Knowledge Fight - #378: Formulaic Objections Part 2

Dec. 16, 2019 - Knowledge Fight

03:08:24

#378: Formulaic Objections Part 2

# wolfgang_halbig the_kraken texas_court_of_appeals 2014_visit 2019_depositions 4chan alex_jones anderson_cooper bob_smith chobani_yogurt_controversy clintons conspiracy_theory dan_badandi dayton_shooting demon_globalists don_hopspring eastside_pies_pedophile_allegation el_paso_shooting emts_access_denial erica_lafferty false_flag_claims fbi_forensic_testimony free_speech free_speech_systems harassment_of_sandy_hook_families infowars internet_archive_wayback_machine jeffrey_epstein jim_fetzer journalistic_ethics kit_daniels knowledge_fight legal lenny_posner media_integrity megan_kelly newtown parkland_case paul_joseph_watson port_a_potties_claim rob_dew robert_barnes sandy_hook sandy_hook_vampires_exposed

Formulaic Objections Part 2 dissects Alex Jones’ Sandy Hook lawsuit depositions, where Rob Dew and Paul Joseph Watson—despite 20 years of association—admit no sourcing, recalling emails mocking "lizard people" while publicly peddling hoaxes. Jones deflects with vague claims, misrepresents FBI evidence (e.g., Anderson Cooper’s "nose"), and pivots to Epstein conspiracies, ignoring direct accountability. The hosts expose his reliance on unverified sources, legal dodges like calling a Texas ruling a "Democrat court," and self-serving justifications, revealing a pattern of evasion and ethical detachment that undermines his credibility in court and beyond. [Automatically generated summary]
[Read More]

