Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 26, 2024 - Depositions & Trials

01:46:49

Deposition Testimony of Steven Crowder

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	All right.
	Today's date is August 26, 2024. The time is 1.31 p.m.
	Central Time, and we are on the record.
	Mr. Crowder, if you'll raise your right hand, I'll swear you in.
	Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in this matter will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
	Yes, ma'am.
	Thank you.
	All right, sir.
	Can you give us your name for the record?
	Stephen Crowder.
	You are the founder of Louder with Crowder LLC? Yes.
	Louder with Crowder LLC is your media company?
	Yes.
	You operate a website and make internet videos?
	Objection form?
	Yes.
	I'm just trying to figure out that's what your media company does.
	That's part of it.
	What else do you do that you would say that your media company does?
	Well, it's a general media company.
	So, yep, there's a daily program.
	There's a separate, you know, reporting and investigative reporting unit and the website operates separately where someone writes articles.
	So, social media, you know, kind of all-encompassing media.
	Okay, so I've got internet.
	There's a daily show.
	Let's start there.
	Alright, that's a video show, correct?
	Yes, sir.
	And I know that it's also, you can get it in pure audio format, too, over podcast, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	As far as those videos, where would I see an episode of Ladder Wave Crowder?
	So, well, it depends, you know, at what point in time.
	So, usually YouTube, Rumble, and then Mug Club.
	Which is, you know, it's operated under Locals, but for a period of time it would have been, and pardon me, I'm sick today, so if I cough, I don't mean to be distracting, would have been under Blaze.
	So Mug Club was operating under Blaze at one point.
	You would have been able to see them on Blaze.
	Okay, these are audio, wherever audio is available, like Apple, Spotify.
	In other words, to see your show, I would watch it on the internet.
	Yes.
	You're not carried on any cable stations.
	No.
	You're not carried on over-the-air broadcast television?
	Not today, no.
	Okay.
	Do you have any licenses with radio stations, anything like that, to broadcast your show?
	Not today, no.
	Okay.
	Are all those answers same truth in May 2023?
	I believe so.
	Okay.
	Did you do anything to prepare for this deposition?
	No.
	I had read the files that were sent over from your attorneys.
	Well, yourself, I guess.
	The files.
	Can you tell me what you mean by that?
	The documents, the complaints.
	Okay.
	In other words, the lawsuit that was filed.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Have you reviewed any other documents to prepare for this deposition?
	Not to my knowledge, no.
	Okay.
	Have you viewed your May 8th or May 9th show?
	I viewed at least a portion of it, yes.
	Okay.
	And I'm mostly going to want to be talking to you about your May 8th show covering the Allen shooting.
	You're familiar with what I mean when I say your May 8th show covering the Allen shooting?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Before I get into all that, I want to confirm some details on your background.
	As far as educational background, it's my understanding you attended a couple semesters of college?
	Correct.
	Okay.
	I think it's fair to say you have no educational background in journalism.
	I wouldn't agree.
	Okay.
	Can you explain to me what your educational background in journalism is?
	Years of experience.
	I'm asking specifically, we'll move on to your work experience.
	I'm talking about your education at this point, if you have any educational background in journalism.
	Well, I did study media for, as you said, two semesters in college.
	Okay, so when you were in college for those semesters, part of that included journalism courses?
	Part of it included, yes, broadcast.
	Okay.
	You worked for Fox back in the 2009-2013 time period?
	I believe so.
	Time period sounds correct.
	Did they provide you any training in journalism?
	Experience.
	I understand that you did the job for many years.
	I'm sure you picked up some things, right?
	But what I'm wondering actually is, as part of your employment, did Fox provide you with formal training in journalism?
	They did not send me to journalism school, no.
	Okay.
	Now, at that time, I think it's fair to say that what you were doing for Fox was primarily concentrated on more comedic.
	Type presentations.
	Is that fair?
	No.
	So back during the time period when you were working at Fox, would you say you were covering hard news at that point too?
	Injection form.
	Sometimes.
	Okay.
	And then after leaving Fox, you've...
	Let's start this way.
	The YouTube channel you've had, you had that while you were at Fox, right?
	Correct.
	And you've kept using that as a platform ever since leaving Fox, right?
	Yes.
	Am I right that there was a brief period where you weren't on YouTube?
	Is that right?
	Objection form?
	How so?
	Am I right that at some point you either stopped posting to YouTube or were in some way punished by YouTube?
	Did anything like that happen?
	Objection form?
	Temporary suspensions happen on YouTube, if that's what you mean.
	Okay, but in May 2023, you were posting regularly on YouTube?
	I believe so.
	Okay.
	So, for instance, the coverage we're here to talk about today, that would have appeared on YouTube?
	I believe so.
	Okay.
	Now, ever since leaving Fox, say, in the past 10 years, fair to say that you've begun to amass a rather sizable audience.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	You understand that as the size of your audience increased, the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by publishing a false statement about someone also increased?
	Yes.
	And would you agree with me that as that potential magnitude for harm increased and your audience increased, your responsibility as a journalist also increased?
	Objection form?
	Well, I've never labeled myself a journalist, but yes.
	I mean, well, you cover hard news.
	We can agree with that.
	Sure.
	So does Jon Stewart.
	Sure.
	Absolutely.
	Right.
	And let's make it clear, even today, on your show in which you cover hard news, you also do things that are comedic.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Now, you would agree with me, for instance, that the sort of care that a person like you needs to show might be different if you're just, say, talking with a friend at a bar versus making an announcement over a baseball stadium public address system.
	You understand what I mean?
	I understand.
	Making decisions about how you run your business, I take it one of the things you do consider is the responsibility you have given the size of your audience.
	Is that right?
	Take responsibility regardless of the size of the audience.
	Sure.
	I understand that perhaps even when just talking to a neighbor or a friend at a bar, you might be careful about what you say.
	But what I'm asking is when you do your job.
	Part of what you consider in how you create your policies, your requirements, etc., is you understand you're going to be talking to a very large audience and that the magnitude of harm from false information could be very great.
	Is that correct?
	There's a lot in that statement.
	We take care to be as responsible as possible, regardless of the size of the audience.
	Okay.
	Last year, when doing an episode of Louder of Crowder, How many people could you reasonably expect to view it?
	I don't know.
	So does your, for instance, on YouTube, YouTube tracks the number of views your videos get, right?
	To a degree, yes.
	Okay.
	Rumble does the same thing.
	You can see how many people viewed your videos?
	To a degree, yes.
	Okay.
	And so...
	That should give you, the number of views on Rumble and YouTube will at least give you a minimum baseline of who saw the video.
	Is that right?
	Sounds right.
	And then you also know that your materials will quite foreseeably spread via social media, right?
	Sure.
	You're aware people share your videos?
	Sure, yes.
	For instance, when getting a video in this case, when I asked for a copy of the video in this case, I was directed to a website that publishes your videos without any of your input, right?
	That's my understanding.
	Okay.
	One of the things you offer your audience is fact checking of the news, correct?
	Correct.
	Okay.
	In fact, let's bring up tab one.
	All right.
	I want to show you something that was just posted to the website last week.
	And as I think you may remember, we had this deposition scheduled for a few days ago.
	But one of the reasons that we had rescheduled it is so that you could do fact checking at the DNC, correct?
	Yes, a portion of it, yes.
	Okay.
	So, for instance, in this broadcast, you'd be telling your audience, hey, certain claims are going to be made at the DNC. And we are going to use our skills to tell you what is real and what is not.
	Is that fair?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So your audience can expect that you're going to be talking to them about matters of truth or falsity, right?
	Yes.
	Is it, do you agree it's reasonable for your audience to expect you to use the same level of care they would expect from any commercial media outlet?
	Rejection form.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I guess what I'm getting at is it's not going to be your position that, hey, I'm just a clown.
	I'm just a guy who plays dress up.
	I'm not doing news.
	That's not what your position is.
	You do hard news.
	Correct?
	It depends on the context.
	Absolutely.
	Sure.
	Like we said, there are some instances.
	Where your audience is clearly going to know that you're doing a comedic sketch, right?
	Sure.
	But your May 8th coverage of the Allen shooting, that wasn't a comedy sketch.
	I don't know if it included sketch elements.
	We often mix news with sketch elements, but no, not the commentary on the reporting, no.
	Okay.
	Let's talk a little bit about how things work at your business.
	First of all, you're the boss at Lauder with Crowder, right?
	I guess.
	Well, I mean, I'm guessing what I'm asking is, if you're doing things throughout your workday, is there somebody who says, who can come to you and says, Stephen, no, you can't cover that.
	You're not allowed to do that.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Who would that person be?
	I'm going to be a multitude of people.
	So there are a multitude of people at Lauder with Crowder who have veto power over what you can cover on your show?
	No, a multitude of people who have, you know, wise counsel.
	Sure.
	I have a lot of people in my life who have wise counsel.
	I listen to them and take their thoughts into consideration, but they don't have control over me.
	And I'm wondering if there's anybody at Lauder with Crowder who has control over you, who says, if you do this, Stephen, you're fired.
	You don't work here anymore.
	At Lauder with Crowder?
	No, no one can fire me.
	Okay.
	And if you want to say something on your show, is there anybody who can stop you?
	On my show?
	No.
	Okay.
	You would agree that it would be the usual practice of Louder with Crowder?
