, not, it's like household stuff and things like that.
	I don't personally send emails.
	Sure.
	My assistant does.
	And it's for like, you know, broken sprinklers or whatever.
	Okay.
	So you don't have emails about San Diego?
	You don't have emails about this case?
	You've got hundreds of thousands of emails.
	None from you.
	And I didn't get hundreds of thousands of emails.
	Most of those, in fact, you would agree with me, nearly every email you've produced to me outside of maybe a hundred are emails of Wolfgang Halberg and Jim Fetzer.
	Because they sent you thousands of emails, right?
	I mean, I quit opening email and using it.
	In other words, if somebody was to tell me, oh, I have emails from Mr. Jones that he wrote about this case in the past couple of years, that person would be lying?
	You're telling the truth?
	Somebody else has got my InfoWorks email because I haven't been using it all.
	That's not qualified, Mr. Jones.
	You know in this case you were asked to produce your emails, any emails you had about Sandy Hook, you know you were asked to do that, right?
	Yeah.
	And you said you didn't have any.
	I told my IT people, you've got all that stuff.
	No, Mr. Jones, I'm saying in deposition, under oath, sworn to God, you said you don't have any emails with Sandy Hook, because you don't use email, right?
	I mean, I... I have been using Infowars email, and it's got to be a decade or longer in my memory.
	With Infowars.com email?
	No, Mr. James.
	No.
	It's not what I'm asking.
	You notice when Mr. Watson emailed you, right?
	He didn't have an Infowars email address as he is, like PaulWatson at Sky.com.
	It's a UK email.
	And you told us you don't use email and there are no emails for Sandy Hook.
	That's what you said under oath, isn't it?
	There might be, I'm sure there might be, like, privileged emails where, like, lawyers are requesting documents or stuff about the case.
	Mr. Jones, first objection to non-responsive.
	Sustained.
	Did you testify under oath that you do not use email and that there are no responsive emails relating to this case?
	Did you testify to that?
	On the internet and sit there and use email.
	I never send emails myself.
	Because I don't like it.
	I can't stand it.
	There's too many of them.
	That's a fact that I don't use email.
	I call people on the telephone Okay No Excuse me.
	Mr. Jones.
	I wanted to show you this document.
	Yes.
	Did you write an email?
	Is that an email, Mr. Johnson?
	Yes, yes.
	Okay.
	Thank you, Mr. Jones.
	Well, I'm not reading it.
	This is from...
	What's this have to do with Sandy Hook?
	I'm not asking you a question other than that's an email you've sent.
	Let's start there.
	Can you do that?
	Can you say that's an email you sent?
	I must have dictated that to my assistant.
	You would agree with me.
	There are emails that you've sent to your lawyers, your staff, And others, concerning your business operations that we requested for, Sandy Hook, other topics that have been requested in this lawsuit, like Zero Hedge, you'd agree those emails, they exist.
	Do you agree to that or not?
	I've dictated emails to people and You guys have gone and gotten other people to give you their emails.
	That is my personal email that I use.
	The personal stuff has nothing to do with Sandy Hook unless lawyers have sent me emails there that my assistant prints off for me.
	You talked yesterday about prepackaged food.
	Do you remember that?
	You know what I'm talking about?
	No.
	You don't remember yesterday testifying about selling prepackaged food.
	Oh, yes.
	And you sell these...
	Some of them come in tubs that you could, for instance, store for a long time in case something horrible happens, right?
	Yes.
	And in fact, you talked about that's one of your big items.
	It's a big deal type thing on influence.
	Sure.
	And you also talked about how it's a tough business in a lot of ways because you only have about a 20% profit margin on the sale of food.
	I said about 20 to 40, yes.
	So, for instance, so for every $100,000 in sales of food, that means you're profiting $20,000, maybe even up to $40,000.
	Yes.
	I'll show you another document, Mr. Johnson.
	This has been marked as Plants Exhibit 132. Do you see that?
	Yes.
	Those are text messages of Tim Fruget, the Operations Manager of InfoWorks, right?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	And we requested information about your revenues in this case.
	You remember that?
	Yes.
	Didn't give us this, did you?
	There's a lot of stuff, I mean...
	Yeah, you didn't even look through your text messages, Mr. Jones.
	You hit them, right?
	Correct?
	No.
	I gave it to the lawyers.
	That's why you have it.
	I mean, this is ridiculous.
	Are you moving to admit it?
	Yes, can we...
	No, yes, I'm sorry.
	Can we move to admit Plannus 132 at this time?
	- So any objection? - No.
	Planus 132 is admitted.
	Before we put that up, Mr. Jones, I just want to make sure you understand something about these emails.
	You understand that when your attorney sent me your whole phone, he didn't mean to do that.