Participants

Main

alex jones

infowars 15:29

bill ogden

06:02

dan friesen

01:25:53

jordan holmes

33:28

mark bankston

25:40

Appearances

paul joseph watson

infowars 04:41

rob dew

infowars 02:47

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		I have great respect for knowledge fight.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Knowledge fight.
		I'm sick of them posing as if they're the good guys.
		Shang, we are the bad guys.
		Knowledge fight.
unidentified		Dan and Jordan.
unidentified		Knowledge fight.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I need money.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Andy and Pansy.
unidentified		Andy and Pandy.
unidentified		Stop.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Andy and Pansy.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Andy and Kansas.
unidentified		Andy.
unidentified		Andy.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		It's time to pray.
		Andy and Kansas.
		You're on the air.
		Thanks for holding it.
unidentified		Hello, Alex.
		I'm a fish pencil over here today.
		I love your work.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Knowledge fight.
		Knowledgefight.com.
		I love you.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Hey, everybody.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back to Knowledge Fight.
unidentified		I'm Dan.
unidentified		I'm Jordan.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		We're a couple dudes like to sit around, drink novelty beverages, and talk a little bit about Alex Jones.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Indeed, we are Dan.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Jordan.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Dan!
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Jordan.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Let me ask you a quick question.
		What's the end of the year?
		People are going to be doing all kinds of recaps.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Best of lists.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		All I want to know, Dan, is there anything in 2019 that has surprised you?
unidentified		No.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Exactly.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I think the thing is, everything is so incredibly surprising.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Nothing is surprising.
unidentified		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You know?
		You're like, I can't believe they would just do that.
		And then you're like, yeah, I can.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		My brain's been burned out to novelty.
		Yeah, yeah.
		To such a great extent that I can try a nice dish.
unidentified		Right?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Crazy.
unidentified		That's good.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		All right.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Cool.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I guess, okay, I'm a little surprised that I'm not enjoying Luigi's Mansion as much as I thought I would.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I was actually thinking about asking you for a follow-up on that earlier because I thought that might be the case.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It doesn't have some of the same charm as the first one.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Maybe I was 18 when I played the first one and now I'm 35.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Nostalgia can kill.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I'm trying to play it slowly so it lasts, you know?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And I come back to it and I don't even know what I'm doing.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, no.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You know that I'm fighting ghosts and stuff.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I guess that's a little surprising.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's kind of in the wrong direction for any kind of like quest structure to it or is it like a platform or something?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, you've got to save your friends who are stuck in paintings.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Of course.
unidentified		King Boo.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		King Boo.
		Of course.
		But I don't know.
		You just run around.
		Each level of this hotel is themed and you have to find a ghost boss.
unidentified		Sure.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So I don't know, man.
		I don't know.
		But anyway, this is a podcast where I don't have a lot of surprises this year.
		But I do know a lot about Alex Jones.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And I don't know.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I know a lot about not having any surprises, and I don't know anything about Alex Jones.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Good stuff.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		So there we are.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So, Jordan, today, what we're going to be doing is we're going to be going over some depositions that dropped at the end of last week.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		At the end of November, all three of the Musketeers.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Rob Dew, Paul Joseph Watson, Alex Jones.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Road again.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		All gave depositions in the ongoing Sandy Hook lawsuit.
		And there's some interesting stuff in this.
		And low-key, I think Rob Dew's might be the most interesting of the three.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		All right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Which is.
unidentified		I couldn't.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's the surprising thing.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		There we go.
		Rob Dew has finally done one thing that's interesting.
		All right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that's the surprise of 2019.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		All right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Rob Dew, his deposition was more interesting to me than Alex's.
		So we'll get down to business and talk a little bit about that.
		But before we do, got to take a little moment, say thank you to some folks who have signed up and are supporting the show.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's a good idea.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So first of all, Caleb, thank you so much.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You are now a policy wonk.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I'm a policy wonk.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Thank you so much, Caleb.
		Next, Matthew.
		Thank you so much.
		You are now a policy wonk.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I'm a policy wonk.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Matthew.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Matthew.
		Next, Christopher, thank you so much.
		You are now a policy wonk.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I'm a policy wonk.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much, Christopher.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Joining the conspiracy.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, bother.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Next, Josiah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Thank you so much, Shoron Hao Policy Wonk.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I'm a policy wonk.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Josiah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Thank you so much.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Next, Elliot, thank you so much, Shoron How Policy Wonk.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I'm a policy wonk.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Elliot.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And then finally.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		My favorite character on the Magicians sci-fi is the magician's.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Great show.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Great show.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I'm unaware of that.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Fantastic show.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		All right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Is it all close-up magic?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		No, it's all real magic.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's a terrible show, but I love it.
unidentified		Okay.
unidentified		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I like magic.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I love it whenever I'd be out at bars doing shows and stuff, and someone would walk up on the street while I'm smoking a cigarette and want to do a magic trick.
unidentified		I like it.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		My favorite.
		Second only to this next last person who has signed up on an elevated level.
		And I'd like to say thank you so much.
		Rachel, you are now a technocrat.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I'm a policy wonk.
		Crikey, Mike.
		That's fantastic.
		Have yourself a brew.
		How's your 401k doing, bro?
		We got to go full-telt buggy on this, Watson.
unidentified		All right.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Let's just get down to business.
		We ain't making that money off that heroin.
		Why are you pimps so good?
		My neck is freakishly large.
		I declare infall war on you.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Thank you so much, Rachel.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yes, thank you very much, Rachel.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		If you're all out there thinking, listening, thinking, hey, I like this show.
		I'd like to support with these gents too.
		You can do that by going to our website, knowledgefight.com, clicking the button on the support show.
		We'd appreciate it.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It'd be really helpful.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So I was kind of struggling with trying to figure out exactly how we should do this episode because it's three depositions, you know, and it seems like the structure would be weird.
		Like, should we take intermissions?
		Should we do it as separate episodes?
		I figure what we could do is a classic three-act structure.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Where the third act is much longer.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Okay.
		All right.
unidentified		It's just like we're in Marvel territory.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Our third act is going to have some issues.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		We will have third act problems.
		We're going to have first act problems.
		We're going to have second act problems.
		But each of these depositions is really interesting to me in very different ways.
		And so there'll be a different vibe to each of them.
		You can predict what Alex's is.
		Sure.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		He doesn't remember anything or understand anything or nothing had anything to do with him, I assume.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I am not me.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But the other two have a very bizarre kind of almost through line through them.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Paul Joseph Watson's got something interesting going on.
		Rob Dew's got something far more interesting.
		So let's start with the Paul Joseph Watson.
		Okay.
		He sits down and I will say that I don't know.
		Of course, I'm very clear on this.
		I don't like Paul Joseph Watson.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		No, me neither.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I find his voice insufferable and his positions nonsensical bordering on evil.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Now, that said, I think he comes off like much more of a human in this deposition.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		All right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Because I think that he has some sort of a brand to protect a little bit.
		Sure.
		And he doesn't want to be.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		He has a brand of attack, so he comes off human.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, there's two elements to that.
		Right.
		Because there's one, and that he does have a history of telling Alex to stop doing the Sandy Hook shit.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yes, that's true.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He does have that in his arrow is in his quiver that he can pull out and be like, I tried.
		Look, dude, whatever.
		So he has that.
		And then second, he knows that he doesn't want to look like he's a fucking idiot.
		He doesn't want to come off as like Alex, he obfuscates everything.
		He's like, I have no idea what my name is.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right, right, right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I don't think Paul wants to look like that.
		And so it creates an interesting dynamic where, and I think a lot of people took these headlines to write about this.
		And they're like, he's turned on Alex.
		He's right under the bus.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Sure, sure, sure.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And I think there's a little bit of an appearance of that, but he is still trying to defend Alex in as much as he can while still being like, my hands are clean.
		I don't know.
		You guys do what you're going to do with him.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		He's got a tough tightrope to walk.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I would say so.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		He's like a mid-level mafioso.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I don't, I don't, that's not to express any pity or anything, but it is a tough life.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, yeah, no.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Fuck him.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So we start here towards the beginning of the deposition where we learn that Paul has never actually even been employed by InfoWars.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Can you list for me every job position you have held with Alex Jones, InfoWars, or Free Speech Systems LLC?
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		I'm not an employee and have never been an employee, so I haven't had an official job position.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		How would you describe your employment relationship or your working relationship with Mr. Jones?
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		Contractor.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So this is interesting.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Paul's been there for 20 years?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah, yeah.
unidentified		What?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Is Alex going to pay insurance benefits?
		A 401k?
		Hell no.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I would certainly hope so for one of his longest.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I find that very difficult to believe.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I think, I mean, he's under oath.
		He's testifying.
		I would assume that if there were very easily attainable records that he is employed and has been, then that would be a stupid thing to say.
		But, hey, I guess he's just an independent.
		I guess it is pro-wrestling shit.
		He's just like Alex's Vince McMahon with all these independent contractors masquerading as employees.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I think it must be partially his kind of decision as well.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You can't be an independent contractor with somebody for 20 years and not at least have a conversation of like, hey, you know, maybe we should deal with actual labor laws today.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, he's in the UK.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That might make things a little difficult.
unidentified		That's true.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That might.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I don't think that would be an impediment.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I have no idea.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, and the level of responsibility he's had over the years at InfoWars.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Exactly.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Editor at large, title, and like he writes a bulk of the materials.
		Yeah.
		Like, yeah, he would have every negotiating chip available to him to be an employee, should he want to be.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So, yeah, maybe there is like a mutually advantageous reason for that.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I'm not entirely sure what it is, but I thought that was pretty strange.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I mean, I guess among thieves, the idea is like, we can't take each other down.
		You know, that kind of thing.
		Like, if you go down, I'm not going down with you.
		And that goes both directions.
		Like, Paul can say something so fucking crazy that Alex would be able to distance himself.
		Hey, he never actually worked here, man.
		I was just.
		Which is stupid, but.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So, as we know from listening back to the episodes of InfoWars from that stretch of time after the shooting at Sandy Hook, we know that Paul Joseph Watson did interview Professor James Tracy, who was a proponent of the crisis actors theory.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		He did push back, right?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		A little.
		Yeah.
		It was muddy.
		It was a little bit mixed, in my opinion.
		There was a little bit too much lenience given to him, but at the same time, Paul did say, I don't agree with these ideas.
		Right, right.
		So again, like I said, the thinnest of praise possible.
		He does have that to be like, I did say I don't believe this.
		So they play a little clip of that.
		And this is really important because what this does in terms of the questioning is to explicitly lay out that as early as like February 2013, people at Infowars were aware that the parents and the family members were being harassed.
unidentified		Yes.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		This being a month after Sandy Hook, you were aware at this time that the parents were being harassed by believers in a Sandy Hook hoax conspiracy.
unidentified		Correct.
unidentified		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So that is demonstrated.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that's not good.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		No.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's not good for the outlook of Alex in this scenario.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And in the clip that is played of Paul interviewing Tracy, even back then, there's audio of Paul bringing up to James Tracy that people are being harassed.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So there's a large awareness of this.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So, also, back in the early days, Leonard Posner sent an email to InfoWars telling them, hey, these people are harassing us and they need to be reeled in.
		I used to be a fan of your show, but I think now I realize that a lot of these behaviors are being encouraged.
		Now, the response to that email from InfoWars was apparently written by Paul Joseph Watson.
		Later, in Alex's deposition, there will be some maybe insinuations that Alex wrote it with him.
unidentified		Sure.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But it's unclear there.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But in this deposition, it's clear that Paul wrote it himself.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		And now let's troll up to your response.
		Do you remember writing this response?
		Does this bring back that memory?
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		Now it's presented to me, yes.
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		I didn't recall it when you initially brought it up, but yes.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
		Now, do you know, did you do this on your own, or was this a collaborative effort among other people at InfoWars?
		Do you remember that?
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		No, this would have been me personally.
unidentified		Okay.
unidentified		So he might as well.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		He almost said, no, nobody else knows how to read there.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, everyone else does.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		He literally sounded defeated.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's just hunting peck with the rest of us.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, he's just like, oh, Jesus Christ, of course I wrote it by myself.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So now, this is interesting here for one reason, and that is that this would give Alex a little bit of plausible deniability.
		Sure.
		Because the interview with James Tracy was done by Paul.
		Maybe Alex would say he never heard it.
		He didn't know about the talk about the harassing of the parents.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Sure, sure, sure.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And this, Paul was just like, I was the one who got that email.
		I wrote back to the guy.
		Maybe Alex can pretend he never saw that email.