	Let me put it in an easier way.
	You agree it's your usual practice to verify the accuracy of images you share with your audience.
	Objection form.
	Sorry, can you restate the question?
	Yeah, sure.
	If you're going to share images with your audience of news events, things that depict news events, it's your usual practice to verify the accuracy of those images before you show them.
	Objection form.
	Sometimes.
	Okay, let's make it more specific.
	When you're going to share an image of a purported mass murder, It would be your usual practice to verify the accuracy of that image before showing it.
	Objection form.
	And to clarify, Mark, just so for reference, are you referring to Stephen individually or Ladder with Crowder?
	Him individually.
	Me individually?
	Then no.
	No.
	So there are, in other words, let's put it this way.
	If you're going to use on May 8th an image, you're going to show your audience an image of who is purportedly the mass murderer.
	Is that something you're going to see before you go air, or is this like a Ron Burgundy situation where you're seeing it for the first time?
	I appreciate the reference, Ron Burgundy.
	Based on Jim Walcott, actually, a Canadian sitcom, there's a difference between breaking news, for example, something that's exclusive to us, where there's a...
	Obviously, a much more strict process of due diligence if we are the news.
	Then there's reporting on the news that is available publicly or reporting on someone else's report.
	So to answer your question, we would obviously ensure that the reporting on that person's reporting is accurate, meaning the original source would be the reporter.
	Okay.
	So in terms of sharing an image, right, I believe what I'm hearing is that if it is your original reporting, You would have a higher level of care than when you are repeating someone else's reporting.
	Is that fair?
	No, what I'm saying is that there's a difference between breaking news being the subject of news and reporting on someone else's news.
	So use your example like the DNC. That's their story.
	They run images or claims.
	So we report on what they are running.
	All right, let me give you an example.
	If the DNC puts up an image, right, and says, Let me give you an example.
	The DNC puts up an image of Mount Rushmore and says, this is the Washington Monument.
	You would be able to fairly and accurately report the DNC is saying that this picture is the Washington Monument.
	That's fine.
	We're on the same page so far?
	Yes, and I would show that picture.
	It would be different to say, here is a picture that the DNC is showing.
	That they say is Mount Rushmore.
	And I'm telling you, they're right.
	That's different in your mind, right?
	No.
	That's the same thing.
	In other words, this is what I'm trying to get at.
	It is okay for you, without investigating, to report someone else's accusation as truthful.
	To report their reporting as authentic and truthful?
	Yes.
	If I believed it was Mount Rushmore and they told me it was Mount Rushmore and showed a picture, I'd show their picture.
	And do it without any further checking?
	Myself, at that moment in time, if I believed it was Mount Rushmore, why would I not believe the DNC? That's a good question.
	DNC is an organization you might not always believe though, right?
	That's fair.
	Right?
	In your eyes, they have some credibility issues, I would take it, right?
	It depends on who they are.
	So, in other words, what I'm saying is not all sources are equal, are they?
	That's fair.
	Okay.
	Would you agree that it's important to verify the accuracy of an image of a purported mass murderer before showing it to your audience?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Why is it important to verify the image of a mass murderer before showing it to your audience?
	Same reason that it would be important to verify anything.
	Why is that?
	If you are making a definitive claim, you should do your best to be accurate.
	Why?
	Because truth matters.
	Just intrinsically or why?
	Do things happen?
	What can happen?
	Intrinsically.
	Okay.
	So, do you understand, though, that if false information is posted about somebody, is published about somebody, that can have effects on the people who are the subject matter of those reports?
	I would assume so.
	Is that something that you can...
	Let's put it this way.
	If you have news that you're going to report that if false could have a damaging effect on someone's reputation or cause them grief, You would agree you need to take special care with that kind of news?
	If one is making a definitive claim, they should do their best to be accurate.
	Do you know the difference between a primary and a secondary source?
	Yes.
	Can you help us understand that first by telling us what is a primary source?
	It would depend on the context when you're discussing journalism or if you're discussing Like I said, commenting on someone else's journalism.
	Primary source would be the primary reference point, person who's the originator of it.
	And a secondary source would be a corroborating resource, confirming or also covering it.
	Okay.
	I'm going to kind of give you what I believe would be the understanding that I'm operating from, just so we can talk using the same terminology, right?
	Like I was going to tell you, if I'm going to talk about a chair, I'm going to tell you what a chair is, right?
	Have you ever heard that a primary source...
	Would be information that originates from a person or entity that either has a first-hand account or is actively involved in the events being reported?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And then a newspaper, for instance, or an academic treatise or some other publication that is writing about an event that it did not have first-hand involvement in, that would be a secondary source.
	Does that seem fair?
	Yes.
	In terms of...
	Let me do it this way.
	You would agree you should not display the image of a suspected mass murderer unless the image had been confirmed by someone involved in the official investigation or by reference to some kind of primary source.
	Do you agree with that?
	No.
	Okay.
	And would you agree that you don't fulfill your responsibility In verifying the photo of a mass murderer by assuming that another news organization has verified the photo?
	No.
	Okay.
	I don't agree.
	What are your requirements for publishing a photo allegedly showing a mass murderer?
	Objection form.
	So the process would be similar for any stories in which we're not the primary source, to use your example, would be to find at least one source that would be viewed as legitimate.
	Usually that's why, you know, when we provide references, we often use left-leaning sources, which we make available every day for every show, and then confirm it with another source where it is available.
	That would be the process when someone else is reporting.
	Does it matter who's reporting it?
	That's why I said you try and find the initial, you know, the most credible source to use as a primary source because it's a little different when covering news.
	So to give you an example, if there is a new study conducted on, let's say, medical, a COVID intervention, primary source would be one on PubMed, right, the people who conducted the trial.
	Secondary source would be CNN covering said clinical trial.
	Same principle, but it's a little different when covering someone else's reporting.
	So the primary source that we would look for would be as authoritative as available at that time.
	Alright, so to use that example, if you didn't have access to the PubMed article, but you did have access to a CNN report in which they reported on the PubMed article and cited that PubMed article, that's probably okay to report on.
	You would agree?
	I would report according to CNN. Right.
	What if CNN didn't have any sort of primary source?
	What if CNN just reported a fact but it didn't have any source?
	That's what I would report according to CNN. Okay.
	And it would be important for you to make clear that you had not been able to verify that.
	Would you agree to that?
	No.
	Okay.
	Let's talk a little bit about this incident we're here about today.
	You understand that on May 6, 2023, a neo-Nazi mass shooter murdered several people at the Allen outlet malls?
	Projection form?
	No.
	You don't understand that right now, sitting here today?
	The way you said it, no.
	Help me understand what you mean by that.
	What is it about that?
	I don't understand a neo-Nazi mass shooter, no.
	Mass shooter, yes.
	Neo-Nazi mass shooter, no.
	Okay, you're aware that the shooter had tattooed neo-Nazi symbols on his body.
	Sure.
	You're aware he did it with a right-wing Def Squad vest.
	You don't contest any of that.
	I'm aware that it was reported, yeah.
	Well, I'm not asking you whether it was reported.
	I'm asking you whether you can, like, do you believe that's true?
	Do you contest that?
	No, I don't contest any of the tattoos, no.
	Okay.
	So, I guess the hang-up is, you have a shooter who's tattooed up with a Schwarzenegger and SS lightning bolts, but you're hesitant to call that a neo-Nazi mass shooter.
	Correct.
	Okay.
	You covered that shooting on your show and your website?
	Objection form?
	I discussed it on the show.
	Okay.
	And there was an article on the website, right?
	That's my understanding.
	Okay.
	And you agree that in covering the shooting, that an image was repeatedly published of my client, Mauricio Garcia, who had nothing to do with the shooting?
	That's my understanding.
	Okay.
	Let's talk about the show, the May 8th show.
	In that show, you told the audience that the media was lying about the shooting and that you were going to show them the true information, right?
	Objection form.
	I don't know if those are my words, but okay.
	Well, let's pull up tab two.
	All right.
	I'm showing you now what is tab two.
	We'll be offering this as exhibit two.
	This is, every day with your show, there's also a webpage posted called the show notes, right?
	Yes.
	Okay, and today I'm just going to read the first paragraph here.
	There was a deadly mass shooting in Allen, Texas, and we have information on the killer, Mauricio Garcia.
	We'll be refuting the media's lies.
	About the fact that he was a white supremacist and so much more.
	You see that?
	I do.
	Okay.
	So again, you had information on the shooter and you were going to refute the media's lies, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So when viewers tuned into this, they could reasonably expect that you were going to be trying to provide them with true information about the shooter.
	Yes.
	And that in providing that information, the information that you had, you could demonstrate that the media was lying about the shooting.
	Primarily that the media was lying about the shooter.
	Seems to be the copy written there by Brodigan, yes.
	Sure, let's change that.
	Because the shooting itself is a bigger topic than the shooter, right?
	Just one person.
	So let me ask that again.
	You had information on the shooter.
	And you would be refuting the media's lies about the shooter.
	Well, that's a description.
	That's a description written by Rod again on the website, a synopsis of the show.
	I spoke on the program regarding the media lies and what they were.
	Well, let's take a look at that.
	Let's bring up tab three.
	All right, I'm going to show you an excerpt that I want to ask you some questions about from your May 8th show.
	So let's play that now.
	Who the shooter was first.