	I'm not an objection, Your Honor.
	I just want to make sure this is not discovery.
	Well, I do think it's important that, since we're discussing all of this, that the jury understands discovery is a process that occurs and concludes well before trial.
	What the lawyers say is an evidence, so we don't know whether it was on accident or on purpose, because we don't have evidence about that.
	But what we do know is that it wasn't properly turned over when it should have been.
	There's no question, Mr. Jones.
	So, you need to ask a question that does not cause for speculation, and even if Mr. Jones does know, he would have gotten that information from Mr. Reynold, his attorney, and so it would be protected, most likely.
	Most likely.
	Mr. Jones, you know what Bates numbers are, right?
	We've talked about the main...
	I believe that's these?
	No, you're talking about an exhibit sticker?
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	Remember we've talked in deposition before that there are Bates numbers on the bottoms of documents that your company produces for this lawsuit, and they start with F-S-S-T-X, and then they have a long number out.
	Okay.
	No Bates number on this, is there?
	But I gave it to the lawyers, like I told you, to start this testimony.
	Mr. Jones, Mr. Jones, I know it's hard, but I know you can do it.
	All right.
	The question, there's no base number on this document.
	No, there's not.
	Thank you.
	And please don't interrupt me or the lawyers.
	Let's go to the last two messages.
	So just let me pull those up.
	Mr. Frugge...
	Frugge?
	Frugge?
	How do I say his name, Mr. Jones?
	Frugge.
	Alright, so Mr. Frugge, you would agree with me that pretty much every day he sends you an update on how much the store has sold, and sometimes he lets you know how much profit you made, right?
	Yes.
	Okay, and in this message, He says, 110 gross sales in food equates to almost 70k pure profit.
	That's what he told you.
	That's what that says, and that's not what it does.
	I have a question about it.
	Okay.
	Can we go up to the...
	Hey, Mr. Jones?
	Did you respond with a question?
	I don't know.
	This shows some of the totals per day, right?
	Is that right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And so this is something, Mr. Krug, I would send you from time to time.
	Yes.
	Alright, you can take that down, Melissa.
	I think it's clear.
	Would you agree with me to everyone in this courtroom?
	That the statement that you only get 20% or 40% profit margin on food was not true.
	No, I can bring those numbers in here and show you that.
	Well, I asked you for those numbers.
	I asked you for those numbers and I didn't get them and instead now I have this text message that says something totally different.
	Do you think in those circumstances anyone should believe a word you say?
	I'm confused by that because that's not the margin on it.
	and I wish that was the margin.
	I'm going to show you what Mark Palinth -134.
	More messages to Mr. Fruget, isn't it?
	Yeah, these were our best sale numbers ever.
	I remember this.
	This was during CPAC. I'd like to move 134 to evidence at this time.
	Any objection?
	You can see the relevance, Your Honor, frankly.
	The food processing numbers in 2020?
	I will make that connection very quickly.
	If you want to see what I would like or discuss it at the bench, I can.
	So the only objection is relevance.
	Mr. Jones has recognized it so I will overrule the objection and admit plaintiffs exhibit 134 One of the things that I think we've heard a lot of in this courtroom is how you've lost millions lost everything and the de-platforming
	all of it has caused you to lose everything.
	right?
	You've heard that?
	Not everything.
	Indeed.
	Can we bring up this volume, Melissa?
	Now, we've seen some revenue numbers.
	Do you remember that in Plaintiff's Exhibit 35 that you testified about?
	Do you remember that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And in those revenue figures, you would agree with me that generally, generally speaking, between 2016 and 2018, InfoWars was making somewhere between $100 and $2,000 a day in sales.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And we see here That's not always true, is it?
	That some days, you're making $800,000, $745,000 a day, right?
	Yeah, you guys cherry-picked the best numbers we ever had.
	That's why I remember this.
	Right, Mr. Jones.
	So what I'm saying is, well after you're de-platforming, your numbers kept getting better.
	You kept having better days.
	No, no, it's de-platforming just gone down.
	This was...
	Lose everything, right?
	You agree with that?
	Can we bring up this loan, Melissa?
	Now, we've seen some revenue numbers.
	Do you remember that in Plaintiff's Exhibit 35 that you testified about?
	Do you remember that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And in those revenue figures, you would agree with me that generally, generally speaking, between 2016 and 2018, Infowars was making somewhere between $100 and $2,000 a day in this house.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And we see here, But that's not always true, is it?
	That some days, you're making $800,000, $745,000 a day, right?
	Yeah, you guys cherry picked the best numbers we ever had.
	I'm not sure I remember this.
	Right, Mr. Jones.