		We'll see if Alex screws that up later.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Naturally.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So one of the things that the lawyers seem to want to press on is like, guys, do you really think that what you did was okay?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Do you think that what InfoWars engaged in was all right?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's not great that in a court of law, you have to ask people if they actually have morality at all.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Do you have no decency?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, exactly.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So Paul is asked that, and he tries to wiggle out of giving a yes or no answer, but then kind of just has to be like, nah.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		But in terms of what you think is decent and right in terms of covering the story, do you think Infowars always adhered to what is decent and right from covering the story?
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		Well, it's a subjective term, but from my personal perspective, decent and right, I would not have covered it in that way.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		No.
		So that is pretty.
		That, I think, is where you could say, like, he's throwing Alex under the bus.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that would be the only one.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But to be fair to Paul, like, what position is he in?
		He has no reason to go to bat and be like, everything was just fine.
		Yeah, I mean, I clearly told them to cut it out back then.
		And now, with the gift of hindsight, realizing how wrong we were, I say it was decent and fine.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Man, see, that's a huge missed opportunity there for me because I think I would want that question to then be broadened of just like, do you think anything you've done there is decent and right?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I think if you're talking to Paul Joseph Watson and he's being this sort of fair, you don't want to jeopardize it.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I want to shoot the shit with him, see what's going on.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I would say that the lawyers would be wise to not turn this adversarial given that Paul is being candid enough with his answers.
		That's true.
		Why fight with this British guy when we might be able to get some piece of information out of it?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I do appreciate Paul more when he's not able to edit his annoying voice together in a back-to-back nightmarish hellscape.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah, it does make him seem more human.
		Yeah.
		So the big piece here, and I think one of the big revelations is in Discovery, Alex sent over all of these emails from InfoWars, and the lawyers have gone through them.
		And one of the emails they found was an email that Paul sent to Buckley and Anthony Gucciarti, who were apparently in managerial roles in InfoWars.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Can I get you to drop some tunes at my next party?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That is not the, that might be another email.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's a different email.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's not this one.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		All right, fine.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So in this email, Paul is telling them what he has told Alex.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He has texted Alex a message, and he's sending it to them in order to have it on the record or whatever.
unidentified		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And so the lawyer sets this up here.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Watson, I'd like to show you another document now.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		And I would like to show you an email that you sent in 2015 on December 17th.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So we got a 2015, December 17th email that was sent to these dudes.
		And here is what's in the email.
		And I think that this is where we get into like a real interesting seesaw kind of situation of like, is this a good email?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		We'll see.
unidentified		I want to read what you sent to Alex.
unidentified		This Sandy Hook stuff is killing us.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		It's promoted by the most batshit, crazy people like Rince and Fetzer, who all hate us anyway.
		Plus, it makes us look really bad to align with people who harass the parents of dead kids.
		It's going to hurt us with Drudge and bringing bigger names into the show.
		Plus, the event happened three years ago.
		Why even risk our reputation for it?
		My first question is, let's first talk about who Jeff Rince is.
		You know who he is?
unidentified		Yes.
unidentified		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Jeff Rince is a notoriously unreliable conspiracy theorist and rabid anti-Semite, correct?
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		Um, I don't know enough about him to call him a rabid anti-Semite, but I would say he was a conspiracy theorist, yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		That's...
		That's kind of a consistent thread throughout this is like they keep asking about these like Jim Fetzer.
		Like, you know, this guy is a deeply anti-Semitic dude.
		You're like, well, I don't know.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I mean, what is anti-Semitism at the end of the day?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So the reason I think that that email is a seesaw is because on the one hand, you have Paul saying, we got to cut this shit out, which is good, because the end result of that would be stopping the behavior.
		On the other side of the seesaw, it doesn't seem to come from a place of concern or this is wrong.
		It seems like, well, Drudge won't like us so much and we won't be able to get big guests because we're engaging in this kind of bullshit.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right, right, right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So I don't know how I feel about that.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I mean, it would be like Fox News canceling Tucker Carlson's show because all of the advertisers dropped out.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Right.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You know, it's like, you guys let this clear white nationalist, white supremacist run on your network unabated for however long.
		And the only reason you're stopping him is because of appearances and money.
		Fuck you.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, there is that sort of sense of like doing the right thing for the wrong reason.
		And I still applaud his ability to speak this.
		Yeah.
		At least it's some, you know, that there is some voice there that's like, we shouldn't be doing this.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I just wish it came from a place of like the right reason to not want to do this.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Because it does imply that like if these things weren't a concern, I wouldn't have a problem with this.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And that may be the case.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Is probably the best we're going to get from these psychopaths, though.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Probably, you know, although it does also introduce another strange dynamic, and that is that that is a voice that's there because you don't really think about that.
		The possibility that at Infowars there is some dissent and they still do what they do.
		Yeah, that's even scarier.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		See, that's that is a good question because we've talked a bunch about how it's like, shouldn't there be somebody there going, Alex, don't do this?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And it's clear there are people there saying Alex don't do that.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Maybe not all the time.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And no, probably not all the time, but he just can't control himself.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I don't think that, like, just going based off this, I genuinely think Alex would listen to him and at the same time not be able to control himself on the air and wind up just saying that dumb shit.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I think that's one of the problems with his sort of improvisational style.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It will lead you to some places where you're like just not doing it.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah, yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So in the email, Paul Joseph Watson says that Jeff Rents and Jim Fetzer are batshit crazy.
unidentified		Right.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Now that I don't know about rabbit anti-Semites, though.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		They're batsh crazy.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		They're bad shit crazy.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Now this opens up the possibility for this lawyer to put Paul in a little bit of a trap that he doesn't seem to be thrilled to be in.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		The checkmate.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Tell me how you came to the conclusion that these two gentlemen that Infowars was relying on were batshit crazy.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's a good question.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Fuck me.
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		Because they were pushing the notion that nobody died at Sandy Hook, which I thought was not credible and was supported by no evidence.
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		So therefore was a crazy conclusion to make.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		So by that same logic, Alex Jones, equally batshit crazy.
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		I wouldn't describe him as batshit crazy.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		What kind of crazy?
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		I would describe it as him commenting on the controversy of the conspiracy theories that were swirling about Sandy Hook at the time.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So that's going to be also a sort of refrain of like, we were covering what was happening.
		That is kind of.
		I think when you consider their actual behaviors, that facade isn't very strong.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		No.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That doesn't seem like a really great legal argument.
		But I do, I love that.
		I love that.
		It's like, okay, why are they crazy?
		X behavior.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Alex does X also.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I do like that this is in an echoey room because I don't know if anything has ever rung more hollow than his.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I think he's just covering the controversy.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Like you can for that.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He's calling in from jolly old London.
		So they push on this question of like, why is this behavior in them crazy and not Alex?
		And I don't know if PJ Dubbs has convinced me that there's a difference.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so if Jeff Rinz or Jim Fetzer starts pushing allegations that the children aren't real, that the parents are fake, and that the crime's all fake and it's all an act, they're batshit crazy.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		But if Jones says literally the exact same words on his telephone, his web broadcast, he's just doing a good job as a journalist.
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		Well, to kind of combine this with your previous question, I would say the description of them as batshit crazy would also involve things that they've said in the past unrelated to Sandy Hook, maybe about UFOs or alien abduction or holograms on 9-11, which I think was Fetzer's big thing for a while.
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		You know, they had a previous of engaging in very obscure conspiracy theories, which would contribute to that description of batshit crazy.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Do you think that their history of doing that is any different than Alex Jones?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Fuck, What do I say?
unidentified		What do I say?
unidentified		Shit.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Fuck.
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		No, but again, they had the right to engage in that speech under the First Amendment.
unidentified		I'm not.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Look, Mr. Watson, at this point, I'm not asking you who had the right to do what.
		We'll all figure that out.
		What I'm asking you is Alex Jones and his crazy conspiracies about shadow interdimensional governments and alien fish hybrids, things like this.
unidentified		There's no different than getting Fetzer and Rinch.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		There's qualitatively no difference in how they covered conspiracy theories, correct?
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's your view.
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		I wouldn't necessarily agree with it.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		So in your view, people like Rintz and Fetzer are bad, but Mr. Jones not in the same way.
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		I would say not in the same way because I would say Alex was covering the controversy.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Sure, buddy.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So you get the same.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Sure, buddy.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		So I think that what you have there is absolutely evidence of.
		I don't have a good answer for this.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah, yeah.
		He thought he was so smart when he gave that first answer of like, well, because they said that Sandy Hook was crazy.
		And then he got this follow-up question.
		He's like, shit, I should have said that everything else they said was fucking crazy.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I feel like if I'm working for Alex Jones, or maybe not working for him, or working for him as a decades-long contractor, whatever the case is, and I'm getting deposed, I might come up with a reason why Alex isn't the same as the other people who lie about Sandy Hook.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I feel like that's just something you probably could expect might come up.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It doesn't seem like there's any preparation here.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You know, this reminds me, because I was just thinking the exact same thing.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I was just thinking that their brand of crazy cannot survive in an underoath situation with somebody who is prepared to fuck them up, essentially.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		More or less.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		But it is such that psychopath of like, no matter what, I'm the smartest guy in the room.
		You know, I don't need to prepare.
		I don't need to do anything.
		I'm going to outsmart this dude.
		No big deal.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Like, that's what I get the feeling.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I'm not sure if Paul is 100% on that tip because I think he is still being agreeable.
		And I do see some indications that he might have checked his emails that he had written in the past.
		That kind of thing to know what might come up.
		But the fact that there's no good answer for so, like, why is this person different than other conspiracy theorists?
		Like, you've worked for him for 20 years.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That indicates to me a lack of care or concern about defending yourself.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It just feels like it's a tacit admission that you're not any different.
unidentified		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think I'm surprised that he doesn't have a stock answer because it feels like that would come up in a normal conversation.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Any interview.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		Anything.
		You would have a stock answer, you know?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah.
unidentified		You wouldn't even, you know, seems like a conversation you'd have a hundred times in your life.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Exactly.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		It's very weird.
		So in this next clip, I'm going to skip this one because it's just the lawyer pointing out that Paul was right about Sandy Hook and Alex didn't listen to him.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And that, I mean, it's true.
		It's a fair point.
		So this next clip that's coming up, the lawyer's asking Paul about an email exchange that he had with Buckley, who, again, is a manager person at AFORS and a house DJ and Alex's cousin.
unidentified		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So Paul has received an email from Quantcast, the website ranking group.
		And this email was to inform him that InfoWars had seen a large surge in traffic recently.
		And as a matter of policy, that meant Quantcast was going to put a temporary hold on ranking InfoWars in their charts.
		They build in these protocols so people can't easily mess with their website rankings with automated traffic.
		It's just a standard procedure thing.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, it's more effective than our fucking voting machines.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So Paul sends this email to Buckley.
		He forwards it on, who replies to him.
		And that's where this clip starts.
unidentified		When you sent this email, Buckley made a joke.
unidentified		And I want to read it to you, okay?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Said, but no, surely it's a conspiracy theory that they are trying to suppress our popularity so that the lizard people can return to the ascension pad at Sandy Hook and feast on sacrificed crisis actors.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Buckley here is making a joke about the craziness of those theories, isn't he?
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		You would have to ask Buckley.
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		I can't speak to him.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Smooth.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		When you get an email in your day-to-day business that's talking about lizard people going to the ascension pad at Sandy Hook and feasting on sacrificed crisis actors, what did you take that to mean?
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		Well, obviously, I would presume that it's dark humor.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Dark humor.
		So this is a very important line of attack that I think the lawyers are going on here.
		And I think it signals a really good strategy.
		See, what this email tends to demonstrate is that people behind the scenes at Infowars had an awareness that the things that they were saying publicly about Sandy Hook were not true.
		This email joke, it offers a glimpse into the way that the tragedy was being discussed internally by people like Buckley, who's someone who, like I said, is in a managerial role and is related directly to Alex.
		He's obviously joking about this thing with Quantcast being a conspiracy against them and the use of crisis actors at Sandy Hook as the outrageous example in the joke that tends to imply that he considers it an instance of something that is mockable.
		One of the reasons that this is such an excellent line of approach is because the lawyers are able to combine private information they found in Discovery with public statements.
		And sometimes when you do that, you find something damning, like is discussed in this next clip.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Were you aware that Mr. Jones just a few hours earlier had been on Infowars accusing the parents of being actors?
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		I don't think I joked about crisis actors in that email.
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		Wasn't that Buckley that used the term crisis actors?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, let's rephrase the question.
		Were you aware that in that email that exchanged, you were having a Buckley, where he joked to you about crisis actors and the outlandish nature of crisis actors?
		That at that same time, a few hours earlier, Mr. Jones was on his show accusing the parents of being actors.
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		Were you aware of that?
unidentified		No.
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		No, I have no recollection of it.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		How do you feel about that, Mr. Walter?
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		I feel that he was completely inaccurate in making that claim.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Not something you're proud of at InfoWars, correct?
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		It's not something that I said.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		This is also the problem with the sincerity that Paul is kind of throwing out a little bit.
		He allows himself to be put in situations where there is no other answer than, yeah, that sucks.
		Because what they've just laid out is that on the same day, a manager at InfoWars, who's related to Alex, was privately mocking Sandy Hook conspiracies while simultaneously Alex was promoting them on his show.