	Okay.
	So you're going to hear the media give you some reports.
	A lot of what they say is bullshit.
	All right.
	The shooter was a 33-year-old Hispanic male.
	His name was Mauricio Garcia.
	Mauricio Garcia.
	Now, the reason that we are pulling this, and you're asking yourself because we make the references available.
	We're pulling this from Today News Africa is because it's the only news outfit showing you the shooter's face.
	You won't find his face in, here you go, NBC, Wall Street Journal, CNN, CBS, Washington Post.
	They want to tell you...
	That he was a white supremacist.
	Yes.
	And not see his very Hispanic-looking face.
	Right.
	And a second ago, I actually signaled you because CNN had that lower kind of chyron that said, basically, that this person was influenced by white supremacy.
	That's the headline that they're running with right now over, over, over, over.
	Yeah.
	To make sure they drill it in.
	Okay, my first question is, in the lead-up to that show, you had been reviewing a lot of media coverage about the shooting.
	Injection form.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	That review of the media coverage showed that Today News Africa was the only news outfit reported to show a picture of the shooter's face.
	Correct?
	Can you repeat the question?
	Yeah, sure.
	That review of media coverage That showed that Today News Africa was the only news outfit purported to show the shooter's face.
	No.
	Okay.
	So when you said, we're pulling this from Today News Africa, it's because it's the only news outfit showing you the shooter's face.
	That wasn't accurate.
	Sorry, what was the last part of that question?
	That wasn't accurate, what you said in the video.
	What I was saying was it was the only place currently...
	With an article including the image of the shooter.
	Okay.
	Right.
	So when you were making that broadcast, your review of media had shown you that Today News Africa was the only news outfit doing that, showing a purported picture of the shooter's face.
	No.
	Okay.
	I'm a little confused because I thought what you had just said was that at that time, that's why you said that, it's the only news outfit showing you the shooter's face.
	Is that right or is that not right?
	It was the only place at that moment in time with an active article including that image.
	Of course, there are many other places that are created or social media.
	So at that moment in time, because that was a White House press credentialed reporter.
	Well, no, that's all I'm asking about is that moment in time.
	And that they're the only news outfit purporting to show the shooter's face.
	We can agree with that.
	I don't...
	Can you tell me the news outfits that at that moment in time were showing the shooter's face?
	No, it'd be difficult to remember.
	It was everywhere on social media and different articles.
	Well, look, I understand it was on social media.
	Social media are not media outfits, right?
	Just some random person on social media is not a media outfit.
	Correct?
	No, I disagree.
	Okay.
	So, if you just came across a random account...
	They, you know, ultra MAGA guy 567. And you saw the picture there.
	You'd say, well, look, that's a media outlet publishing this photo.
	Is that right?
	No.
	Okay.
	So as far as any other news outlets that were showing you the shooter's face, right now you can't think of any.
	Right?
	I don't remember which one's not that popular.
	I remember that one because it was a credentialed reporter.
	So what I'm really trying to get to is this line from the show.
	We're pulling this from Today News Africa.
	It's because it's the only news outfit showing you the shooter's face.
	Is that statement true or false at that moment in time?
	Could have been poorly worded.
	Alright.
	So...
	There are other news outfits showing the shooter's face at this point in time.
	Objection form.
	I believe there were.
	Okay.
	You just don't know what they are, right?
	Not at this moment, no.
	I can't imagine they played a big role in your decision to use this photo then, right?
	Objection form.
	They could have.
	I mean, you can't testify to that today.
	You have no idea what they are, right?
	Objection form.
	They could have.
	I couldn't testify to, for example, fact checks of the DNC when one primary source is used, other corroborating sources, because I don't remember if we check it once or twice with another source.
	We provide usually one.
	Okay.
	So it's of equal importance to have other people who do.
	What do you mean by that?
	It's of equal importance to have other people that do.
	What does that mean?
	Meaning whether it's social media, whether it's other news outlets.
	There are several sources that we'll often check, but one is made available.
	So if CNN makes a claim and we check it and then we see that Washington Post makes the same claim, on the reference, CNN may be the one that we reference, but Washington Post was very valuable in ensuring that CNN wasn't the only one making that claim.
	Sure, but as we discussed, all sources are not equal, right?
	Sure, not all sources are equal, I would agree.
	Okay.
	So we don't know.
	I mean, I'm trying to figure out what reasonable basis did you have to believe that this photo was being published or was accurate?
	And so far, I'm hearing Today News Africa, and I'm not sure if I'm hearing anything else.
	Oh, no, that's not the reason that I believe it was accurate.
	I believe that everything else mentioned in the clip even just showed was correct.
	As far as the age, as far as the weapons used, and most importantly, the African-American officer, the black officer who took out said shooter, which wasn't being covered, and the media coverage of it.
	And then there was the image that was incorrect.
	But all that other information was correct.
	Right, but I'm here because my client was misidentified, right?
	I don't care too much about this African-American police officer or whatever, right?
	I'm trying to figure out.
	I mean, the whole point of me having you here today is to try to figure out, did you have any basis to think this thing was real in terms of this picture?
	All right, and I'm here in today's News Africa.
	Can you tell me any other reason you had to think that it was real?
	No, what I'm saying is that all the other reporting information was correct, and a White House press credentialed reporter also included an image.
	Everything else reported was correct.
	The image was incorrect from the White House press credentialed reporter.
	All right.
	Put a pin in that.
	We're going to come back and talk to you about that.
	I promise we're going to talk about this reporter and White House credentials and all of that.
	So make sure to remember that.
	I want to ask you, though, in the video, you said you won't find his face in NBC, Wall Street Journal, CNN, CBS, Washington Post.
	They want to tell you that he was a white supremacist and not see his very Hispanic-looking face.
	Do you remember seeing that in the video?
	Yes.
	All right.
	So we can agree that you told your viewers that mainstream media outlets were hiding the picture from the public for nefarious political reasons.
	Which picture?
	The picture you were displaying from Today News.
	No.
	No.
	No, I don't agree.
	Okay.
	So when you said that you won't find his face in those outlets...
	And they want to tell you that he was a white supremacist and not see his very Hispanic-looking face.
	You're saying that's a choice they made, right?
	These media outlets made a choice.
	To include no image verification, yes.
	To include no images of the shooter, right?
	Right.
	And the reason that they didn't include pictures of the shooter, the reason you had to get it from Today News Africa, is because they didn't want the public to see the shooter's face.
	That was what you were telling your audience.
	No.
	I'm having trouble reconciling what you're saying now with what you said in the video, because you said straight up that they don't want you to see his very Hispanic-looking face.
	So we can say the media outlets made a decision for political reasons to say that he was a white supremacist, that they did not want to show his face.
	That's what you were telling your audience.
	To show any images, sure, yeah.
	Right, and you had an image, right?
	You had one that you think they should have shown.
	No, I believe they should have shown any image, including the misidentifying of the black officer.
	At that moment in time, there was a push for gun control and a white supremacist shooter.
	At the time, we were told that was the greatest domestic terror threat.
	It was an editorial decision to not include a litany of information as it related to the shooting in total, including a Hispanic shooter who was simply labeled a white supremacist.
	I want to talk about two possibilities that existed for you on May 8th.
	One possibility is that major media organizations made a decision that they were not going to show any pictures of the shooter's face.
	And they were doing that because they wanted to press a story about white supremacy.
	And a second possibility is that those news organizations were either unable to confirm the accuracy of a photo, or they had already determined that the photo that you were showing was false.
	You understand those two possibilities.
	No.
	I'm not saying you agree with them.
	I'm understanding you understand that those are two possibilities.
	No, the second one is not possible.
	It is not possible.
	That the news organizations you were referring to were either unable to confirm the accuracy of the photo or had already determined it was false.
	You're saying that's impossible.
	You just said it had determined the image I showed was false.
	Correct.
	They would not have been able to do that because I was reporting on their reporting.
	So they wouldn't have been able to report on my image being false or confirm it because their stories were already out there.
	It wasn't your image, though.
	Right?
	Beg your pardon?
	We just talked about you didn't break the symbol.
	You said second possibility definitively using that they determined my image was false.
	So that wouldn't be possible.
	Let's rephrase that because I'm just saying the image you used.
	Let's take the image you used and divorce it from your production.
	That is a physical image that existed out there in the world.
	That image, yes.
	Totally possible that the reason the media wasn't printing any pictures of the shooter is because they'd been unable to confirm the authenticity of any picture, or they had already confirmed that that picture we're talking about, that picture of my client, they had already determined it was false.
	That's possible.
	It's possible.
	Now, of the two possibilities, you have one, where the media intentionally doesn't want to show the picture for political reasons, or two, They'd simply been unable to confirm a picture.
	The second possibility is more likely.
	You'll agree to that?
	Objection, Mark?
	No, I don't agree.
	All right.
	Do you really think it was rational to think that the Wall Street Journal, of all places, had made a decision to not show the shooter's face so that they could push a narrative about white supremacy?
	Yes.
	The Wall Street Journal that's owned by News Corp and Rupert Murdoch, that same Wall Street Journal, was intentionally deciding not to show the shooter's face for a political reason.
	That was rational for any or not.
	That same Wall Street Journal, I believe it's rational.
	All right.
	Now, as you said in the video, you acquired the photo from something called Today News Africa, right?