	So what I'm saying is, well after you're deplatforming, your numbers kept getting better.
	You kept having better days.
	No, no, it's the platform that's gone down.
	This was CPAC.
	I don't remember now because I remember these numbers.
	Sure.
	But the problem is, Mr. Jones, I have the very limited years of revenue that you've provided, but I don't have anything else, do I, from you on that?
	Not until this, right?
	You guys have been given the gross numbers that they're accurate.
	Okay, Mr. Johnson.
	$800,000 a day, if you cut that pace up, which I don't know what you did the rest of the year, because I don't have it.
	I'm asking you, Mr. Jones, please let me finish my question.
	Can you do that for him?
	You need to respond verbally so she understands.
	Yes.
	If you're able to keep up that pace for the rest of that year, you're able to launch more of these specials and sales, and you can keep going at $800,000 a day, that would come up to an average of something like $300 million in a year.
	That's about right?
	yes 300 million And then I think we saw your revenues from 20...
	So we saw a few months in 2015 on the beginning of that document, right?
	Do you remember that document you relied on and testified about?
	Planning to exhibit their job?
	I mean, I saw it, yes.
	Okay.
	Not a couple of months from 2015 on it, but not a whole lot of sales on that, right?
	Probably so.
	Okay.
	So we're mainly just talking about 2016-2018, right?
	You remember that?
	165 million.
	You remember testifying?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And I know you testified about your profit margins, but I think we've seen that now.
	You were saying that that's gross.
	So that maybe doesn't, we'd have to calculate what your profit is, right?
	But after seeing all of that, all of those millions and millions, hundreds of millions,
	are you aware that your attorney has are you aware that your attorney has argued that this is what you should pay for the damages that your company admits under oath through your corporate representative of the cause?
	Were you aware of that?
	The ballot?
	Were you aware?
	Yes, I know we were...
	Do you agree with it?
	Do I agree with it?
	A dollar.
	Is that...
	We done?
	I'll pay for you.
	Are we done?
	What does the New York Times do for lying about WMDs?
	I don't think there's any point in asking you any more questions.
	Okay.
	Alright, Mr. Reino?
	Can I approach him?
	Me?
	Yes.
	Wait.
	That's right.
	Thank you.
	Thank you. Mr. Jones?
	Do you have trusted your lawyers to produce the relevant documents?
	Yes.
	You've cooperated with us in every way?
	Yes.
	And you've trusted us to do a good job and turn over what we need to turn over?
	Yes.
	When we're supposed to turn it over?
	Yes.
	No further questions.
	Anything else, Mr. Bankson?
	No, I think we're done with Mr. Bankson.
	All right.
	Well, at this time, I'm going to just step them down.
	Please step.
	Thank you.
	I'm going to send my jury back.
	You know the drill by now.
	If you have questions, Mr. Jones, and only if, this is an opportunity, not a requirement, you may each individually write them down.
	I would like to go ahead and finish this before lunch.
	So go ahead and do those questions.
	Any questions you have right at the beginning of the break.
	Remember all of my instructions.
	There can be no conversation between you about anything that has happened so far.
	All right, you may be.
	All rise.
	All rise.
	Can you go shut the door please?
	Thank you.
	Alright, so Mr. Jones, you'll have to wait in the hallway for this process.
	Not right by the door, but also not so far away that we can't get you.
	Is that how it sounds?
	Absolutely.
	Alright, thank you.
	Everyone may be seated.
	Any other...
	I kind of just want to wait here for questions.
	If you don't mind me using the restroom.
	I was just going to say, do people need a break?
	That would be great, Your Honor.
	All right.
	Then we'll take no more than 10 minutes, if at all possible.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	All right.
	Thank you.
	Yes.
	I should talk about it.
	Mr. Jones takes a message to Dr. Texas.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	there's going to be yeah yeah yes
	yeah
	yeah yeah Absolutely.
	There is a theory called mass shooting contagion that posits the effect media has on inspiring future mass casualty events with coverage of previous events.
	Are the media that report on these events accountable for any damages that occur from their reporting?
	If the answer is yes, what accountability do you accept with the actions of your listeners and guests?
	And if the answer is no, Why does the free speech system capitalize on the opportunity to act better than the mainstream media by not asserting information recklessly in their reporting?
	And why does it not attempt to minimize harm from their reporting?
	That's question one.
	Question 2.
	I know the world thinks of everything in law as criminal.
	This is a civil trial.
	No one is guilty.
	No one is convicted.
	So I wouldn't want to use the language that this jury uses in this question if I ask it.
	Free speech systems has already been convicted of defamation.
	However, it is important for me in the assessment of the images to hear an answer to the following.
	So all of that is just a free angle anyway.