		This goes a really long way towards building the case that these people knew that what they were saying wasn't true.
		Earlier in the deposition, it was established that at least Paul was completely aware as early as the beginning of 2013 that the families of the victims were being harassed by people who believed these theories, which implies that the argument that they didn't know the consequences of their coverage, probably not true.
		And here you have a little glimpse of the behind-the-scenes vibe that really seems to suggest that the people at InfoWars were aware that the information they were airing was worth mocking, which is to say, not true.
		The pieces that come together out of this look really, really bad.
		Considering that this is not even close to all the information the plaintiffs are working with, it really seems like Alex is probably in some serious trouble when this is all said and done.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And Paul, I honestly think, is probably playing this almost exactly like he should.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I don't think he has any liability in this.
		InfoWars goes away.
		He's still a star.
		He can maneuver his way around this a little bit.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		There aren't even any contracts to rip up.
		He's an independent contractor.
		This is an at-will state, man.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Now, here's what's interesting.
		So I know that it came out.
		We've discussed this.
		And we'll play a clip of Alex saying this later.
		But Robert Barnes is not in these depositions.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You can tell because no one's yelling objection every five seconds.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So he is no longer Alex's lawyer.
		Alex confirms in this sworn testimony that he doesn't work at InfoWars in any capacity.
		He is no longer involved with them at all.
		But what about Paul?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Watson, can you tell me what you did to prepare for your deposition today?
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		I spoke to Robert Barnes and Wade Jeffries.
unidentified		Okay.
		Did you review any documents?
		No.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		When did you speak with your counsel?
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		Sunday evening, my time, and this afternoon today.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So Wade Jeffries is Alex's lawyer.
		He is now the person who you'll hear saying objection during Alex's.
		Not nearly as much as Barnes.
		Right.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		He's probably a better lawyer.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		These depositions are happening at about the same time.
		These were over the course of two days at the end of November, 26th and 27th, I believe.
		And so Barnes is still somehow in the mix for Paul, but not for InfoWars, which I find interesting.
		I don't know what it means.
		It may mean nothing, but it could mean something.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Here's my writing.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It is a very interesting quirk.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Here's my pitch for you.
		All right.
		This is a personal thing that happened between Jones and Barnes.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I 100% could believe that.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And not only that, it is a show thing that happened between.
		We have.
		Here's what I'm going to go.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Here's what I'm going to go with.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Here's my pitch.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I know your pitch.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Here's my pitch, buddy.
		You know my pitch.
		I think he took our advice, Dan.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You think he realized that Barnes was trying to take over?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I think so.
		That's my theory.
		That is my theory.
		I think we sow discord amongst the lawyers.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I don't think there's any likelihood that that's true, but I do, I will go as far with you as to say I would believe it's something personal.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, 100%.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That seems very believable.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I would buy that more than any kind of business issue there.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Either that or he couldn't afford Barnes anymore.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That could be it, too.
		Even though he was working at almost pro bono for exposure.
		So Paul, he's kind of making a stock defense of all of these behaviors and all of this stuff, sort of predicated on free speech.
		You know, like we have, you know, it's just the First Amendment and all this.
		And so they ask him, do you have any education in the field?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, no.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		When it comes to what is or is not allowed under the First Amendment, you really don't have any qualifications to say, do you?
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		No.
		A lot of what I do is related to free speech.
		So although I don't have any academic qualifications, I would like to consider I have a reasonably good grasp of it.
unidentified		Do you?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But see, that to me is not the answer you would give if I've studied it extensively, not in a formal setting, but I'm aware of these various Supreme Court rulings, the limitations, there's not nuance to that.
		There's just sort of like I work in sort of this fringe area where we yell about free speech a bunch, so I'm kind of intimately involved in it.
		I like to say things that anger people.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So I know about free speech.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's not a good answer.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It seems like he's really taken the idea of free speech is whatever I kind of personally define it as to heart.
		Yeah.
		So far as he doesn't have to know what it is legally.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I don't have much of a different perception after listening to this.
		But I don't know.
		I don't know.
		I would be interested to know.
		I mean, I would be surprised if someone like Paul hadn't at least done some reading on the subject.
		But I don't hear it from the answer.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Well, it almost makes more sense to not look into it so that your deniability?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so that your dumb arguments about what free speech is can never be clouded by your incidental knowledge that it actually is possible.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		So another thing that's a big defense is that Alex isn't a journalist.
		Right.
		That is going to be something that you hear a bit.
		And it's something that Paul makes a point of.
		It's like, this is just opinion.
		All Alex is doing is opinion.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		If you have somebody with a track record of being fat shit crazy and unreliable, it would violate the sense of journalistic integrity to promote what they are saying as fact, correct?
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		Yes, if you were a journalistic, middle-of-the-road, non-partisan, non-commentary outlet, which I don't believe in Paul's is.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		So Alex Jones is allowed to do that.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Other people who claim to be journalists can't, but Alex Jones can do that.
unidentified		That's fine.
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		Under their own journalistic ethics, they wouldn't.
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		Alex Jones would because he's an opinion commentator.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		And he has no journalistic ethics, correct?
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		Well, he's not a journalist, so no.
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		He doesn't abide by those ethics because he's not a journalist.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Ms. Wars.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So this opens up a pretty interesting vista because once you're doing that, once you're like, yeah, he's just, this is all just opinion stuff.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Now it becomes pretty important to nail down what's an opinion.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		What's the difference between opinion and fact?
		And this is something that is going to be a little bit of a muddy problem for both Paul and Alex.
		When they're in depositions, neither of them seems to really understand in a crystalline fashion.
		Yeah, yeah.
		The difference between opinion and fact.
		Here is Paul trying to walk that line.
		I just don't.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Because we've been talking today a little bit about invoice having opinions versus assertions of fact.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		What is the difference between a fact and an opinion?
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		An opinion is your viewpoint.
		We live in a world where facts are very subjective, unfortunately.
		And one side has a set of facts which they agree on, and the other side has a set of facts which they agree on.
		So it's a very vague concept in 2019.
		I mean, you can have an opinion on facts that skews one way or the other.
		So it's very difficult territory.
		So that's all I would say on that.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Well, you'd agree there's certain things, like if I was to say, This person is beautiful, right?
		That's subjective.
		It can't be proven ascertainably true or false.
		It's totally subjective.
		You'd agree with that?
unidentified		Yeah.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		But something like the Sandy Hook School was not an operating school, that can be proven true or false.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Correct?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Fuck, fuck shit.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		What do I say?
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		Fuck, fuck, it could be proven, but it's then based on whether you believe the proof that's presented.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I mean, Jesus.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That should be on humanity's gravestone.
		That exact thing.
		Yeah.
		That is exactly why we're all dead.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, it's a good, I guess, if you have to say something and you can't just be like, yeah, that is a statement of facts.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, you're fair.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That is about as good as you're going to do in those sort of under pressure moments.
		But that's abysmal.
		That's really sad.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		He just, you might as well have said, well, it depends about your opinion on that.
		Yeah.
		Like, what is it?
		Then facts don't exist.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		No, that is basically the underlying crux there.
		I mean, when you say one side has their facts, the other side has their facts, and they're at odds.
		You know, like, yes, that is a denial of reality, and that is grim.
		That makes it tough to imagine, because then everything is the domain of opinion.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		There's no responsibility for anything.
		There's no reason to get anything right.
		Just fucking do whatever you want to do.
		That's sad.
		That's makes me really bummed.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I mean, that is really fucking dark.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And that he would say, it's like, it's like Lindsey Graham coming out and being like, I'm not trying to be a fair juror over here where you're like, oh, this is the darkest timeline that you're just saying that.
unidentified		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You know?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, we're fucked.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So because they're just opinion folk, right, over at Infowars.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And also all reality is opinion.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		They should be held to a lower standard than people who are foolish enough to believe facts exist.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's your opinion.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Apparently so.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So Paul expresses that, that they should be held to a lower standard.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		When InfoWars does something like that, takes evidence and makes a judgment, does it have any responsibility to be accurate?
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		In the context of opinion commentary, I mean, you could say there's a you know, you should strive to be accurate, but in terms of journalistic ethics, I think it's a different ballgame in terms of the level at which people are held based on whether they are opinion commentary or down the line journalism.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so you should be held to a lower standard than perhaps other media organizations.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Is that true?
unidentified		Yeah.
unidentified		That's that's not good.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Shoot for the stars.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You should really strive to tell true things.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		But you know, if you lie all the time, which is fine, too.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's brutal.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And one of the confounding things that just seems to be completely lost on all of these three people being deposed is how is the audience supposed to determine what is opinion and what is being presented as fact if opinion is presented as fact?
unidentified		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		What is the what is the differentiation between this is just something that well they need to use their discernment.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Whenever you state opinions and then you say it's in the white papers or it's all been proven.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It came out in court documents.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Whenever you'd use those things to reinforce your opinion, you're engaging in fact.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You should strive to say that things were in the white papers if they were.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Sure, sure.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		But if they weren't in the white papers, you shouldn't be held to that standard.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's just instinct to say white paper.
		It's bananas.
		It just changes opinion to fact.
		Yeah.
		So that doesn't get resolved at all, really.
		And the two, like, I don't really think that Paul's testimony is really all that damning, except for the part where you get into that Buckley email.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I was going to say the joke is what does it.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And also, there's a bit of a conversation that Buckley attached a meme to the email joke back.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And it's like a 4chan meme that has maybe some offensive connotations.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I wouldn't call him a rabbit anti-semite.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Which leads to Paul being like, I don't know about this meme.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		All right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And I'm not sure I believe he's.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		All right.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		All right, buddy.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So I think that that difference between public and private, especially with the email being on the same day as Alex engaged in some of this, I think that that is a grim picture.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		As a peddler of jokes, you have to have awareness in order to find the crux, find the leverage in order to elicit the actual joke part.
		Yeah.
		So if you don't have awareness, you don't have a joke.
		If you have a joke, chances are.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And then the second thing is that email that he sent to Buckley and Anthony Guciardi that was based on a text message that he had sent Alex.
		That implies at least some sort of internal conversation about this not being a good thing to do.
		So this interview ends, this deposition ends with the lawyer asking Paul to name something that Alex didn't think was a false flag.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, no.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, hell yes.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He lists off a bunch of things that Alex did.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		The lawyer says like, yeah, Las Vegas.
unidentified		Aurora.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		Or no, not Las Vegas.
		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		No, he does think that was fake.
		It was a false flag.
		Oh, he doesn't think that's it.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, that's right.
		That's right.
		There we go.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's all Steve.
		Right.
		So he lists off these, like Columbine, Oklahoma City, all of these were false flags.
		What is something that Alex thought was not a false flag?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Let's find out.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Can you give me an example of a U.S. mass casualty event, like a mass shooting, a bombing, or the like, that Mr. Jones didn't say was a false flag?
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		Um, I would say the most recent ones post Las Vegas massacre, maybe the Dayton, Ohio shooting, um, the El Paso shooting.
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		I don't know for sure, but I think after the Las Vegas one, he was...
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I wonder why.
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		More reticent to call them false flags.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		After I sued him, right?
paul joseph watson ▲ ● ▼		I don't know when you sued him.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, you do, buddy.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		As you quite astutely pointed out, Alex thinks both of those are false flags.
unidentified		So Paul is asked, what does he think is real?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		What did happen?
		What isn't just a government false flag?
		He long paused, comes up with two things that Alex categorically thinks are false flags done by Antifa or whatever.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I mean, literally on his show recently, he said it is either a false flag or radical Islam or whatever, right?
		Wasn't that it?
		There are two types of terrorists or something.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Perhaps.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, it's, I don't think, I struggle with how much Paul just doesn't care what Alex does.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's fair.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Because there's a possibility that he doesn't know what Alex thinks about Dayton or the El Paso shooting.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Well, what?
		Is he going to watch the show?
		There's no way he's watching the fucking show.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		No, there's a very high likely.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But then again, he's the editor of the website.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You would think.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I don't know.
		It's tough for me to believe that he doesn't know what Alex's positions on these things are unless there's just such a not caring at all about just like trash in, trash out.
		Just fucking filter it through, whatever.
		I'll fix the grammar.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I imagine that's the only way to deal with Alex as a boss, to be honest.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I don't know.
		So I don't, I don't, I'm interested to see where some of that goes.
		But I see some indications from that deposition that there's some really, what would you call it? Just some good lines of questioning.
		I think there's some positive indications that they're on to some potentially really troubling things.
unidentified		Oh, yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		No, like, like I said, that joke, I would say probably most, not that I know, but like that's something that would be easy to miss or to discount.
		But the fact that he was like, this is a joke is my, this is a crux point right here.
		I can fucking nail him down on this.
		Yeah, that's that's smart shit.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But I think that you could, if you're Alex, you could say, like, yeah, Buckley's a weird dude.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I didn't, I didn't, you know, whatever he's saying, I don't agree with.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right, right, right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You know, you could, you could.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Maybe I'm just inflating the importance of it because it's the only thing I really understand.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And that's why I'm saying, you know, like that joke, especially on the same day as Alex's presentation, that tends to imply that there's a difference between the public and the private.