	I believe so.
	Okay.
	Where did Today News Africa source the photo from?
	Objection form.
	I don't remember at this moment in time.
	Did they say in their reporting?
	I don't remember at this moment.
	It'd be important to learn that information, right?
	They're reporting.
	It's important to report accurately on this person's reporting.
	Right.
	So if Today News Africa...
	At a primary source, that would be useful information to know.
	That would be useful.
	And if they didn't have any kind of primary source, they had no sourcing whatsoever, that should have been a red flag for you that you couldn't verify the image, right?
	Objection form.
	Could be.
	You had mentioned earlier that, okay, so first of all, On May 8th, had you ever heard of Today News Africa?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	You were familiar with this individual, Simon Ateba?
	I don't remember.
	Okay.
	To help refresh your memory, that's the person that I believe you referred to as a White House credentialed reporter?
	I believe so.
	Okay.
	What White House credentials did he have?
	I don't know which credentials he had.
	I know that he was listed as a White House credentialed.
	I don't know if it was a member of the press corps.
	There are different kinds of credentials, but that was my understanding.
	I mean, how did you gain this understanding?
	Rejection form.
	I don't remember.
	At that point in time, there would have been people who verified that and told me that was the case.
	Okay.
	Do you think he had any credentials?
	That we're any different than any member of the public who applies to access the White House grounds?
	Than any member of the public?
	Or than members of the public who are allowed to access the White House grounds?
	Right.
	Do you know what a hard pass is to the White House?
	A hard pass?
	A hard pass.
	Yeah.
	No.
	Okay.
	You understand that...
	Any member of the public can apply to the Secret Service to get a pass to enter White House grounds.
	Did you know that?
	I know people can enter a process, sure.
	Okay.
	Do you have any reason to think that he had any different credentials than just getting a hard pass?
	What's the information at the time I did?
	Okay.
	And do you have any reason to believe that...
	Did you think he was a member of the White House Correspondents Association?
	I don't recall at this time.
	Okay.
	There are a lot of media organizations who have something that they call White House Correspondent, right?
	Correct.
	There are even organizations that have people who belong to things called press galleries.
	They have credentials from a press gallery.
	Are you familiar with that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Did you think that Mr. Ateba had credentials from a press gallery?
	Injection form.
	I don't recall at this time.
	Okay.
	So, in terms of...
	Let me ask you this.
	In terms of why you believed...
	Well, let me stop because I'm making an assumption.
	Did you believe that Today News Africa was a credible and reliable news source?
	It's my recollection that at that moment in time, I was informed that it was.
	Okay, and why did you believe that?
	No, I'd be guessing.
	I would assume because there were other places that were including that image at the time, and people on my staff said that it was.
	Let's first start with the first part.
	There were other places using that image at the time.
	Sitting here today, you can't name any of those, right?
	I can't remember them unless I go through.
	Perhaps your suit.
	I believe you include some.
	There's definitely some.
	You definitely have co-defendants, right, who have done it on varying dates.
	I'm sure you've, like, none of these people, you understand we have lawyers in this room from Univision and Newsmax and for Mr. Schroyer.
	None of those, you didn't rely or see on any of their reporting to do your reporting.
	Rejection form.
	They would have been included.
	Well, some of them occurred after your reporting, so that wouldn't have been them, right?
	The ones that occurred before, as you just mentioned.
	Right.
	Do you know any of those?
	I would have to go through your suit.
	Okay.
	I think we can assume...
	Let me take a publication.
	I'll take one out of thin air.
	I think we can assume that you would find a publication like Huffington Post to be frequently unreliable.
	Am I right in that?
	No.
	Can you give me an example of a media outlet that you would believe that is not sufficiently reliable enough for you to use the word reliable for them?
	Yeah, sure.
	I'm looking for a media organization you don't find to be generally credible.
	That you would say, hey, these people are...
	Frequently enough unreliable that I don't think they should be relied on for state of fact.
	Do you know a media organization like that?
	Well, the issue is there can be many different news outlets that are reliable at that moment in time, especially if it's original reporting.
	And that's why multiple sources are often included.
	But Huffington Post, I would say, is reliably opinion presented, obviously leaning left.
	As far as unreliable, Anyone can be unreliable, make mistakes, and they can be reliable in other instances.
	Right, but we talked about how not all sources are equal.
	Some sources are well more reliable than others, right?
	Sometimes.
	Okay, so let's take, for instance, well, let's take Huffington Post.
	Huffington Post has a White House correspondent.
	You understand that?
	If you say so.
	Okay, that fact, the fact that they have a White House correspondent, that doesn't make them reliable, does it?
	It would be something taken into consideration.
	I would tend to imagine that you would find the majority of White House correspondents to be generally unreliable.
	Is that not true?
	Objection form.
	I would generally disagree with many of them.
	Well, I mean, you tell your audience on a pretty regular basis that various mainstream organizations are lying to them.
	Right?
	That's correct.
	Not just unreliable, not just makes mistakes, actively lies to them.
	You've told your audience that many times about mainstream media.
	And there is a difference, yes.
	And so, say you've got a mainstream media organization, one that you've criticized for lying in the past.
	It wouldn't follow for you to consider that organization to be generally reliable, would it?
	No, that's incorrect.
	Can you reconcile for me how, I mean, look, we're talking about the bad old MSM, the ones who lie all the time.
	Can you reconcile to me your position publicly that these organizations are filled with politicized liars with the idea that, no, actually, they're generally reliable?
	I didn't say they were generally reliable.
	Okay, that's what I want to make sure of.
	I said I wouldn't write them off as unreliable.
	Right.
	Who I disagree with politically, tremendously, who have outright lied in some instances and then have done original reporting in other instances.
	And so you know to do your own due diligence when you're dealing with that kind of media outlet, right?
	Objection form.
	Go ahead.
	With any media outlet.
	With any media outlet.
	Right off one is completely unreliable or one is completely reliable.
	And why it's important to do your own due diligence, correct?
	And why I think it's most important to make your references publicly available.
	All right.
	In order for the image to be shown on your show that day...
	Again, we talked about it.
	It wasn't the...
	When you're...
	Broadcasting on the show as you're saying it, that's not the first time you see that image.
	You saw it before you went on the show.
	Yes.
	And you would have to, in order for the image to be shown on your show, you would have to approve its use.
	Objection form.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And once you use the image and approve it, were other Louder With Crowder staff members permitted to use that image or would they have to take some additional steps before they could use the image?
	They would be able to use it.
	Okay.
	Before you decided to use our client's image, did you know if you were looking at the original image?
	What do you mean?
	If the image that you were looking at was the original image, or if it had been somebody else's edited image, if it had been cropped, changed, manipulated, anything like that?
	I don't recall at this time.
	That would have been a process with staff with any image.
	Did you know who took the original image?
	I don't recall at this time.
	Did you know when the photo was taken?
	I don't recall at this time.
	That's why I referenced the person who had...
	Included that image.
	Did you know where the photo was taken?
	I don't recall it this time.
	Did you at least know why the photo was taken?
	Again, I don't recall it this time.
	Okay.
	Well, we know we're looking at a booking photograph, right?
	Beg your pardon?
	We know we're looking at a booking.
	The photo that you used in my client, we know we're looking at a booking photograph.
	A booking photograph?
	Correct.
	You mean like, do you mean a mugshot?
	Correct.
	Well, I don't know that we know that right now, but that was the reporting from resources at that time.
	Let's put it this way.
	That's the information you had at that time.
	That's the information that was being reported on at that time.
	All right.
	Considering it was a...
	In other words, if the information you relied on is, hey, I'm looking at a mugshot.
	I'm looking at a booking photograph.
	Let me go back.
	Let me actually scratch that question.
	You knew the shooter wasn't arrested for the shooting, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And you knew that from law enforcement on their announcement of his name and age and details that he had no criminal history, right?
	That the shooter had no criminal history?
	Right.
	The shooter who was killed in Allen?
	Correct.
	I don't recall that at this time that he had no criminal history.
	Would it be the normal practice of your show when covering an event like this to keep up with the announcements from DPS and City Allen police, the law enforcement officials?
	I don't know at that specific instance in time.
	I would imagine there would be an aggregation of sources.
	Okay.
	Well, let me ask you this.
	That's where we got the footage.
	I don't know where we got the footage of the officer who, you know, shot the shooter.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	But again, I don't remember.
	Assume for me that you had taken the efforts to find out about the details of the shooter, right?
	That he was Mauricio Garcia, 33 years of age, Dallas, Texas, no criminal history.
	If you had known that information, you would have known the image that you were looking at.
	This mugshot was not the shooter, right?
	No.
	All right, well, let me try to walk you through the logic of this.
	Go ahead and assume for me that you knew, right?
	And I don't know if you did.
	I don't know if you did or you did not look at this or whatever.
	I'm not making that assumption.
	But if you did know the shooter had no criminal history and you knew he wasn't arrested for the shooting, you knew that mugshot wasn't a picture of the shooter.
	Right?
	If you had known that information, you would have reached that conclusion.
	No.
	Can you explain to me how a person with no criminal history and no arrest for the shooting, how they would have a mugshot?
	You were the one who said, we are under the assumption that it's a mugshot.
	I just want to make sure I'm understanding, because obviously it's a little complicated.
	You just mentioned Mauricio Garcia, 33 years old.