	In 2006, Christopher Hitchens, in an article for Slate Magazine regarding the issue of worldwide news media that refused to publish cartoons that were deemed offensive to some members of the Muslim faith, An issue that later, in 2015, escalated with the slaying of 12 employees of Charlie Hebdo.
	Stated, a civil society means that free expression trumps the emotions of anyone to whom free expression might be inconvenient.
	What are your thoughts on this statement?
	So, I don't think the...
	We can come back to it, but think about that.
	I don't think I can ask this question because I don't understand it.
	It says, what true you were looking from Sandy Hook tragedy?
	I don't know what that is trying to ask unfortunately.
	Why do you think Sandy Hook was a conspiracy?
	Are you going to change the way you present your news or comments on your show based on what is happening today?
	Your employees have appreciated your ability to tell the truth and how you allow them to express their own creativity and individual personalities.
	In light of their obvious loyalty, would you take personal responsibility for their actions and decisions while at work for FSS Intel doors?
	If you are genuinely sorry and regretful about how your words cause harm to grieving parents, how do you plan to show rather than just tell that you are sorry?
	Would you, for instance, join and promote Ms. Scarlett Lewis' Choose Love Movement to help make our world a better place for our children?
	Going forward, would you consider providing better training to your employees about how to be sensitive to individuals involved in a tragic event while taking a stance on government or globalist agendas?
	As a person weary about and questioning authenticity of clipped videos, how much precaution do you plan to take the clipped videos presented on your own show?
	What dates were Exhibit 134 from?
	The defense has testified in the wars mentioned saving of less than half a percent of the time.
	Is it your stance that there should be no punishment for breaking the law as long as it's only done on rare occasions?
	To your knowledge, was bankruptcy filed strategically to delay or alter court proceedings?
	I don't think we can ask that.
	I don't think that's...
	I mean, I guess he said it.
	Well, he said, I'm bankrupt, so I'm a producer.
	What is your definition of blue-collar?
	And where did you get the idea that the jury are all blue-collar?
	What compensation would you believe to be appropriate?
	Have you ever made the distinction while live on air to your viewers that you are speaking as a pundit and not as a journalist?
	What is your net worth?
	So, are you aware that this jury consists of 16 intelligent, fair-minded citizens who are not being improperly influenced in any way?
	Do you feel you are getting a fair trial?
	If not, why not?
	How many employees does InfoWars have currently?
	What was the annual revenue of InfoWars in the most recent fiscal year?
	According to your most recent tax filing, what is your personal annual income?
	What are some specific changes you've made to your business processes to increase oversight and accountability at InfoWars?
	Do you believe that there will be a fair and impartial determination made by this jury?
	Alright, let's do it the easy way and tell me what you object to first, or anything.
	The one that's come to mind is the Charlie Hebdo question.
	It's kind of all over the place and it brings in the liability issues and Charlie Hebdo is not about facts, it's about it's a cartoon, it's just all over it.
	It was a lot.
	I think maybe Your Honor could just ask the end of it.
	I mean, we've been talking a lot about freedom of expression.
	I think it's a good question.
	I'm trying to find it.
	Oh, that was the first one.
	What are your thoughts on this statement, as far as society?
	The problem I have is I am concerned that this question, without testimony from a legal expert or the like, is going to leave the jury to think free speech is something it isn't.
	That speech which is not protected in the United States is, and I don't want to confuse them with that.
	I don't think we have a legal expert coming to talk about free speech because that issue is not actually relevant to damages.
	So for that reason, I'm not going to ask that question.
	I think that would-- yeah, I think it would.
	What about the mass shooting contagion?
	Yeah, so is that the Christopher Hitchens thing?
	No, that's the one I just said.
	Okay, so that's also true.
	You want me to read it one more time?
	Sure.
	There is a theory called mass shooting contagion that posits the effect media has on inspiring future mass casualty events or coverage of previous events.
	Are the media that report on these events accountable for any damages that occur when they're reported?
	If yes, what accountability do you accept for the actions of your listeners and guests?
	If no, why doesn't free speech systems capitalize on the opportunity to act better than the mainstream media?
	By not asserting information recklessly in their reporting, and why does it not attempt to minimize harm from their reporting?
	Okay.
	Why do you think Sandy Hook was a conspiracy?
	Are you going to change the way you present news comments on your show based on what's happening today?
	The question about the employees.
	I guess the way it's written, it's okay, because they're asking him about personal responsibility.
	You know, I worry a little bit about the jury thinking the company is not responsible for the actions of its employees, And then there's the question about if you are genuinely sorry and regretful, etc.
	How do you plan to show, rather than just tell that you are sorry?
	Are you going to join and promote Ms. Lewis' Choose Love Movement?