		And I'm not sure if it proves it, but I do think that it's enough to get put into your mind, like, that seems irresponsible.
		Yeah, yeah, yeah.
		But we'll see.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		God, I want, if I had this power, it would just be like we've reached the end of the deposition as far as the Sandy Hook stuff goes.
		Now I'm going to lightning round you.
		Like, climate change, real or no?
		Go.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I think that's an abuse of being under oath.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I understand that your opinion on that is one thing, but my facts on it are nonsense.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
		Yeah.
		So now we're going to move on to Robert Dew.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Let's do it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I'm not sure if that's, I don't know if he ever goes by Robert, but Rob Dew.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Jordan, what I never expected is that Rob Dew's deposition would be the one that I find the most compelling.
		So both Alex and Paul Joseph Watson's depositions are interviews between the lawyers and Alex and Paul Joseph Watson as people, respectively.
		They're there to answer questions themselves about their own knowledge and experience.
		Conversely, Rob Dew is deposed officially as a designated corporate representative for InfoWars' umbrella company, Free Speech Systems.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Now, that was a bad idea.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Rob does not seem to understand what this means.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Of course, he doesn't.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Which I find fascinating.
		It's clear, based on the lawyer's questioning, that they'd provided Free Speech Systems with a list of videos for which they needed to provide information about sourcing and how they were produced.
		Each of these videos, which are being said to be defamatory, contained information that was relevant to the case.
		You want to know where it came from.
		In order to sort out how these videos were made, the lawyers requested Free Speech Systems to designate a representative to speak for the company, but more importantly, to prepare and compile the information they were requesting.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		So he settled, what did they draw straws?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Must have.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		They wound up with Rob?
		Rob.
		Okay.
		That's a swing for the fences right there.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It was Rob Dew's responsibility to speak to the people who produced these videos and wrote the articles and to sort out where they got the information from.
		This is important to sort out because, you know, if there aren't any sources, it could be believable that these people at Infowars are just making stuff up.
		Rob Dew has not prepared at all.
		His deposition is a profound disrespect to this entire process.
		The reason I think it's interesting is that it does not read at all like blustery disrespect.
		This is not Rob Dude standing defiant, making a mockery of the entire lawsuit.
		It's a man who seems to not realize why he's there at the deposition.
		He seems to not know what appearing as a corporate representative means.
		He doesn't realize that he's there to speak for the company.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Rob Dew, can I call you Mr. Magoo from the rest of this deposition?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Rob Magoo.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		His body language and facial responses to questioning read like discomfort and confusion.
		He's not there to stonewall on behalf of free speech systems.
		He thought he was there to appear as Rob Dew in a capacity where answers like, I don't recall, can be used to dodge any question he's asked.
		But because he's there as a corporate representative, that question, that answer is not acceptable.
		A company cannot not recall something.
		It can either know something or it cannot.
		So in his capacity as a corporate representative, Rob Dew has a responsibility to prepare and know what free speech systems knows.
		When he's asked what the source for video number one is, he can't not recall.
		He has to either provide the source or say the company doesn't know what the source was.
		When he's asked if a particular employee worked on Sandy Hook material, he can't say, I don't recall.
		He has to say that they did, they didn't, or that Free Speech Systems doesn't know if they did.
		Because of his lack of preparation and seeming lack of understanding of his role, Rob Dew is being forced into a position where he really can't do anything other than physically embody the complete incompetence of InfoWars.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That might be their only defense.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Like, hey, guys.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's not a good defense.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		We're a shitty-run business.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's what we've got as a defense.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Then you take the L.
		Yeah, exactly.
		I mean, you're going to lose that.
		If you're just shitty and incompetent, you're still responsible.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		This supports my theory that Alex is just trying to spend all of the money he has left before the judges.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You think it's a Brewster's million?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I really think because why else would you appoint Rob Dew as your corporate representative?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I think nobody else.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's possible.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He's been there forever.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Get an intern to do that.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He's been there forever.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He has a, you know, he has an experience as the quote-unquote news director for the station company.
unidentified		Oh, boy.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He's had like executive managerial roles.
		Sure.
		He's been there as long as just about anybody.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Paul's too smart to do this.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely not.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Who else would you get?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Like, who's still there?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Jerome Coursey?
unidentified		He's suing Alex, too.
unidentified		You can't get him.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, but you have him as your corporate representative for this long.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You don't want Steve Pieczenik doing it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He's going to get you in more trouble.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		No, but what are the sources for you?
unidentified		Me!
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I'm CVP.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Roger's going to prison.
		He's out.
		Who do you have?
unidentified		Kit Daniels?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Darren McBreen?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Who are you going to send?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And also, you can't send an intern.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Buckley didn't work there anymore.
		Otherwise, he would probably be.
		Oh, he doesn't work there.
		No, he left a while back.
		So, like, I don't think Alex has anybody else other than Rob that you could probably trust to not like, what, Owen Schroer?
		You're going to send Owen Schroer?
		The Cuck Slayer is going to go to this?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I don't think so.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I legitimately do think he may not have any other options.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		No, you might be right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		David Knight may be possibly.
		I bet he wouldn't do it.
		Yeah.
		I feel like, I don't know, I would love to see a deposition with him.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		He didn't get deposed?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		If he did, it's not in the release that we got.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It would be very funny to me if even the lawyers for them were like, God, he's too boring.
		He's just too boring to depose.
		I'll take the L on his information.
		I just can't sit there and listen to him for two hours.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Can't be helpful.
		So, look, it wasn't a surprise what topics were going to be discussed in Rob's deposition or what capacity Rob was appearing in.
		And yet, this is how he shows up.
		It's disrespectful, but it's not macho disrespect.
		It's disrespect born out of a person not being equipped to have the conversation that they're legally required to have.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I find Rob Dew's deposition far more fascinating than Alex or Paul Joseph Watson's because of that dynamic.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It feels like he might as well have sent Brendan Dassey in there.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Send anybody.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
		Send the tank.
		The other reason that I find.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Excuse me.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Could you please establish your ownership?
unidentified		It's the opinion of some people that I'm owned by some things.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I don't know why that's my voice for a tank.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's weird.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		The other reason that I find Rob's interview and deposition more interesting is because, in addition to being there in a formal capacity as a representative of free speech systems, this is supposed to be about the sourcing.
		This is supposed to be about where did you get this information from?
		And that's always something that I would love for these people to be forced to answer.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, yeah, absolutely.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Because the answer is always going to be either made it up or weird right-wing websites or Larry Nichols.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Some completely uncredible person like a Fetzer or Wolfgang Halbig.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's always going to be exactly what you know it is, but they pretend it's not.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's always going to be some flimsy bullshit.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And so Rob, like these Rob Dew give any source.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		We'll see.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		These are the situations where, like, you know how whenever I talk about, like, when Alex sits down and he's like, I'm going to prove chemtrails today.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That gets me excited.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Teacher class.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Because then I'm like, okay, you will actually give me things to go and find.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Always get pumped about that.
		In the same way, I always get really excited when there is the prospect of they're going to have to answer these things.
		Yeah.
		And it's because, by all accounts, this should be their big day.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Like, they are the truth tellers of this.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		They're the ones who are right about everything, and the globalist media can't stand it.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		For sure.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Here is a formal court setting where Rob Dew is tasked with laying out the sources that they have for this for the coverage that they had.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And it's just such a dud.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		They also have tons of exonerating witnesses for Trump.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I don't know if you knew that or they've got them all.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And the other thing, too, is like if Rob is not going to give you any of the sources, he should pretend that they're privileged sources or something like that.
		And we refuse to give up our sources.
		And there's none of that.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You would have to have some sort of journalistic ethics or be held to a higher standard.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		There is none of that posturing and bravado.
unidentified		Nothing.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So anyway, here we start Rob's deposition, and he says something that is ultimately the least true thing possible.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Which of the four topics listed at the bottom of page one and top of page two of Exhibit One are you prepared to discuss today?
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		I am prepared to discuss A, sourcing and research for the videos described in Plaintiff's Petition and B, internal editorial discussions regarding free speech systems coverage of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He is not.
		Oh, God.
		So a lot of this interview and deposition is the lawyer asking about various people and whether or not they still work at Infowars because Rob has this sort of, I guess maybe it is a thing where if they don't still work there, he wouldn't be able to really ask them what they did or talk to them because he's a corporate representative.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And so they don't press on people who don't work there anymore.
		Jakari Jackson doesn't work there anymore.
		So there's no line of questioning about them.
		But people like Darren McBreen or Daria, they ask, did they have anything to do with Sandy Hook research?
		For sure.
		And Rob's just constantly like, I don't recall.
		And then they have to remind him, does free speech systems know?
		And he's like, I don't know.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I'm waiting for him to try and plead the fifth.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's just constant.
		Over and over and over again.
		Someone is brought up and then just, I don't know.
		I don't know.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I don't know why I'm here, guys.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So a lot of these clips are just titled, Rob is Not Prepared for This.
		So I don't know how to set this up.
		But Rob is not prepared for this.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Rob is not prepared for this.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		What did you do to prepare for your deposition testimony today regarding sourcing and research for the videos described in Plaintiff's Petition?
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		Not much other than speak with my attorney.
unidentified		Why did you look at any documents?
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		I looked at this document and that's it in terms of preparing for this.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yikes.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That document that he's referring to is the list of videos that are supposed to be discussed.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So that's the only thing he did to review.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		All right.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		So let me throw this out there for you.
unidentified		Sure.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		Now, when you say a woman is beautiful, that is an opinion.
		It's subjective.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		When you say I'm prepared to speak about A and B, and then you say that you're not, essentially, then it's an objective fact that you are not prepared to speak about A and B.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		No, it's subjective whether you feel prepared.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's fair.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So they have to keep reminding him that he's there as a corporate representative.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I am.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And he is unprepared for that as well.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Did you ask him if he's done research for Sandy Hook?
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		No, I didn't ask him that.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		So you don't know whether or not he's done research for Sandy Hook.
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		I can't remember any videos he was involved with making.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Right, that wasn't my question, though.
		Because I'm not asking you personally.
		I'm asking you as the corporate representative, and you were tasked with preparing yourself to discuss topic A as it applies to the entire company.
		So my question is: are you prepared to discuss the research that Darren McBreen was involved with regarding Sandy Hook?
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		I would say no.
unidentified		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That happens over time.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		A lot.
unidentified		I gotcha.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So in this next clip, they try and explain to Rob what he is there for.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And then they teach him the alphabet.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Like, what's going on here?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He doesn't seem to really grasp it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I think he does eventually, but it takes a while.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Let me clear it up.
unidentified		Okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Does Free Speech Systems know whether or not Marcus Morales has done research on Sandy Hook regarding the videos in Plaintiff's Petition?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		The answer is no.
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		He's been involved in any of that.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		I didn't ask whether or not you thought.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		I asked whether or not Free Speech Systems knows whether or not Marcus Morales has done any research pertaining to the videos in Plaintiff's Petition.
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		I can't answer that.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		And that's because you don't know.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		On behalf of the company.
unidentified		Well, going back to the best of my knowledge, I do not know.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		You understand that when you were tasked as the corporate representative on that topic, that you had a duty to prepare yourself to discuss that topic.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Do you know?
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		I didn't understand that.
unidentified		Okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Nobody has explained that to you prior to right now.
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		Prior to right now.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		You were under the impression that you were to come in here, sit down, and testify as to what you know personally, and that's it.
unidentified		Um, no, that's not what I understood.
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		I understood that I was the corporate representative, but I did not know I was supposed to go talk to Marcus Morales.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay, what did you think you were supposed to do?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh my god!
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh my god, no!
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I might have ended this interview right then.
		Like, you can get the sense that, like, we're here to have a conversation about this sourcing stuff.
		You have not prepared in any way.
		You don't understand your role as a corporate representative here.
		Why are we proceeding?
unidentified		Why?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I would just be like, get out of here.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, doesn't that?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Go do your work, and then we will reschedule this.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Instead, they keep going.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		To embarrass him, I assume.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I don't know if it's to embarrass him, but I think that they keep trying to be like, okay, is there something that you do know the sourcing of?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Like, try and get some information.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah, yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And so they talk about.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		No, this is the book report at the front of the class.