	Right?
	Dallas, Texas area.
	Hispanic.
	That information is accurate to my understanding.
	Yes.
	All that's accurate.
	Okay.
	And the image was not?
	Right.
	The image is Mauricio Garcia, 36 years old in Dallas.
	Right.
	I understand that.
	Okay.
	What I'm asking you is something a little different.
	Is that if you knew, if the information you were being reported is, hey, this mugshot is the shooter.
	But if you had known.
	If you had known he had no criminal history and wasn't arrested for the shooting, you should have concluded based on that information that that's not the shooter.
	Is that fair?
	No, I disagree.
	Okay.
	Again, can you try to explain to me how somebody who has no criminal history and was not arrested for the shooting, how they would have a booking photograph?
	I was reporting on the reported information that include the other information, which we both just agreed was accurate, and an image.
	I don't remember the rest of the details.
	I'm not asking any of that, though.
	I'm asking a very simple question.
	If you had known...
	Let's go ahead and take this completely away from the Alan shooting and treat this as a hypothetical.
	You have an individual you're trying to identify and match with a picture.
	And you have two pieces of information.
	On one, you have somebody reporting, hey, this mugshot is the shooter.
	And then the other piece of information you have is that person has no criminal history and that person was not arrested for the event.
	If you know those two pieces of information, you should know that the first piece of information, that mugshot, is not the shooter, right?
	It's a hypothetical question.
	I don't know that the researchers at that moment in time knew that.
	I don't know that that was included in the original reporting, and it's why we made sure to list the original reporting and report it on their reporting.
	I don't know that that information was known.
	I'm sitting here, I'm telling you right now, I don't think you or your people did know that.
	I don't think so.
	I have positions about whether I think you should have known that.
	But what I'm asking is, if you did know it...
	If you did know the shooter had no criminal history, and you did know that the shooter was not arrested at the scene, then you would have known that a mugshot was not the shooter.
	Or at least would have raised serious doubts about whether that was the correct image.
	Right?
	If one did know that there was no criminal history, if one knew that there had never been any type of image taken in a police precinct or legal...
	Type situation or context.
	If one knew that definitively and then knew that that was definitively a mugshot, then that would be a reasonable assumption, I believe, if I've met those prerequisites that you've said.
	And now assume for me that you didn't know for sure, but you had conflicting reports.
	You had one report saying it was a mugshot.
	You had another report saying there was no criminal history and no arrest.
	Without knowing which one is true.
	You would agree that that would create a situation in which that would produce significant doubt about whether that image is correct or not.
	Right?
	I don't know.
	All right.
	Hey, Mark, when you get to a stopping point, can we take a break since it's been about an hour?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	That's not a bad idea.
	Let's do that and...
	I'll tell you what.
	You want to take a 20 minute, maybe?
	Something like that?
	Is that okay?
	20 minutes?
	Do you want us to do that?
	Sure, that's fine.
	Back at 2.50?
	Yep, sounds good to me.
	Off the record at 2:29 p.m.
	The time is 2:53 p.m.
	We're back on the record.
	I want to ask you about something you said during the show.
	You had kind of started your segment there about the shooter's identity by saying who the shooter was, a lot of what the media is telling you is bullshit.
	You remember saying that?
	Yeah.
	What was bullshit about it?
	Well, if I recall in the context of that when we ran clips or segments of this effect was the white supremacist mass shooter.
	And then, of course, the aggressive push for gun control and that the media had initially just covered it as a white supremacist mass shooter and then didn't go back to it, which was a pattern.
	What do you mean didn't go back to it?
	What does that mean?
	Didn't go back to the story that they said they would be reporting on once new information had come out and instead pivoted to, you know, gun control measures.
	And I believe that we were pointing out at that point that the black officer used what would be described as an assault weapon.
	So are you saying that they abandoned the idea that the shooter was a white supremacist?
	I'm saying that the coverage was significantly less afterward.
	After what?
	After the name and information on the shooter was available.
	Well, the name was available well before you did your broadcast.
	Sure.
	In other words, when the media was calling this person a white supremacist, this narrative that they allegedly abandoned, it was known that the shooter was a Hispanic man.
	Well, I didn't say they allegedly abandoned that.
	Okay.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm getting really confused by some of your answers today, and I apologize for that.
	Because what I believe that I had heard is that they shifted the story away from this white supremacy stuff once new information came out.
	No, they shifted away from the wall-to-wall coverage altogether.
	Wall-to-wall coverage of the shooting or the coverage that he was a white supremacist?
	Of the event altogether, yes.
	The initial coverage was white supremacist mass shooting.
	And then when the story was Hispanic male mass shooter taken out by a black officer with, I believe, an AR-15 or something equivalent.
	The story was not covered with the same zeal, and I believe that's the point that we were addressing.
	Contextual.
	I'm not understanding, though, from the day of the shooting, or at least the day after, at least since May 7th, we all knew it was a Hispanic mass shooter, right?
	I believe you're correct the day after, yes.
	And so when the media was pushing this story about that, law enforcement sources were saying that he was a white supremacist.
	They did that knowing he was Hispanic.
	Not initially.
	I don't understand, Mr. Crowder.
	We knew his name was...
	We knew on May 7th, before your reporting, a full day before your reporting, the whole world knew that this was Mauricio Garcia, a Hispanic mass shooter, right?
	That's what we reported that day, yes.
	I believe your memory is correct.
	It was the day after the shooting.
	Right.
	And then the day after that is when you did your reporting.
	Right.
	So we already knew he was a spam feed.
	That didn't change.
	Nothing changed in terms of his identity.
	I did because I believe the information became available after I... I believe what you just showed me was a Monday.
	I'll take your word for it.
	I think that was the clip that you just shown.
	So if it would have been available during the weekend, but not when the shooting had just taken place.
	So initially it was simply white supremacist mass shooting.
	And that was covered with great enthusiasm.
	And then the day after, as I believe your recollection is correct, Hispanic male, it wasn't covered with the same extensive coverage.
	Let's walk through the chronology.
	All right, we have the shooting on May 6th.
	And on May 6th, we don't know anything about the shooting.
	There's no information on who the shooter was, his identity, his motivations, anything.
	Do you agree with that?
	I don't know if that's correct, and I don't know that the media was covering it that way.
	I believe they were covering it as a white supremacist immediately.
	All right.
	I would...
	I think if you go back and you look at these events, what you're going to find happened is that the New York Times published from law enforcement sources saying that Mauricio Garcia had social media that had neo-Nazi ideation, he had tattoos, and that they were looking at a social media site.
	That's where all this comes from, this New York Times report.
	And on that day, as that's being reported, it's being reported that the guy's name is Mauricio Garcia.
	So what I'm trying to understand is what new information came to light that you say made the media change the narrative of its story.
	I would imagine that it's a Hispanic male being labeled a white supremacist.
	And that was why they didn't cover it nearly as extensively, though.
	Let me just make sure I have you correct.
	Do you think that the media was saying, that mainstream media outlets were saying that the shooter was a white supremacist shooter, and they did that?
	Without saying that he was Hispanic or given his name.
	I believe that they were reporting, my recollection is reporting that he was a white supremacist.
	And as it was circulating, this was a Hispanic male.
	The story was not being covered with the same zeal, yeah.
	Now again, I'm going back to the idea of, do you believe that there were reports identifying the shooter as a white supremacist?
	That also did not include his name and a clue to his ethnic identity.
	There could have been.
	I don't recall exactly.
	I'm going by your timeline.
	I do remember at that point in time it was labeled the greatest domestic terror threat, white supremacy.
	That was something in the media quite a bit.
	It was always something being covered.
	Completely.
	I agree.
	I agree.
	You don't have any reason to dispute with me that the shooter's name was known on May 7. I don't have any reason to dispute.
	Okay.
	You said that...
	You said that my client has a very Hispanic-looking face?
	What does that mean?
	It means exactly what I said.
	Can you explain it to me?
	I'm confused as to what that means.
	You're confused as to what a Hispanic person looks like?
	Yeah, is there anybody Hispanic on this Zoom call right now?
	Objection form.
	Well, I see a lot of boxes.
	Well, you got some pictures in front of you.
	You got gallery view.
	Is there any Hispanics on the call right now?
	Objection form.
	Not one that would jump out to me is a very clearly Hispanic male face.
	All right, so help me understand what that is because there is a Hispanic on this call.
	What is a very Hispanic-looking face?
	Objection form.
	In the context of white supremacists, people generally think of white people, and this was clearly a Hispanic male.
	Are you saying that Hispanic people are not white?
	That's what you're saying?
	I'm saying they aren't typically white supremacists.
	Where'd you get that idea?
	You believe that Hispanic people aren't white?
	There are no white supremacists Hispanic people.
	I didn't say no, I said typically.
	Right.
	That means that there are, that does exist.
	If you say, yeah, typically, that comes with a but, doesn't it?
	But there are Hispanic white supremacists.
	Right?
	If you say there are some.
	I'm asking you.
	Did you know that?
	I would imagine that people who are not particularly white Don't make great white supremacists.
	That's an interesting question.
	It wasn't a question.
	First of all, it actually raises a very interesting question.
	Do you know what a Chicano is?
	I know the term Chicano, yes.
	And I'm using that to mean an ethnic identity for Mexican-Americans who have a non-Anglo self-image.