	I guess that's okay.
	Would you consider providing better training to your employees about how to be sensitive to individuals involved in a tragic event?
	While taking a second, I guess that's fine.
	And then there's the question of the videos.
	What dates were Exhibit 134 from?
	I mean, I assume that's contained on the exhibit itself.
	We'll just let them look at that and then go back.
	A question about punishing rare things.
	Blue-collar, any objection to that?
	Compensation, that's fine.
	That was fine.
	Do we have any objection to the jury?
	I mean, are you aware that this jury consists of 16 intelligent, fair-minded citizens who are not being properly influenced in any way?
	I'm not really sure.
	You know, I try to think of these questions in two ways.
	One, what would my ruling be if one of you asked them?
	I'm not sure that I would allow this question if one of you asked them, because that video was a play for impeachment.
	I don't know.
	Do you feel you're getting a fair trial?
	If not, why not?
	How many rental awards, excuse me, have employees?
	That one's fine.
	Alright, what was the annual revenue of rental awards in the most recent fiscal year?
	I think that's fair under the evidence that's come in.
	What is your personal annual income according to your most recent tax file?
	I think maybe we should wait on that one.
	Is anyone going to argue about that?
	Are we going to have the possibility, based on your Honour's fire, to have Mr. Jones back during the network phase of the case?
	I honestly haven't even considered that that would happen.
	I'm not reacting to him, I'm reacting to the time.
	Right, but we think they're both going to be very short witnesses.
	We certainly have to.
	Alright, so then yes is the answer.
	Sophie can answer that one.
	Uh, changes to the business.
	And do you believe there will be a fair and unfortunate determination to come through?
	I think that that might be if you look at it with another question.
	It is, and so I'm not going to ask it twice.
	All right, on the record, we've gone over the questions submitted by the jury.
	We've eliminated some, um, and I will be reading some.
	Any objections to those I will be reading?
	Mr. Bankston?
	Not from the plan of charge.
	Mr. Rinald, same question.
	Not from the plan of charge.
	Alright, let's bring the jury in so we can all do the lunch.
	Oh, and the witness.
	You'll call on Mr. Jones, please.
	Thank you.
	We're not at the same time, though.
	Stop.
	I'm not seeing them walk by.
	One needs to come in and then the jury, or the jury, then we don't need them crossing paths.
	you're going back that way so we need to do
	we need to bring mr. Jones in now and then move the jury okay well then we need mr. Jones oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh
	oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh
	you you can bring the jury infinity
	you may be seated
	All right, Mr. Jones, what happens now is a little different.
	I'm going to read some questions to you, and you answer them.
	You need to answer the question exactly as it's presented, nothing extra.
	If you don't understand it, you tell me that, okay?
	Okay.
	There is a theory called mass shooting contagion that posits the effect media has on inspiring future mass tragedy events from coverage of previous events.
	Are the media that report on these events accountable for any damages that occur from their reporting?
	The studies do show that hyping up shootings causes more shootings, and talking about shooters does that.
	I think that all the media contributes to copycats, but they have a First Amendment right, and it's just part of the world we live.
	So I want to just ask you to answer the question.
	Are the media that report on these events accountable for any damages that occur from their reporting?
	No.
	If no, why doesn't free speech systems capitalize on the opportunity to act better than the, quote, mainstream media, unquote, by not asserting information recklessly in their reporting?
	And why does it not attempt to minimize harm from their reporting?
	I agree.
	I've learned a lot more about mass shootings now, and that's why we have 1-100th the coverage of Uvalde we would normally have, and I think that You've got to still report something happened, but statistically it's terrible what happens, but it's very small compared to, say, automobile accidents.
	So I think we should report on what the big death numbers are, like famine worldwide, 60-plus million have died just the last three years.
	All right.
	Thank you, Mr. Jones.
	Why do you think Sandy Hook was a conspiracy?
	Because I had seen so many other things in history that would be classified that had been staged or completely made up.
	Everything starts looking like a nail.
	And I saw really powerful forces politicize it and blame gun owners.
	And so I guess at this unconscious level, I felt offended and I knew I was innocent and that I hadn't done what Adam Lanza did.
	did so I think we subconsciously didn't want to believe it because it was being blamed collectively on gun owners and that's in retrospect years later when I realized that I did used to go overboard and believe everything was staged or almost everything And so it's definitely been a learning process in dealing with them.
	That's why I thought it was staged.
	There were people out there that brought up things that sounded credible.
	And I've seen so much stuff that was...
	You know, I've seen so much stuff that...
	Alright, thank you.
	Going back over with you.
	Yes.
	Are you going to change the way you present your news and comments on your show based on what is happening today?