		The teacher's like, did you do the book report?
		And you're like, no.
		And they're like, okay, then sit down.
		That's it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You should probably.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But instead, you know, just try and find something that you do know the source of that we can work with.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Do you believe, sitting here right now, that you're prepared to discuss the sourcing and research that went into why people think Sandy Hook is a hoax?
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I do, because I've edited the video.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		Who was the source?
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		It was probably an anonymous person.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's not a good answer.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You say that you're prepared to talk about the sourcing of a video that you edited, and it's probably some random person.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Probably is a problem.
		Yeah.
		Some random person is another problem.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's an issue.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So that's not good.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		This is where we get into trouble with the law and people who feel like stuff they want to be true is true.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I feel prepared.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's a fact.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I feel so prepared for this.
		All right.
		Ask me a question.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		What's an opinion?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I have no fucking clue.
		I am so prepared for this.
		Next question.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		What's a fact?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I have no clue.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Next question.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You were so prepared.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I know.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So the piece of information that some random person probably brought up leads to talking about the Anderson Cooper nose disappearing from the green screen that Alex believed.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And the lawyer gets a little bit peeved about the idea that the FBI has forensic experts that have testified that this is not a green screen.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		This is a compression error in the video that has happened.
		And Rob Dew doesn't trust that.
		And so I think that you could understand a person getting a little bit frustrated.
		It's like, you'll believe random people, but you don't believe the FBI.
unidentified		Yes.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And he gets a little aggro.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Mistake or not mistake.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Anderson Cooper was behind a blue screen, was in front of a blue screen.
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		The only reason I would say it's not 100% because somebody asked him if he was there and he denied being at the funeral.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		You know that's not true.
unidentified		No, there's video of it.
unidentified		There's video of a guy asking him during a taping of a show.
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		He said, hey, were you at the funeral?
unidentified		And he goes, no, I wasn't.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		He wasn't at and inside the funeral.
		You understand that you've been a corporate representative for free speech systems and other lawsuits in Texas, correct?
		And I'm involved with those, correct?
unidentified		I'm sure you are.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		You understand that an expert who has decades of service in the FBI in video forensics determined that that was not a blue screen, but was simply video compression.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Did you know that?
unidentified		I've heard people say stuff.
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		You know, the FBI also said they put up photos of two guys who supposedly bombed the Boston marathon and said they didn't know who they were when they'd interviewed them.
unidentified		So the FBI lies a lot.
		Okay, so you don't trust the FBI?
		I don't really trust much in the government.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		All right.
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		That comes out of the government.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Do you trust anonymous sources on 4chan?
unidentified		I don't know if I've ever used an anonymous source on 4chan.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Do you know that's where the picture of Marcel Fontaine was found?
unidentified		been used?
		Are you talking...
		Who's more self-ontane?
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		You don't understand...
		You don't know who Marcel Fontaine is.
		He's the poor individual that lives in Massachusetts that InfoWars randomly put up his picture saying he was responsible for the Florida Parkland mass shooting.
unidentified		So we're talking about a different case now?
		Absolutely.
		Oh, we are?
		Okay.
		Well, I didn't put that up, but from my understanding.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		I'm not asking you whether you put it up.
		I'm asking if free speech systems is okay trusting an anonymous source that is completely unverifiable and using that information, but not trusting the FBI.
		Is that what you're testifying to?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Shit, fuck, fuck, shit.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		What do I say?
unidentified		Fuck.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Where's Barnes?
unidentified		I still don't understand the core concept of a corporate representative.
unidentified		What I'm testifying to is that it's been our experience that the FBI has lied many times to cover their own ass, essentially.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Did you tell your uncle that?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I told him that.
		It's already established that Rob Dew's uncle is a former FBI agent who Alex turned into a source to cast aspersions about Sandy Hook.
		That long pause there, I think, is really indicative.
		When I said that it's not a bravo, like a macho kind of disrespect, there is a look on his face of like, like, I know you're joking, like, shit, what do I say?
		But there is a feeling of like, what, what?
		Oh, no, that does make total sense.
		Why would we trust?
		Not me personally.
		I'm here for the company that did use anonymous information from 4chan, and yet I'm saying the FBI's experts are full of shit.
		That is a tough line to walk.
		In the same way that Paul is trapped with, hey, why are these people insane and Alex is totally fine?
		It is like, yeah, you know what?
		I really don't have a good answer for this.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		He said he talked to his attorney.
		So his attorney must not know that he was the corporate representative, right?
		Otherwise, the attorney, because it seems like the only advice that his attorney could have possibly given him is say you don't know over and over and over again.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It might have been a thing where he talked to Barnes and Barnes is no longer their lawyer.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And he was not doing a good job.
unidentified		Maybe he's like, tell him that the FBI is a bunch of liars.
unidentified		I'm Robabar.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		More billable hours.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I don't know what, yeah, I have no idea.
		It does seem like they've had a change in lawyer.
		And so possibly there's a miscommunication.
		Possibly somebody didn't get the right info where it needed to be.
		But yeah, it seems absurd to me that no one was like, when you appear.
		Right.
		Or, hey, he could have been talking to his lawyer, and the lawyer would be like, you know, you're appearing as a corporate representative.
		You bet I do.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's fair.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's totally fair.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And the lawyer assumes he knows what that entails, and he doesn't.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's possible.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Hey, Rob, do you think you're prepared for this?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You bet.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Okay, then you get on in there, buddy.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Go get a big guy.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So Rob claims that they were respectful to the victims and the family members.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		So he was unprepared for this interview.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		This is one of these, like, you know, just a slow-motion volleyball hit that Rob is doing that just like immediately cuts to normal speed and someone on the other side spikes it.
unidentified		Yeah, yeah, yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's that kind of thing.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, this is not good.
unidentified		And I believe kids are shot and killed in the beginning.
unidentified		Okay.
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		And if you look at our articles, we always talk about the victims.
unidentified		We were never disparaging towards the parents.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Bullshit.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		You've seen the video of Mr. Jones mocking Robbie Parker's father by mocking him crying as a grieving father, surely.
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		Robbie Parker's father, I don't know if I've ever seen a video of Robbie Parker.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		I mean, Robbie Parker.
		Excuse me.
		You've seen the video of Mr. Jones mocking Robbie Parker about crying over his dead son, right?
unidentified		I don't know if I've seen that video.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You're a corporate representative.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		So you're not prepared to talk about that video that's listed in plaintiff's petition that you had a duty to prepare for today.
unidentified		I'm not prepared to talk about that video of Robbie Parker crying over his son.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Oh, no, of Mr. Jones mocking Robbie Parker, crying over his son.
unidentified		I'm not.
unidentified		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I wouldn't be either.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, man.
unidentified		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, man.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's tough.
		Like, when you're trying to present, like, we were always very respectful.
		What about this time Alex is mocking a guy whose son just died?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Never seen it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Is this even legal?
		Did he even do this?
		I feel like he can't.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I don't know the law well enough.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Isn't there a rule that's like, by law, you're supposed to, like, is there a contempt of something?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's certainly contemptful.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I mean, I don't know in the legal definition, but I find this to be full.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Like I said, the way I would describe it is a rank disrespect.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Like, and not with the middle finger, but with just like, I don't even care enough to do what I need to do.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's fucked up.
		So one of the other big things that InfoWars did in their Sandy Hook coverage that is particularly disrespectful is that they put on screen and posted the address that Lenny Posner used to pick up his mail.
		There's a P.O. box that he was using that was, I believe, the address of the Honor Network, which was the foundation that he put together to try to get pictures of the children, like when conspiracy theorists would use their pictures of the kids to get those videos DMCA struck.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I know the story.
		He made that a fucking heroic effort.
		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So Alex was pissed off about this because some videos of fringe weirdos that he associates with were being taken down.
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And it's an attack on free speech.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So they got into the Honor Network and posted Lenny Posner's P.O. box address on air, which some people could say is probably not a safe thing to do.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		An incitement to buy it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So they discuss that a little bit, and Rob makes a pretty fucked up claim.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		The videos that the Honor Network had taken down, were those true?
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		Sitting here today, um, I'd have to see the video to know whether standing here today, whether I think it was true.
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		But I think a lot of it he pulled down just because they were giving him carte blanche to pull down whatever he wanted.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		And you're just making that up, you have no evidence of that, correct?
unidentified		Um, I have no evidence, okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		And I just wanted to make sure, again, we're sitting here as you make up information and spread it as I make up information and spread it.
unidentified		Okay, it sucks.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I mean, to be in that situation where you are just making stuff up, and then someone would be like, just to be clear, you're making that up.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Well, well, I mean, I don't have evidence per se, then you just have to answer.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		We're like, yeah, yeah, it's petulant.
		It's very childish shit.
		And I think that's what happens when people who do stuff like Infowars does are cornered.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Like, you can't really have any other response than sort of indignant disappointment.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's sad.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		No, it's a stone wall.
		Like, what do you, okay, you corner him, and he just says, fine, you think I make stuff up all the time.
		And he's never going to actually believe that he made it up.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's never going to be satisfying.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		No.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And that's what I was getting at at the beginning of why this is a more compelling deposition is because presumably this would be where InfoWars is supposed to shine.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		If they were what they pretend to be, the sourcing deposition would be six hours long.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It would be exhausting.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Alex is 100% correct on everything.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It would be on the record every day.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		For sure.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's in the white paper.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's not.
		It's just, I don't know shit.
		I just, you know, whatever.
		Yeah, Leonard Posner was just, he had carte blanche to take everything down.
unidentified		Like, what?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Why would you base that on?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Anything?
unidentified		Nah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I mean, I feel like it's true.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So Rob is also unprepared because he doesn't have access to all the videos they wanted to go over, right?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Rob, can I stress this one more time?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You are the corporate representative of the free speech system.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Jordan, here's the thing.
		YouTube took down their YouTube channel.
		So all those videos are gone.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Right?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		The internet ate them.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Dog internet ate homework.
		So Rob claims that one of the videos that he was supposed to prepare all the sourcing for and stuff like that, he can't find it.
		And then his lawyer, my God, he is just not putting up with Rob's bullshit.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		You don't have this video as your testimony.
unidentified		And by you, you mean free speech systems?
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		I didn't have it in any of the searches that I made.
unidentified		Okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Where'd you search?
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		Actually, some of these I actually went on the internet to see if people had reposted them.
		And I didn't find anything at the time because that's usually how we find stuff that got erased.
		People repost our stuff.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		How long did you spend looking for the sources or the video or the researcher for Sandy Hook, false narratives versus the reality?
unidentified		For that particular video, maybe 15 minutes.
unidentified		Are you aware that in this case, you produced this video to me?
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		But you're not prepared to discuss it.
unidentified		The problem is, and I think I discussed this in the last deposition.
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		We don't have video, the titles that you're using, you're referring to YouTube titles, and those aren't always what the video file is named when it gets uploaded.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Dew, you gave me this video.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Free speech systems produced this to me, not YouTube.
unidentified		I understand that.
unidentified		So you have it in your possession.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Correct?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		What is possession?
unidentified		I don't know if I have it in my possession.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		How on earth could free speech systems produce a video to me and it not be in your possession?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		There was only one copy.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		You had it and then you spoliated it, which is the destruction of evidence.
		Or two, you never had it yet somehow magically produced it to me.
		Which one of those is probably more accurate?
		Or three, you're just not prepared to discuss it.
unidentified		I'm not prepared to discuss it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Of those three, I think that's probably.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I would choose that one.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I would choose that one.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Look, man, we don't have this video.
		You gave it to me.
		Shit.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Excuse me, sir.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I would like to amend that back to magic.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Can we?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Is magic admissible in the court of law?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I mean, that is so disrespectful.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That is just like manifestly, I don't care.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I was told I was supposed to do all this stuff.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I'm not taking this seriously at all.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's horrible.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I mean, horrifying is maybe not the right word, but it's shocking.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It really is.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		This is the first time I've been surprised in 2019 right now in this deposition right here.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So the subject of Dan Badandi comes up.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And as we know, The Kraken is released from time to time.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And one of the things I find particularly interesting about their angle on Badandi is there's a unified front that seems to be pushing the idea that Dan Badandi went around and was yelling at people at Sandy Hook.
		And then that was it.
		Alex was like, I don't want anything to do with you.
		You're fired.
unidentified		Sure.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You're fired.
		Get out of here.
		You never worked here in the first place.
		Stop using that microphone screen that says InfoWars.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		Cut it out.
		How do we do on that one?
		How's our dude going to fight that battle?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Rob tries to maintain that illusion.
		Sure.