	You've heard that term before, Chicano?
	I'm sorry, could you repeat that?
	Yeah, but I'm using it to mean an ethnic identity for Mexican Americans who have a non-Anglo self-image.
	Sure.
	You've heard Chicano used that way, right?
	I've heard the term Chicano, yes.
	Not every Hispanic is a Chicano.
	You'd agree with that?
	Of course.
	And there are Hispanics, you understood, as of last year, you understood there are Hispanics who do have an Anglo self-image.
	Sure.
	You may not.
	What I'm saying is you may not see them as white, but there are Hispanics who definitely see themselves as white.
	Rejection form.
	Like from Spain, perhaps, yeah?
	No, I'm saying there's Mexicans.
	No, I'm saying Mexican-Americans.
	There are Mexican-Americans who identify as white.
	Rejection form.
	Okay.
	Did you understand that?
	Well, I understand that.
	Okay.
	And so let me put it this way.
	You understood when covering the shooting that the quote-unquote whiteness of Hispanic people has been heavily culturally litigated over the past 60 years and up to the present day.
	That's something you understood.
	Injection form.
	I don't understand the question.
	I'm trying to say...
	Hispanic white has been litigated in the last 60 years?
	I just want to understand.
	Yeah, yeah, culturally litigated.
	In other words, let me put it this way.
	I take it you know, in your life, you've known some Hispanic people, and some of them might have names like Robert, and some of them might have names like Roberto.
	You understand what I mean?
	Very well.
	And you understand what I mean by assimilationism, that there is a part of Hispanic culture.
	That has attempted to be assimilationist and adopt into white American culture.
	You know that exists.
	I understand that it exists.
	You understand that there is also another separate part of Hispanic culture, which is non-assimilationist, which rejects an Anglo self-identity, right?
	Sure.
	And you understand that some people who are Hispanic identify as white.
	Whereas other people in our culture do not consider them white.
	You understand that?
	Are you saying that some people identify as white and other people don't identify?
	Yes.
	Consider them white.
	Yes, I understand.
	Well, I understand white supremacy very well, but they would not include any of the aforementioned groups amongst them.
	Right.
	They would not allow it, which is why it's a repugnant ideology.
	Right.
	So what I'm saying is...
	You already knew when broadcasting this show that not only do some Hispanics identify as white, let's go back.
	When I talk about cultural litigation, for instance, the real shooter, let's talk about the real 33-year-old Mauricio Garcia who committed this crime.
	That person very well might consider themselves white or considered before their death, but you didn't consider them white, correct?
	Objection form.
	Would I consider a Hispanic-looking male white?
	No, I would consider them a Hispanic male.
	Do you know what the real shooter looks like?
	What the real shooter looks like?
	It is my understanding that he's a Hispanic male.
	Well, I'm asking you, does he have a very Hispanic-looking face?
	Objection form.
	To the best of my recollection, he looks Hispanic, yes.
	Okay.
	You understood when doing your broadcast that not only do some Hispanics identify as whites, some identify as neo-Nazis and white supremacists.
	You knew that, right?
	No.
	You didn't know that?
	That was new information to you?
	I believe if you watched the show, it was comical information.
	You found it funny that a Hispanic person, in an attempt to litigate their own whiteness, might associate with white supremacy and white supremacist ideas?
	I find it comical that someone who would not be accepted amongst racist white supremacists in any way, shape, or form would identify with them.
	You're really in touch with how a racist white supremacist might view certain people?
	Is that something you know a lot about?
	Objection form.
	Are you asking me personally?
	I don't know.
	Look, I know there are Hispanic white supremacists.
	That's a thing that exists, right?
	I know that.
	I know there are neo-Nazi white supremacists who have Hispanic backgrounds, right?
	And I think what you're saying is that that's actually not possible because no white supremacists would ever associate.
	Objection form.
	So I guess what I'm getting at is...
	Correct.
	As a general rule, white supremacists tend to be quite racist.
	Right.
	I get that.
	And Hispanic white supremacists also tend to be quite racist, don't they?
	Objection form.
	I know that Hispanic people can be racist as anyone can be racist.
	I'm asking you specifically, though, about Hispanic white supremacists can be very, very racist, right?
	Objection form.
	I would imagine if a Hispanic person identifies as a white supremacist, that they would be quite racist.
	I think we can agree there.
	Now, I think as we've established, not every Hispanic is visibly clockable as being Hispanic.
	Would you agree with that?
	Sure.
	Okay.
	And Hispanic being a big...
	You understand there are a lot of different backgrounds that a person could have that would make them Hispanic?
	Absolutely, or Latino.
	For instance, Ted Cruz.
	He's Hispanic, but he's also Canadian like you, right?
	Well, I'm American, but...
	Oh, I thought you were Canadian.
	I was raised in Canada, but I was born in Michigan.
	Anchor baby, right?
	No, my dad's American.
	Oh, are they too?
	My dad's American, my grandparents are American.
	Oh, so you were just a temporary expat then, basically.
	Well, mom's French-Canadian and we lived there for a while, so you automatically get a citizenship when your mother is French-Canadian in Quebec, but I don't know that anchor baby would be appropriate.
	No, yeah, it sounds more like you just maybe have a dual background there on both sides of the border.
	Sure.
	Northern South.
	Yeah.
	We're talking about Hispanic.
	They exist in Canada, too.
	That's true.
	That's true.
	So I think one of the things we can get to is that it's impossible to paint the entire Hispanic community with a broad brush in terms of you can look at them and identify them as Hispanic, right?
	Correct, which is why I issued the qualifier of a very Hispanic-looking person.
	Right.
	So when you saw my client's photo and his Very Hispanic-looking face.
	You thought you could use that on your show to show that the media was lying, right?
	The idea, again, there's lying and there's a narrative.
	There's a difference that white supremacists, people obviously, whether you can litigate it here, or culturally litigate it, people have an image in mind when they think of white supremacists, and it's generally not Hispanic-looking people.
	It's generally not Chicanos, right?
	I said it's generally not Hispanic-looking people.
	But I think what we're getting at, like, look, you look at a picture of my client, right?
	And he's got the Gothic script tattoo of his girlfriend on his neck.
	He's got the lowrider haircut, the Edgar haircut, right?
	You can look at my client, and you can know...
	This is a guy who identifies with his Mexican roots.
	You think that's pretty clear from looking at him?
	Objection form.
	If I were asked if he looked Hispanic, I would answer yes.
	Right.
	And in fact, he doesn't really look like the kind of Hispanic who would be a white supremacist, does he?
	Objection form.
	Well, any Hispanic, again, is...
	Difficult to reconcile in the United States as a white supremacist, given how white supremacists view Hispanics.
	Again, maybe for you, right?
	But we know there are neo-Nazi Hispanics.
	We know that there are white supremacist Hispanics.
	But they don't tend to look like my client, do they?
	Objection form.
	I don't know.
	Okay.
	But as far as about...
	Remember we looked at earlier, we saw about how...
	The idea here was you had information on this shooting, and you were going to show the lies of the mainstream media.
	But when it comes to the identity of the shooter, you were incorrect about that.
	The media wasn't lying, right?
	All the other information was correct, as you listed, as far as the age, the name, person, and yeah, the image was incorrectly sourced.
	I'm not talking about what you did.
	I'm talking about when it comes to the shooter's identity, the media didn't lie.
	The mainstream media outlets that you identified, they didn't lie.
	I believe they were misleading.
	In what way were they misleading?
	In saying white supremacists and then abandoning the story once they realized that the person was Hispanic.
	Even if you may say so.
	The media decided that it wasn't a story they wanted to cover as much.
	All right.
	Because we have an idea of what a white supremacist looks like, I would imagine.
	Right.
	Well, I want to...
	Right.
	And he didn't look like my client, did he?
	Objection form.
	White supremacists wouldn't look like someone who looks Hispanic.
	Right.
	I'm talking about the actual shooter.
	And I know that you're hesitant to call him a neo-Nazi shooter, but I'm going to call a chair a chair.
	He's a neo-Nazi shooter.
	And that neo-Nazi, he doesn't look like my client.
	Mariso Garcia, the neo-Nazi shooter?
	Right.
	Doesn't look like my client.
	I don't recall how much they look alike.
	Again, it's a little confusing because there's two Mariso Garcias.
	All right.
	The media was accurate that The shooter was Mauricio Garcia, the mainstream media outlets that you cited.
	They were accurate about that, right?
	Yes.
	They were accurate that he was 33 years old.
	That's my understanding.
	They were accurate that he had neo-Nazi, multiple neo-Nazi tattoos on his body.
	That's my understanding.
	They were right that he had a vest that was for right-wing death squad.
	Correct?
	I don't recall that, but if you say so.
	They were correct that he had a social media presence where he expressed neo-Nazi views.
	I don't recall that, but if you say so.
	Okay.
	I'm just trying to figure out what they might have said about the shooter's identity, if anything.
	That was bullshit.
	Yeah, well, as you said, the shooting happened, I believe, on the 6th.
	And the 7th.
	It's my understanding that the media was running with the narrative of white supremacists before the sevens.
	And certainly running with the narrative that white supremacy is the greatest domestic terror threat in the United States.
	And certainly pushing the narrative of gun control.
	And so the bullshit there is because a black officer, who if my recollection is correct, was either off duty or responding to a call at chance, shot the man with his own firearm.