	Yes, I'm going to do one of my best because I've never been like the corporate media that lies on purpose.
	But we've definitely made big mistakes and it's been terrible for everybody involved, including myself.
	And so I really do want to try to change things and hopefully be a more positive force when it comes to issues like mass shootings.
	Your employees have appreciated your ability to tell the truth and how you allow them to express their own creativity and individual personalities.
	In light of their obvious loyalty, would you take personal responsibility for their actions and decisions while at work for free speech systems and informers?
	I mean, I think the other day, I mean, I do, I am responsible for what they do.
	Thank you.
	If you are genuinely sorry and regretful about how your words cause harm to grieving parents, how do you plan to show rather than just tell that you are sorry?
	Would you, for instance, join and promote Ms. Lewis' Choose Love Movement to help make our world a better place for our children?
	Absolutely.
	Regardless of how this goes, I would invite her on the show in person next week.
	I would invite her Neil, I think she's a great person.
	I apologize to you legitimately.
	I would love to invite you guys on the show regardless.
	She can actually come meet the people.
	Come on.
	And I think it'll be huge for everybody to see that.
	And I want that.
	I'm more concerned about that than even monetary stuff.
	Because I do not want to be the Sandy Hook guy.
	And I want to show the world that what's been misrepresented is not who I am.
	But that I have done some things that are wrong.
	And I didn't do it on purpose.
	And I apologize.
	And I want to Would you consider providing better training to your employees about how to be sensitive to individuals involved in a tragic event while still taking a stance on government or globalist agendas?
	Yes, absolutely.
	We've been trying to do that.
	I was planning to shut down InfoWars six years ago when I got married.
	I promised my wife.
	I love the crew I'm sick of this and then I got stuck in this fight with the system and everything else that's going on And now I'm going to continue InfoWars to make it even better.
	And because other people have said they want to use this case to shut me down.
	Again, don't tell us anything that anyone else has said.
	That is hearsay.
	Disregard it is hearsay.
	And I want you just to really answer the question.
	Nothing else.
	As a person wary about and questioning the authenticity of clipped videos, how much precaution do you plan to take with the clipped videos presented on your own show?
	We take way more precaution now than even mainstream media because our listeners It has been a long time since we did that, and we did do one three weeks ago, and I rarely smashed up, but I didn't smash it in my office.
	And because it pissed me off so bad that we aired a, what do you call those, deep fake video, they're so good now, that I've developed an allergy to this stuff.
	I don't want to be wrong and I don't want to try to lie like the corporate media does on purpose.
	And we did, Erwin, about the CEO of Pfizer who does enough bad stuff on his own without us putting it.
	We didn't do it.
	It looks so good.
	All right, thank you.
	The defense has testified InfoWars mentioned Sandy Hook less than half a percent of the time.
	Is it your stance that there should be no punishment for breaking the law as long as it is done only on rare occasions?
	Can you read that in place?
	Yes, I can.
	The defense has testified InfoWars mentions Sandy Hook less than half a percent of the time.
	Is it your stance that there should be no punishment for breaking the law as long as it's done only on rare occasions?
	Well, this is civil, but there is a law of right and wrong, and we have paid a massive price for the mistakes we made.
	Okay, Mr. Jones.
	Yes, read it again, please.
	Is it your stance that there should be no punishment for breaking the law as long as it's done only on rare occasions?
	yes or no let's stop no I don't think even the people do stuff on accident I think they're still somewhat culpable but I did not do this consciously So, Mr. Jones, that's not the question.
	What is your definition of blue collar?
	I'm talking about people who I think are great, who are working so hard that they don't have time to be involved in the weird, esoteric bubbles of the liberals or the conservatives or anybody.
	I can't even keep track of what the liberals are doing or the conservatives or the libertarians or the Or the transhumanist.
	So your definition of blue collar is people who work so hard they can't follow all these things you're saying.
	What is your definition of blue collar?
	My definition of blue collar is the working man and woman who keep their head down and keep the whole world running and in my experience generally are not even paying attention to politics.
	Where did you get the idea that jury are all blue collar?
	I mean I've seen statistically I read What compensation would you believe to
	to be appropriate?
	What compensation do I think appropriate?
	Despite these numbers that were presented the best week we ever had, that's when COVID was starting, and there was a run on storable food nationwide, and so they...
	Mr. Jones.
	I'm just saying.
	What compensation would you believe to be appropriate?
	It doesn't really matter about that.
	I understand, but I can answer the question however I wish.
	Am I barred from talking about where we're at financially?
	No, you are at this stage.
	Right now, the question is what compensation would be appropriate?
	Any compensation above $2 million will I think it's appropriate for whatever you decide you want to do.
	That's a great answer.
	Thank you.