		And then the lawyer brings up an email that they found at Discovery.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		But shortly after that video, he was fired because of what he was doing to those people.
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		He was doing contract workforce, and we would either accept or not accept his reports.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		And after that, you stopped accepting all reports and stopped responding to him, according to your position testimony last time we spoke.
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		I have to look at the dates for everything, but yes, that sounds right.
unidentified		Okay.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		So it's weird that we were produced in this case for the first time an email that you're involved with that has Dan Badandi being fired for how he was acting at a Donald Trump rally in 2016.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Fun fact, right?
unidentified		That is a fun fact.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That is a fun fact.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, God.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Man, they really should have gone through the discovery stuff.
		This is banana.
		Info is really screwed by this.
		Like, we just sent everything over.
		We didn't review anything.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's insane.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		The plaintiffs' lawyers are going to look through all that stuff.
		They're going to find these things.
		Like, hey, you know, you said you fired Dan Badanti because of this abusive behavior and all that stuff.
		And that's a great story, but it turns out it was because he was acting like an idiot at a Trump rally in 2016.
		You didn't want to be associated with him.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So, fun fact.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That is a fun fact.
		Thank you for bringing that to my attention.
		Oh, as a representative.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So you personally are on that email channel.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I don't recall.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And I reject.
unidentified		Oh, did the FBI send that email?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So they get to talking about this video that Alex put out, which is called Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed.
unidentified		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And Rob says he can discuss the sources of that because he worked on it.
		Then the lawyer brings up something unfortunate that Do you think vampires are real?
		Yes.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Opinion.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		April 22nd, 2017, after the final statement.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		That was our last video.
unidentified		Is Sandy Hook vampires exposed?
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Do you remember that video?
unidentified		I do remember that video.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Who researched the information for that video?
unidentified		I would say myself and Alex did.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		What were your sources?
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		I believe a Megan Kelly interview.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Any others?
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		And then I believe previous videos that we produced.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Are you aware that on April 22nd, 2017, that the Megan Kelly interview hadn't even happened yet?
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		No, it hadn't happened yet.
unidentified		Okay.
		Fair to say that you're not prepared to discuss this video.
		Yeah, I think that's a fun fact.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Man.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, the source for that video was the Megan Kelly interview, which happened afterwards.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Can I go back and revise my answer to Time Travels Real?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Would that one help?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So I think this is a pretty understatement, but Rob Do did not do his job as a corporate representative.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That is, I can only assume the reason that the interview kept going was just because the lawyer really wanted to expose how fucking shameless these people are.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It doesn't feel vindictive.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		The questioning doesn't veer too far into, I'm going to humiliate you.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's what I'm saying.
		I think the reason that I'm saying that is simply because they can't be humiliating.
		They're shameless.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I think if it were me in there, I probably would try and set more traps.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I would try and do all sorts of crazy things.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Do you believe in climate change?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's your angle that you would go on it.
		But yeah, and I don't think that they resort to too much of that.
		No.
		But like I said.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It seems like they're dangerously patient.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		And I would say from the last deposition to this one, I see not a marked improvement because I think that would be condescending for me to say.
		But I see far more what they're trying to get at in this.
		And I think that it's far more problematic for Alex.
		I think it's much more troubling.
		And I think probably a large part of that is based on the discovery and the process moving on, being able to match up these private communications along with public statements.
		And I think that they're doing, from all indications I can get, I think they're doing a good job.
		Unlike Rob Dew.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Ah, come on.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		You didn't review any emails prepared for today.
unidentified		That's correct.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Right.
unidentified		Do you think you should have?
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		I wasn't relying on the advice of my attorney.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		With how this deposition has gone so far, do you think you're prepared enough?
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		I'm not going to answer that.
unidentified		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I wouldn't either.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		What?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Rob, Rob, really?
		Really?
		Really?
		Rob, I'm not going to answer that.
		What do you think that means?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's about where the lawyer is being a little bit petty, possibly, but I still think it's a fair question.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Do you think that you should have done more?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Actually, I genuinely think that's a great question because that is indicative of the entire ethos of info or something.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You also wonder, too, it's not a question that's meant just to prod.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Like, there's a chance that he might actually think he did exactly what he was supposed to do.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I genuinely think he does.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He might.
		So, like I said, in the Paul Joseph Watson one, there is an attempt to sort out the difference between opinion, fact, the presentation of it on the show.
		And it comes back up here with Rob, where the discussion is broached of how are people supposed to tell what's reporting and what's opinion?
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		As a journalist, don't you have the duty to be right and not first?
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		Well, and we're not always wearing journalistic hats.
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		Sometimes we're commenting on something.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		So when you're commenting on something, you can just make it up and it doesn't matter.
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		No, you can say your opinion.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		In any way, is that differentiated on air?
		Does Mr. Jones say, here, I'm just going to make stuff up.
		Here, you should trust me because we're truth in journalism.
		Does he do that?
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		I think he doesn't play devil's advocate as much anymore because of businesses like these, where we're at today.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Because I got sued.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Like, do you guys not want to answer my question or do you not understand what questions are?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I think that that question is being asked incredibly clearly.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		How are you supposed to tell the difference between opinion presented as fact and fact, whatever?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so you gave me a very clear question, and I'm going to respond with a time-based question, which has nothing to do with it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's completely impossible to answer for them.
		That's why I think that that is a dangerous thing for them to, for Infowars to even give a bad answer.
		Exactly.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, even acknowledging that.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Because it is.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Every single thing is presented as truth.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		100% truth.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		As he says it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You can't listen to Alex Jones for any extended period of time without coming away with the impression that he, first of all, is wrong.
		And second, he is absolutely making statements of fact, not opinion.
		Whatever ways he can couch it, I don't know based on the law where the line is or what side he's on.
		But as a consumer of it and a listener to his show, I have no problem saying that they blur that line, perhaps intentionally, and it's super unclear.
		Because can you imagine if Alex is just like, yeah, all this stuff is just my feelings.
		That's just what I think about this.
		I'm not saying that it's based on, when I say that it's all in the white papers and everything I say is proven, that's just my opinion.
		I believe that everything has been proven.
		I'm not saying to you that it has been proven.
		What is your show then?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, my opinion is me saying that everything has been proven to you is a statement of opinion.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		We will never solve this because I am a circle.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So this deposition with Rob Dew ends with the lawyer asking if Rob is proud of what Infowars has done.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Wait, now, is that a personal question or is that a question for him as the representative of free speech systems?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I think it might be personal.
		So he asks that.
		And Rob's answer, I think, might low-key mean that he might be way more of a fucked up bad dude than we think.
		Because this answer is borderline sociopathic.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		My last question is, sitting here today, on behalf of the company, are you proud of the work that you did, that Free Speech Systems did on Sandy Hook Elementary School and the shooting that happened in December 2012?
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		I think our reporting stopped what was going to be a lot of anti-gun legislation coming down.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		You didn't answer my question.
		My question was, are you proud of the information that you spread about Sandy Hook from 2012 to 2017?
		as a company.
		Is that what you want to be remembered for?
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		I don't think we're going to be remembered for Sandy Hook.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		What do you think you're going to be remembered for?
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		I know that's what you want.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Okay, you whiny little.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I think that when you're being asked, are you proud of this?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You should not have, like, if you don't want to show ass, there's some sort of an answer you could give that's not yes or no.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You know, mistakes were made.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I think we did some things well.
		I think we did other.
		Are you going to say, are you proud of every mistake that you've ever made?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You can do that.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You can say, hey, look, Jim Fetzer, or you probably don't want to broach that one.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		No, you don't speak his words.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Wolfgang Halbig was presented by other people as a completely credible source.
		Sometimes you believe people who you shouldn't believe.
		You could do whatever you want.
		His answer being, I believe that there was a lot of gun legislation that we stopped by lying about Sandy.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		So excuse me.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's an end justify the means.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Excuse me, Mr. Dew.
		Are you saying that you spread false information in order to achieve a political result?
		Do you know we have a word for that?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I mean, it does seem to imply that he doesn't have qualms with putting out false information if it's expedient to his goals.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And that to me, under oath, speaking for the company, is not good.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		No.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		No.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I gasped when he said, hey, we stopped gun legislation.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Honestly, honestly, I don't know if Goebbels would have said he was proud of the misinformation that he spread.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, also, you've got to consider these gun paranoia fears that they've had over the decades.
		Like, they didn't need to fake something like this.
		They didn't have to engage in this to stop that legislation.
		Like, tons of money from the NRA.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Talk about the MIAC report and all that shit.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Like, gun advocacy groups do enough to make sure that a lot of that legislation doesn't pass.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You don't need people like Alex doing this sort of shit.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		Okay.
		So they've spent millions and millions of dollars on lobbying directly to congressmen and essentially have purchased their votes.
		Did the NRA ever completely lie about a mass shooting?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		They might have.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's true.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		They might have.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So Rob's deposition is like this real spectacle of incompetence and disrespect that I find really interesting.
		And I find it to be like a real low point for these depositions in particular because they had such potential.
		The sources.
		We're going to find out information.
		And then it's just Rob Dew with a backwards beanie on just being like, I don't know anything.
		You're speaking as the company.
		The company doesn't know anything.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Who cares?
		That's so fucked up.
		And not least of which, just because if anybody had ever given me like, we are going to depose you, here's the stuff you need to know.
		I would have done the shit out of my homework.
		So nervous.
unidentified		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		So fucking, they're going to depose me.
		I'm under oath.
		I better get my facts right.
		And these people are just like, eh, I'll wing it.
unidentified		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's so fucked up.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		We had Paul Joseph Watson as the opener.
		We had Rob Dew as the feature actor.
		Right.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Which is the best spot, as we've clearly seen.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah, yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And as is tradition, we got our headliner.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And that is, of course, Alex Jones being under oath, deposed again.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So we had like the Paul probably was about an hour-long deposition.
		Rob Dew is about an hour 40.
		Alex is almost three hours of him under oath.
		And a large part of the beginning of it is discussing what means did people communicate with each other internally at InfoWars.
unidentified		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Which is, you know, to try and be like, do we have all of these internal communications, emails, all this?
		Did you all use Slack?
		That kind of thing.
unidentified		Right, right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And Alex is very wishy-washy about all of this.
		I don't know what people used.
		What Slack?
		Yeah.
unidentified		God damn it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So in this first clip, he claims that he's never texted with anybody about Sandy Hook.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		So you're saying you never received text messages relating to Sandy Hook.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Is your testimony the same that you've never sent a text message relating to Sandy Hook?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I mean, I've said to talk to a lawyer meeting about it or something, but I know I don't sit there and talk about Sandy Hook.
		It's not my identity.
		I very rarely talk about Sandy Hook, period.
unidentified		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		So your testimony is you've never sent a text message relating to Sandy Hook to a fellow employee or a source or somebody outside the company.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		No, other than, I mean, I think I've talked about meetings with lawyers about it.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		That's it.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That seems to be in direct contradiction to Paul Joseph Watson's email that he sent to Buckley and Anthony Gucciarti, which was an on-the-record version of a text that he sent to Alex.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I was literally waiting for him to be like, and here's the text you provided us.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But I don't think he needs to, I don't think that the lawyers need to bring that out.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You just need like, here's Alex being duplicitist.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's not there.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Here's so one of the angles that I thought was really interesting at the beginning of this conversation with Alex is getting into, have you ever disciplined anybody at InfoWars?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Because I know an employee.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		We just talked to him who could use a little discipline, my friend.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So like, Alex seems to think that the question is all about whether someone has put out false information intentionally and then been disciplined.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Whereas the question is really more just like, have you disciplined anyone?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		For anything.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, like making a mistake, being hasty, any of those sorts of things.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Throwing axes at them.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk about request for production number three on page four.
		This request sought all documents reflecting disciplinary action taken against any employee of Free Speech Systems LLC for publication of false information or for breach of journalistic ethics between December 4th, 14th, 20th, and 21st.
		2012, and April 18th, 2018.