	That has nothing to do with who the shooter was.
	You asked what the media was presenting that I believed was bullshit.
	Actually, what I asked you was, when it comes to the reporting on the shooter's identity, when you said who the shooter was, a lot of what the media is telling you is bullshit.
	What were they telling you that was bullshit about who the shooter was?
	Objection form.
	Again, you showed a brief clip.
	I believe the entire show was devoted to the narrative and clips from the media and what they were presenting and why it was misleading.
	As far as a shooter on the 7th, if the articles that you bring up are accurate, then it seems they got the name and age correct.
	I mean, they got everything correct, right?
	What didn't they get correct?
	Again, they were misleading and the other information surrounding it.
	About who the shooter was?
	You asked me what I believe was bullshit from the media.
	Again, I'm going to tell you again what I'm asking you.
	Is when you said who the shooter was, a lot of what the media is telling you is bullshit.
	When it comes to who the shooter was, there was nothing that was bullshit, was there?
	I don't know about their initial reporting, which would have been the sixth.
	And that's what people believe, right?
	If something is front-page center news, and we know this, how the media works, front-page center news, white supremacists without that information, a narrative, gun control before the bodies assume room temperature, the information comes out the next day, and that goes up in an article that people don't read to the same degree, people still believe the preconceived notions from when the media was initially reporting.
	But okay, let's go ahead and assume for me.
	I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to tell you.
	This ain't real, what I'm about to tell you, Fred.
	I'm pretty up to speed on the media coverage.
	But let's just go ahead and assume that your understanding of it is accurate.
	That on May 7th, the media reported that he was a white supremacist.
	And that was the only fact they reported.
	They didn't report that his name was Mauricio Garcia or that he was Hispanic.
	Assume for me that that happened.
	It didn't.
	Or May 6th, yeah.
	Or May 6th, right?
	Good.
	I can tell you, the shooter's name was not known on May 6th.
	There was no information about the shooter.
	No, not the shooter, but the idea of a white supremacist shooter, yes.
	Right, not that either, right?
	None of that even happened, right?
	But go ahead and assume for me that it did.
	Go ahead and assume for me that the media reported that the shooter had white supremacist leanings.
	That's not bullshit, right?
	That's 100% accurate, right?
	If they reported that he had white supremacist leanings, Mauricio Garcia on the 7th?
	Sure.
	Right.
	So again, about the shooter's identity, about who he was, there's nothing they said was bullshit.
	Right?
	I disagree.
	As it relates to the story at large, I disagree.
	Again, not asking you about...
	I know that...
	We've been talking about this idea that there was a gun control narrative and that there was a cop who shot him, so therefore that invalidates gun control in some way because there was a cop with a gun.
	So, I mean, I'm not sure who's trying to regulate cops having guns or how that ties in, but I get that that's a whole separate discussion, right?
	But what I'm saying is in terms of the media's identity of the shooter, the details that it reported about who the shooter was and what his background was, what his belief systems were.
	None of that was bullshit, and never was.
	Right?
	Yeah, I don't know if that's true.
	All right, so again, trying to focus down so you can tell me, because this is my chance to get to have you.
	No, I was just throwing because you said you didn't know anyone who was trying to regulate cops with guns, and it was an off-duty officer with an AR-15.
	I find that difficult to believe that you are not aware of that.
	So I just, I thought this was taking place in good faith.
	No, and I mean, I am unaware of that.
	Are you saying that there's some sort of legislation in the works to make it so that off-duty officers don't have access to their weapons when they're off-duty or something like that?
	Objection form.
	Yeah, I'm being serious, man.
	I don't know about any legislation like that.
	Are you not aware of the movement for non-lethal weapons, including tasers, to be used by officers?
	I mean...
	No, I don't believe it's so.
	And of course, whether you're on duty or off duty, those weapons, yeah, were being included in a list of weapons that should be a part of gun control, which was used to stop the Hispanic shooter who was presented as white supremacist.
	There were important components to the story.
	I believe the media was being misleading about that.
	Extremely fascinating line of inquiry that we could get into on all of these issues.
	If we were in any other situation, I would love to talk to you about the vagaries of gun control and all of that, but not terribly relevant to what I want to ask you about today, right?
	And so what I'm really focusing in on is the idea of the shooter's identity, the details of the shooter's identity, his belief systems, his backgrounds, everything about who he is, right?
	I believe you told me that when I said that none of that was bullshit, you said you didn't agree with that.
	And I'm trying to figure out, because it's my chance to ask you questions today.
	Is if you can tell me what the mainstream media organizations that you cited got wrong about the shooter's identity, background, and belief systems.
	And my answer is that those are not mere vagaries when they were the primary driving narrative of the story.
	That's why the story was being covered.
	And that's why the other information there was correct.
	There was a mistake on the image, as we've already discussed.
	But I don't believe that those were vagaries.
	Gun control, white supremacy, black officer.
	I agree that white supremacy is a key element to what we're talking about.
	I'm not sure that gun control is, but we'll just disagree on it.
	But what I'm asking you, and again, I'm just trying to get a straight answer to this, to know if there is or there isn't.
	Was there anything that the mainstream media said about the shooter's identity, who he was, his background, or belief system?
	That was bullshit.
	I don't recall beyond the examples that I've given you.
	It is my recollection that on May 6th they were already labeling it another white supremacist massacre.
	Let's say they were.
	Let's say they were.
	And they weren't, but let's say they were.
	That's not wrong.
	That's not bullshit.
	Right?
	Disagree.
	Let's get back to that issue of, I think this gets back to the idea of you're hesitant to call this person a neo-Nazi mashu, right?
	Remember us talking about that?
	I do.
	Alright, so it's not enough that he has neo-Nazi tattoos.
	It's not enough that he had a social media presence that had neo-Nazi beliefs.
	What would it take for you to be able to call somebody a neo-Nazi?
	objection form?
	Probably someone being in an official neo-Nazi organization and typically white as far as presenting it to the public in relation to the threat that was presented.
	White domestic terrorism is the term that was used.
	So, white neo-Nazi would be relevant to domestic terrorism, which I also disagree with.
	Alright, so to be a neo-Nazi...
	You have to be white, and you have to be a member of a neo-Nazi organization.
	Anything else?
	In general, that would be a good start.
	That's true, even though, as we just discussed, there are Hispanic neo-Nazis.
	In general, yes.
	Let me bring up, I want to talk to you a little bit about the series of videos you did on this.
	Let's bring up tab 5. Mark, we're renaming this 4. Oh, that's right.
	This is tab 4, and we'll offer this as Exhibit 4. Now, I was directed to a page that I know you don't operate.
	Let me make sure.
	Let's get that on the record first.
	We have a page here that's MGTOW.TV. You see that?
	Yes, I see it in the corner there.
	Okay.
	You familiar with that abbreviation?
	I'm not, no.
	You ever heard of men going their own way?
	No.
	It's like an incel thing.
	I'm not sure if you know what incel is.
	I'm familiar with the term incel.
	Okay.
	This is men who are anti-feminist and separatist and that sort of thing.
	But I noticed that there is a Stephen Crowder account on this website.
	Does that have anything to do with your company or you?
	No.
	Okay.
	You understand, as we were talking earlier, that people republish your stuff on the internet all the time.
	Of course they can.
	Yeah.
	And in fact, it's not actually the worst thing in the world for you because that might direct people to your website to buy your stuff, things like that.
	There's some benefit to you from that.
	We would agree.
	Not necessarily.
	Okay.
	Now, on your YouTube page...
	I'd rather people not rip and upload our content.
	Okay.
	On your YouTube page now, the videos...
	If you'll see here in the top middle, there's videos that I've pictured with my client.
	You see what I'm referring to?
	Yes.
	Those videos no longer exist on the Steven Crowder YouTube or Rumble pages, right?
	Objection form.
	That's my understanding.
	Okay.
	And so part of the reason I'm showing you this is because here we have the two episodes that you had done on it in order, right?
	I think what you agree with me is that if you look at the top two middle videos, those are actually the same video.
	You agree?
	That's what it looks like?
	Those are the same video?
	That's what it looks like to me.
	I haven't watched every minute of it, but they have basically the same time, same title.
	Very similar thumbnail.
	I'm assuming that's the same episode.
	You didn't do two episodes about my client, right?
	I couldn't answer.
	This is my first time seeing it.
	One looks like a different time code from the other, actually.
	12510, 12521. So, I don't know.
	Again, I'm not familiar with this channel.
	Yeah, okay.
	But we do know that the next day, we see at the top left, it also has your next day episode.
	This one that was titled, Are Intelligence Agencies Involved in Texas Mass Shooting?
	You see that?
	I see what you're showing me, yes.
	Okay, so in the middle picture videos, we see that those episodes were the ones in which, or episode, was the one in which you used an image of my client as the shooter, right?
	It would appear so.
	Now, the episode the next day...
	What you're showing there, that's a picture of the real shooter there of his Nazi tattoos, right?
	To the best of my recollection.
	All right.
	And once it became clear, once it became clear to you that there was images out there of this person of neo-Nazi tattoos, your next report was to say that intelligence agencies might be involved in this shooting, right?
	Injection form?
	I don't recall.
	Have you watched the May 9th show recently, like, in preparation for this deposition?
	No, I haven't watched it.
	Okay.