	Have you ever made the distinction while live on air to your viewers that you are speaking as a pundit and not as a journalist?
	Thousands and thousands of times.
	This is my opinion.
	You should research what I'm This is talk radio on TV. We constantly explain these are people's opinions, these are debates, these are ideas.
	I even used to play an intro The views expressed here aren't necessarily those of the host, the guests, the callers, or the station.
	It's a standard thing.
	Are you aware that this jury consists of 16 intelligent, fair-minded citizens who are not being improperly influenced in any way?
	Yes, I don't think that you are operatives.
	I don't think that you are part of a false flag.
	I don't think that you are bad people.
	I think you're good people.
	I just am very, very critical about the whole process that I've been through so far, where I've given, I believe, everything over, and then I'm always told we didn't, even though we're seeing it.
	And so that's why I'm really concerned, because a lot has been misrepresented.
	You wandered off the question.
	Do you feel you're getting a fair trial, and if not, why not?
	I'm barred from saying.
	Succinctly, please.
	I have been found guilty by a judge.
	And I thought in America you were found guilty by juries.
	There's no guilty or innocence in civil court.
	I understand.
	It's liable or not.
	So please don't use that.
	If you're not a lawyer, that's fine.
	Okay, well, I've been found liable, okay, by a judge, and in all the other cases coming out, I've already been found.
	So this is a dangerous new system we're setting up, and if people want to get rid of that and get rid of America, it's okay.
	I understand.
	We're an old republic.
	Maybe time for us to go.
	How many employees does InfoWars have currently?
	We've got about 80 workers and contractors.
	About 80. What was the annual revenue of InfoWars in the most recent fiscal year?
	I don't have that number in front of me, but it was...
	I would imagine 60, 70 million.
	Those have been our biggest years, or 60 or 70 million gross.
	And so the question is, how much money am I making?
	No.
	The question is, what was the annual revenue of info boards in the most recent fiscal year?
	But I think you said you don't know.
	Do you know or not?
	It is like $70 million right around there.
	What are some specific changes you've made to your business processes to increase oversight and accountability at Infowars?
	I mean, I think I've explained to people we're not just some little internet show, and I'm telling myself this when I'm telling them that, that you need to really pay attention to what you're doing because everything you say is going to get looked at and zoomed in on.
	And even if you didn't mean it for harm, it could be turned around for harm, so you need to really realize you have power.
	It's like the Spider-Man thing with great power comes with great responsibility.
	And I definitely have underestimated how powerful InfoWars was because I'm always thinking of myself as small, and I've only realized the last four or five years how big we are.
	Thank you, Mr. Jones.
	I appreciate your time and testimony.
	You may return to consultation.
	Thank you.
	All right, Mr. Reynolds, you have another witness voice.
	No, Your Honor.
	So, defense rests?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	Plain to rest and close?
	Correct, Your Honor.
	Defense?
	Rest and close?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	Alright.
	Ladies and gentlemen of the Drone, that concludes the evidence in this case.
	It is now necessary for the attorneys and myself to spend some time preparing the charge for submission to you.
	I'm not able to know in advance exactly how long it will take.
	It generally takes longer than we think.
	We have been working on it in the evenings and on breaks, but we do still have more work to do.
	It's 1230. I'm going to try to get it done over lunch.
	Your lunch is waiting for you.
	So I'm not going to give you an end time.
	We'll try to be back in an hour, hour and a half.
	So, you know, don't wait to eat.
	But you're going to be on recess until now, until I bring you back.
	Please remember, the evidence is concluded, but you have not yet been sent to deliberate.
	This means you may not yet discuss the case.
	And as always, you still may not do any research into anything about the case.
	So go and enjoy your lunch and we'll see you soon.
	Thank you.
	All rise.
	Thank you.
	You may.
	I don't have a current version of the jury chart.
	Ms. Ward, I don't know if you were able to get that finished for us.
	Can you bring it out if you are?
	The one you have is out of date.
	I'm going to release our alternate jurors before deliberations.
	so I think the charge I gave you didn't include it indicated opposite of that that has been corrected I just wanted to raise up my mother maybe some different places but traditionally in the barcay per team we held the documents in case something happened I don't think we I've been doing some research on that and I don't think we can do that because you're up different Potentially.
	So, I think we're going to have 12. No one has left, which is great.
	I mean, I've had much shorter trials where it felt like the jurors were dropping like flies, but that hasn't been the case here, thank goodness.
	No one has gotten sick or anything.
	So we'll...
	She hasn't responded.
	I don't know what's going on.
	Why don't we do this...
	Let me send a message and see if I can get her.
	She says she's printing it right now.
	Oh, she's printing it.
	Okay.
	We're just going to look at that.