	Would you disagree with me that once all this came out about the shooters, pictures of the shooter's actual body, that once that happened, you started suggesting that this incident was some sort of PSYOP or psychological operation?
	I don't believe that I referred, I don't recall referring to it as a PSYOP. Okay.
	Do you have any idea why you thought intelligence agencies might be involved?
	Is that something you thought?
	I don't recall, but it wouldn't be surprising.
	Explain that to me.
	It wouldn't be surprising for U.S. intelligence agencies to be involved in this neo-Nazi mass shooting?
	That's not surprising?
	I would imagine that intelligence agencies would be involved with any.
	A type of mass shooting that would require the use of intelligence.
	Wait, you're meaning that what you're saying right now is you think intelligence agencies would be involved after the fact in some way, like investigating it?
	They could.
	That's not what this show is about, right?
	You understand that.
	I don't recall.
	Is it something like the Hunter Biden laptop story?
	I don't think so.
	Because I know we've talked about those.
	I don't remember this one, though.
	Let me see if I can refresh your memory.
	You know what Bellingcat is, right?
	Beg your pardon?
	You know what Bellingcat?
	You know what that is?
	Bedlamcat?
	Bellingcat.
	B-E-L-I-N-G-C-A-T. B-E-L-I-N-G-C-A-T? Let me try it this way.
	You know somebody discovered the social media profile of the shooter.
	You know that happened.
	I don't recall.
	Do you know where you got that picture of the swastika and the SS bolts?
	Rejection form.
	I don't recall where the staff would have gotten that picture.
	Does the name Arik Toler, a researcher from Bellingcat, does that ring a bell to you?
	I don't recall.
	Wow, okay.
	Do you remember on this May 9th show that you said there was some confusion over which was the real photo of the shooter?
	I vaguely recall, I believe, Gerald saying that, and I believe that was mentioned.
	All right, let's make it clear.
	You have never told your audience that you showed an incorrect picture on your show.
	Injection form.
	Again, I don't recall.
	What you're saying sounds correct, that someone said there was confusion about the image.
	Right, but you know, one of the things that when I first reached out to you on behalf of my client that I asked, is I asked, could you make a retraction and tell your audience that that was false?
	And you've never done that, have you?
	I don't believe I've ever communicated with you before today.
	Well, I've certainly written you a letter.
	I don't believe we've ever communicated you and I before today.
	That's interesting.
	Have you ever spoken before today?
	We've never spoken, no.
	This whole odyssey began when I wrote a letter on May 22, 2023 addressed to you and your company that first informed you of all of this and then asked you to make a correction.
	Are you aware of that?
	Injection form.
	I'm just trying to...
	You're saying that I responded to you directly?
	No, I don't think you ever responded to me.
	Okay.
	So I don't believe you and I have ever communicated before today.
	Well, I mean, I would say sending you a letter makes it a communication.
	I would say that, yes.
	So what I'm asking you is...
	I don't recall ever myself reading a letter from you.
	I don't.
	Okay.
	And so, in other words, not making a retraction, that wasn't, was that an intentional choice on your part?
	Injection form.
	No, because I don't recall anything that you're discussing, you sending me a letter.
	I don't recall that letter or that request being made from you.
	The only thing I recall is, again, my staff saying there was some confusion and that being addressed on the show.
	Right.
	And part of that show was, in fact, to express your doubts that these images of the shooter with neo-Nazi tattoos were real.
	Right?
	I don't recall.
	Okay.
	You understand that your incorrect coverage of the Allen shooting, it can really mess up people's sense of reality.
	You get that?
	No.
	Alright.
	When it comes to the decision to show this photo, Do you believe you did anything wrong to our client, Mauricio Garcia, who had nothing to do with this?
	I do believe that reporting on the image, which was incorrect, was wrong.
	Yeah, that was a mistake.
	And you understand that calling someone, identifying someone as a neo-Nazi mass murderer when they're not is a damaging thing to do to them.
	Referring to someone who's clearly dead, known nationally, who was a white supremacist shooter, if it existed in a vacuum, sure, just accusing someone of being a neo-Nazi.
	Okay.
	In deciding to show my client's photo, you did not act as carefully as you showed up, right?
	I don't know the process that had taken place from the staff before it got to me, but no, there was a mistake made there.
	And we do our best to, you know, that's why the references are only publicly available, because mistakes are often made.
	You have an admonish button on the show for when mistakes are made live.
	It's a very important component of the show.
	I'm not sure if I know, though, whether you believe, whether you acted as carefully as you should have.
	No, I told you the mistake.
	A mistake was made.
	It was the wrong image.
	That's a mistake.
	That's yes, you did not act as carefully as you should have.
	Objection form.
	The staff and whatever processes took place were not performed correctly and a mistake was made.
	And you're responsible for making sure those processes are in place.
	It's your business, right?
	Objection form.
	I do my best.
	It's a company of around 30-something people.
	Are you saying that like it's a big company?
	No, I'm saying that I can't be doing every job at all times.
	We have practices or methods of approaching stories that usually do a very good job, actually, as far as the track record.
	And if they don't, the references are publicly available as a fail-safe because we believe in transparency.
	And, you know, mistakes definitely can be made.
	In this case, the mistake was definitely made.
	And you are the one responsible for creating and enforcing the policies and requirements for your talk show.
	Objection form?
	No.
	I'm confused.
	You don't think you have any responsibility to run your business in a way that has policies in place to safeguard and guard against false information?
	That's not what I said.
	Well, so you are responsible for doing those things, for making sure that those policies are in place?
	You said enforcing the policies.
	Right.
	I would hope so, right?
	Actually, that's an interesting thing you bring up.
	Was anybody fired for this?
	Objection porn.
	I don't recall.
	I know there are people who no longer work with the company who worked in that department.
	I don't recall if it would have been this incident.
	But there's turnover with things like that all the time.
	But sitting here today, do you think you took any disciplinary action against anybody for this?
	Objection porn.
	Are you asking Steven or Lauder with Crowder?
	I would assume that he would have to do it.
	I mean, he's Steven Crowder of Lauder with Crowder, right?
	No, actually, I'm not in charge of hiring or terminating employees.
	Okay.
	Do you have policies in place for that?
	Objection form.
	I believe there are policies in place for that, as far as hiring and terminating.
	Okay.
	And pursuant to those policies of your company, was anybody fired or terminated or disciplined in any way for this?
	Again, I don't recall.
	I wouldn't have been the one terminating anybody.
	Alright, I remember you saying earlier that we take care to be as careful as possible.
	But here, you weren't careful as possible, were you?
	Objection form.
	It seems that there was a breakdown in the process of communications where a mistake was made.
	You did not, before you got on your show, before you showed this image to the world.
	You did not investigate the truth or falsity of the photo before you showed it.
	Injection form.
	Incorrect.
	Well, from what I understand, you relied on the fact that it had been reported by a source you found suitable, right?
	You did no independent investigation of the photo yourself.
	Myself, personally?
	Correct.
	No.
	Members of the staff of the company who are tasked with doing that obviously did so in error.
	And you would agree that this photo should have been investigated more fully before it was put on the air?
	I would agree with that being the case if not reporting on someone else's reporting and pointing out to people the source of the reporting.
	That is something that we have to do very often.
	I want to make sure I get this to make sure I understand this.
	It is your belief that if you have a media organization, Today News Africa will call that a media organization for these purposes, right?
	If you have this media organization and you find them suitable, that that is all the fact checking you need to do.
	And you can put the image that they say is a mass murder on the air to your audience.
	That's right.
	All those pre-rec?
	No.
	Okay.
	So what else has to happen before you can do it?
	Before you can do what?
	Before you can put that picture out to people.
	Let me just start by, you got a website and it's saying, this is the shooter.
	No sourcing, just this is the shooter.
	And you got it on a website.
	And I guess you find that website suitable.
	Is that enough or what else has to happen before you can put that out to people?
	No, again, it was saying according to this source, this is the shooter, and there were other, as I recall, other existing sources.
	So there just has to be some other existing source.
	I'm just trying to get them all.
	So what we have is...
	That would be a minimum that there would often have to be at least more than one place that that is seen.
	It's not the only process.
	So we have, in an article...
	It's used in an article by someone purporting to be a media organization.
	And then if you see it somewhere else, then we're done.
	We can put it on the air.
	Nothing else needs to happen.
	I didn't say nothing else needs to happen.
	What else needs to happen?
	Certainly, if this is something that is novel or new, you would have to cite the source and say according to them, which is very important, especially when there's original reporting that's not your own.
	Only to give credit.
	Sometimes they're investigative journalists who are the only sources of information that exist.
	And you have to give them credit and say according to this person because that's the information that you have available at the time.
	Alright, so now let's put that on.
	And then make it publicly available.
	So as long as you have a website that covers news that you find suitable, uses the image, and then you see it somewhere else.
	And as long as you say that you got it from the source you got it from, Today News Africa, that's all we need to do.
	Now we're done.
	We can put it on the air.
	Right?
	What else needs to happen?
	Depends on the story.
	What needed to happen here?
	I couldn't tell you what needed to happen here at that moment in time.
	That's a shame because that is literally what I came to ask you about.
	And I think that will call it a day for today.
	Thank you for your time, Mr. Crowder, and see you soon.
	All right, we're ready.
	I'm sorry.

▲