	I do have one addition, proposed addition to the .
	Sure.
	I think from some of the testimony today and some of the questions-- This is the informal.
	Yeah, we're just going to inform it.
	And so maybe I can just see, because the Prince Council may very well agree.
	Is I think from some of the testimony today, the jury may be a little bit confused about responding to the other security or principles.
	and there's a PJC on responding to Just to have that instruction in the initial charge section on your 1-1-1-1-1.
	Can you point me to the farm?
	Sure.
	I think I have a PGA team.
	Is it general negligence?
	I think it's a general negligence, correct, sure.
	Or business, maybe, I don't know.
	Right now.
	And which, which permission?
	I'm pulling it up.
	I hope I have a question.
	I got one other question.
	Fortunately, I'm just thinking of a better body on the planet, if you might as well.
	PJC 10-1.
	You know what?
	You're in another.
	I'm looking at these.
	These are questions, and so therefore...
	Yeah, this would be appropriate, for instance, if I'm sure it was on the line.
	But now that I'm looking at this, I think it's not appropriate if he's not on the line.
	Okay.
	It's a question, so we'll withdraw it.
	I'm right.
	There might be something else.
	I mean, the books are very long.
	Sure.
	Sure.
	Yeah, I don't, you know, and I'm thinking both parties were close to happy with this.
	I don't.
	All right.
	Screaming charges are dicey.
	Yeah.
	I'll just wait.
	I apologize.
	If anyone's desperate for a comfort break, just as Livingston likes to say, feel free to take it.
	I'm going to hang out here until we get Alright,
	Ms. Ward's going to bring you the version 3 to take a look at.
	And because we're on a little Right,
	exactly not when you're ready Sure.
	I had one comment during your decision, which is that in the toxic cause definition, which we're okay with, but there are, in the PJC, there are certain words that are italicized and given a choice.
	You can use a couple different words.
	Sometimes injury is not appropriate in every case.
	Sometimes ordinary repair is not appropriate in every case.
	Oh, I did imply take it out.
	I thought those were already removed.
	Okay.
	I don't think we need any italics to be used.
	Correct.
	Once the word is chosen, the italics ought to stop.
	Right.
	Sorry, I was not clear.
	I think I said something like, I don't like the italicized words instead of removed, like unitalicized, but that's what I meant.
	No, I mean, that was just a note.
	Okay, yeah, so that's in all three questions.
	No words will be italicized in the definition of approximate cause.
	Other than that, we have no objection to the charge.
	No other defense.
	Okay, well, let's put that on the record.
	Are you ready?
	Yes.
	Okay, we've just had one of our informal charge conferences, and there are some words in the version you have, version 3, which are italicized, and we are going to remove that italicized.
	We're going to remove the italics and put those in normal font, and then that will be the final version.
	Other than that, there are no other edits to be made.
	Do you accept this charge of the court as proper, Mr. Bankston?
	Yes, if I receive it.
	Mr. Rinell?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	Wonderful.
	We can go off the record.
	I'll let you go make those changes.
	May I? One more thing on the record?
	Let me finish my sentence.
	We will bring out new copies during the break for you that say final on the bottom so that you'll have them.
	Do you want more than one?
	If it went to the board.
	I'm asking because I'm willing to print more than one for you.
	Would you like it?
	Yes?
	Thank you.
	I'll give you both.
	Okay.
	A lot of times clients actually like a copy at the end, so they know what I'm talking about when I read things off.
	Yes, on the record.
	I wanted to renew my motion for the record.
	Okay, that's okay.
	Back off the record, it's 1240. Can we be ready to start at 130?
	I think that's fine.
	So that'll give us two and a half hours, right?
	130 to 3, 330 to 5. Is that two and a half or is that three?
	That's three hours.
	That's three hours.
	Can we get our closing done in three hours?
	This is the time zone?
	No.
	That's easy.
	Yeah.
	Sure.
	So do I need to put some time limits on or time warnings on to make sure we have enough time to do all three closings?
	I think I'm totally fine.
	You can do it for 50 minutes at any time.
	5-0?
	5-0.
	I think I want to be shorter anyway, but the way I don't get that idea is going to go along.
	Alright.
	if you are would let me know it an hour okay okay so we're gonna have a 30-minute break in the middle An hour and a half.
	I'm not good at the 60-40 bit, but let's assume that that division applies here as it has throughout the trial.
	So whatever that is, I'll do the math in the back.
	You guys can do it too and know that that's going to be our time.
	If you would give me a 10-minute warning based on whatever time.
	Sure, I can do that.
	I think an hour is probably exactly right, meaning an hour in time is probably how it breaks down, but I'll do the math in the back.
	Okay, thank you all.

▲