		Your response is none, correct?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		Okay.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		None.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		In six years, apparently, none.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		No one has been disciplined for this stuff.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I mean, it does really feel like their defense is we're a shittily run business.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I mean, I still don't think that's that.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's all I can do.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I still don't think that doesn't get you off the hook for this.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Of course not.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		No.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's what I'm saying.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I think they know they're going to lose because, of course, they are.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I think they have to at this point.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And I think they just are like, fucking, let's push this back as long as possible.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Let's ride this out.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Let me reframe this.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's not necessarily that they think they're going to lose, but I get the sense that they think it's a more likely outcome than they might have previously.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah, fair.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And yeah, it's not surrender.
		It's not giving up or anything like that, but it's fucking like, it's weird.
		This hinge of we're all opinion kind of thing is not what you'd want to do if you're InfoWars.
		You don't want to testify and put on oath that, hey, we're not talking facts here.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		We're not talking facts.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I mean, yeah, but by their own definition of facts, nobody is going to care or listen to them because they're just going to say, ah, that's what you think.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Like, facts are not going to convince anyone of anything.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Maybe.
		So before we get to some more talk about disciplining employees, we get to this idea of what is an opinion and what is fact.
		And see if Alex knows the difference.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		You think Sandy Hook is not an operating school.
		You think that's an opinion?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I don't know the context for speaking about it.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I'm just saying right now, if I told you, if I said to you, Mr. Jones, Sandy Hook wasn't an operating school.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I believe it was torn down.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		It's not what I'm asking.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Oh, I'm confused.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I see that.
		I'm asking you, if I said to you, right now, I'm going to say it to you right now, Mr. Jones, Sandy Hook wasn't an operating school.
		Did I just make a statement or did I just make an opinion?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Well, I got your opinion.
unidentified		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		So those sorts of statements can be said on InfoWars without fact-checking.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I don't know the context.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So the reason that he's trying to nail this down is because he's trying to get the sense of like, if you're an employee for Infowars and you want to just say something on air, is there any kind of, I believe prior constraint is the term.
		Any kind of like, how would you go about making a claim like Sandy Hook wasn't open on air?
		And it turns out to be.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Well, they said it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, it's an opinion.
		And that is not an opinion.
		That is something that is either that has a truth value attached to it.
		It's either true or false.
		And that, I think, is one of the clearer things that comes out to me in the course of all of these depositions is a staunch refusal to understand or accept that there is a difference between a fact and an opinion.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I don't think that these people, and I think that there's a strategic reason for it, but I also think that there's a possibility that they sincerely don't quite grasp that.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I genuinely believe that they don't.
		I really don't think they do.
		And if we're going by, if I'm going by that, like they're the weakest link in this propaganda chain, I think they're low enough on the totem pole where they're convinced that there is no difference.
		You know, like higher up in the upper echelons of journalists at Fox News who are, or opinion people at Fox News, they have to be aware that they're not telling the truth.
		But these guys genuinely don't believe there is a truth.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		They don't believe there's a fact.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's really hard for me to tell because it seems possible that there is an inability or an unwillingness to understand the difference on their part.
		It's possible.
		But I can't really necessarily believe that because I also think that it's exactly the last refuge you would hide in.
		Like it is where you would go if you're like, well, everything is indefensible and my behavior is clearly shown to be fucked up.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I was, you know, hey, look, there's just opinions.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That is real.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It does seem like exactly where you would try and hide out.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's true.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You're not wrong.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I mean, obviously they can't combat it with any kind of facts.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Because there is a functional use to it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I find it hard to believe that it's just like the inability to recognize reality.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		If it didn't serve a purpose, then I'd be like, that's fascinating.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But because it does, it's.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		But that's something that I hear so often from a lot of people is that baseline belief.
		And I don't know.
		I think it's a combination of purposeful ignorance along with a willingness or What is it?
		Constant bombardment of this as true?
		You know, like they, somebody repeated it often enough.
		And I don't want to really engage with the fact that repetition isn't reality.
		So.
		So I'm going to say that it's true.
unidentified		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Like, that's kind of their operating system, I think.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Could be.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So we get back to these employees who have not been disciplined at all, and we get some examples.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Let's say an editor publishes an accusation that someone is a criminal.
		And in doing so, they relied on a source whose identity they cannot verify.
		They have no idea who it is.
		It's a totally anonymous message they got.
		And then it turns out that that reporting was false.
		Is that okay?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		No, it's not.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You would take disciplinary action if that happened.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Now, what kind of disciplinary action would you take?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I would generally just say to something like that and probably let them go.
unidentified		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Now, when Kit Daniels ran an article accusing an innocent young man of being the Parkland mass murderer based on anonymous sources, which he could not verify, you didn't fire him, did you?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		That individual's name was not put out, and it was from another site, and it was pulled down, and then the individual reported themselves and their name into the record.
		But Kit did not do that on purpose.
		And it was on thousands of publications.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		He intentionally, on purpose, reported an accusation of a crime based on an anonymous source whose identity he could not verify.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Correct.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		No, it was a.
		Yeah.
		It appeared to match the information that was also on other sites, but it was incorrect.
		That's why we took it down.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		What sites are you talking about?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		It was a long list of sites.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		It was all over the internet.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Before Kit Daniels published it.
unidentified		Yes.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		That's your belief.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		That's why I remember the best of my knowledge.
unidentified		All right.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Kit Daniels testified that he just found it on 4chan and saw it in a tweet by an anonymous Twitter account.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I don't remember that.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		If that was true, though, if he just relied on two anonymous sources whose identity he could not verify, that's a fireable offense, isn't it?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		Yes.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I believe there was more, but yes, that's not good.
unidentified		Ooh.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's not good.
		I cannot believe that he is not clever enough to sense that a hypothetical question is going to lead to a literal mirror.
		That is insane to me that he's answering that question honestly.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I fire the guy.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, don't answer that.
		Don't answer a hypothetical.
		It's not like he's going to ask you a hypothetical question that's going to exonerate you.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		No, probably not.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So he asks that one, and then, you know, there's another example.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You didn't take disciplinary action against any employee involved in the false reporting on the Chobani yogurt company that you publicly apologized for, correct?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		That was a publicity stunt by Chobani yogurt, and there was no money.
		It was all just there were migrant workers being brought in.
		There were rapes in the area, but technically the company itself wasn't doing it.
		It was the owner and the Federal Reserve Board member.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		What?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Didn't David Knight tell you explicitly that there were no rapes?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		That that was false?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I don't remember what you're talking about.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Hey, Hamdi.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		What the fuck did he just did?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		He just commit another crime?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I'm not entirely sure.
		It does seem like under oath he just said that Hamdi Ulakayo was involved in bringing migrants.
		Yeah, I wonder if that is a violation of it seems like it would be.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		There's no way that it's like, oh, you can't say it publicly.
		However, in a deposition in another lawsuit, it would be totally fine.
		And when it's released on the internet, we won't consider that public.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Uh-huh.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that's insane.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, and so you got that really fucked up answer.
		And then also a demonstration that, no, when the whole Chibani thing happened, no one was punished.
		But again, Alex is presenting it is because it was a publicity stuff.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that's bananas.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I'm starting to think that that public apology wasn't genuine.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Seems like it wasn't.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So there's even more things that he didn't have any disciplinary actions about.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		When your reporter, Owen Schroyer, tried to falsely connect the Austin pizza restaurant Eastside Pies to a pedophile ring, you didn't take any disciplinary action.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Correct?
unidentified		I don't know.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I'm not telling those specifics what you're talking about.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You've never taken any disciplinary action against any employee for any of the false things said about Sandy Hook on InfoWars, correct?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Shit, fuck, fuck, shit.
unidentified		What do I say?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I'm not sure what you're getting at.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Really?
unidentified		Really?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I want to hang that on the wall.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I'm very...
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's pretty clear what I'm getting at, is that you create an environment where everybody is not at all punished for putting out bullshit.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And in fact, they are actively encouraged to do so.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Seems like that's the pattern that's being demonstrated.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		How do you not know what I'm getting at?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I am very clearly leading you.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's why the really is so like, come on, man.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You know exactly what's going on.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I would hope so.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So then the topic of Dan Bedanti comes up.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And of course, Alex wants to downplay his relationship with the Kraken.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, that's Mr. Bedanti.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		All right.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Jones.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		That's the man that InfoWars sent to Newtown to report on Sandy Hook in 2014, correct?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Well, he lived up there.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		He went and covered it.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		He lives in the Boston area, correct?
unidentified		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		So InfoWars sent him to Sandy Hook to cover it in 2014, right?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Not exactly.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		He had his own separate radio show from us.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, but he did reporting for InfoWars in 2014 in Sandy Hook.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		We had him on as a guest, but he wasn't working for us then.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, he wasn't your reporter?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Not technically.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You described him as your reporter.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I don't remember that.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I may have.
unidentified		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He certainly has.
		That was certainly heard him describe Dan Badanti as an employee.
		He says he hired him, said he sends him places.
		Right.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That is an opinion, though.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Opinion.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Opinion.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So Alex tries to play the same game that a rob dude does, and that is that our sense of decency was offended by what Dan Bedandi was up to.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And so we told him to fuck off.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You bullshit liar.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		What did you think of Mr. Bedondi's work in Newtown in 2014?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I did not follow a lot of it.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, when you did find out about it, what was your reaction?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		What did you do?
unidentified		Objection form.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I don't remember the specifics.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		When you testified back in March, didn't you say that you had seen what he did and had a reaction to it?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Are you talking about this report?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I don't remember this report.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I'm just talking about his work in Newtown.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		What did you think about his work in Newtown in 2014?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I don't remember the exact year, but I remember telling him, you're not reporting for us, so stop using the might flag.
		And I told him, and stop.
		You know, don't come on the show.
		I mean, I don't like your demeanor and you don't represent us.
		I do remember that.
		I'm not sure the year.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Oh, okay.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I don't like your demeanor.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Kraken.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, no kidding.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		The guy who I specifically praised for his demeanor.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I might as well have created a statue because he disrupted Boston bombing-related press conferences.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I didn't like the way he was carrying himself.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		This is unreal.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so ridiculous.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I don't understand why they're, why is Alex doing both or trying to do both the I don't recall and answer the question thing?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Because I think it's hubris.
		I think he's used to be right.
		I think that sometimes he feels like I can handle this.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, it feels that way a little bit.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		He can't.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		No.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Because nothing he says is real.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, and like Rob, he's not prepared.
		He hasn't really sorted out.
		Like, there is a part of like, I don't understand what you're getting at that is kind of, I think there's an accuracy to it.
		Like, I don't think he understands some of the lines of questioning and what their purpose is.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right, right, right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Like, there's the, you didn't discipline any of your employees for all of these clear instances of being lazy, being sloppy, being irresponsible.
		There is a point to that line of questioning.
		In the same way with Dan Badanti, like, bringing him up, there's a reason that we're going down this road.
unidentified		Were there depositions in the Hamdi Ulakaya case?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I don't think it proceeded to that point.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I think he settled before any of them.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I was going to say.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I'm not entirely sure.
		And I don't know if any became public.
		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Because it kind of feels to me like the advice that they must be operating under is like, this is going to settle.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		So don't worry too much about that.
unidentified		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		We're going to settle this the same way that we did with the other lawsuits.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's not what Barnes says.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's just going to cost him money.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's not going to be in the Supreme Court.
unidentified		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And they also said that I will die before I give in to this.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah, yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I will not be taken down by yogurt.
unidentified		Never.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So, Alex, again, another line of questioning that seems very consistent is that I don't believe that the lawyers think that Alex has any sources, really, outside of Wolfgang Halbig and Jim Fetzer.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		They seem to be pretty clear that any question kind of traces back to them a little bit.
unidentified		Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And so Alex really wants you to know that Jim Fetzer wasn't a source.
unidentified		Sure.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		In addition to Wolfgang Halbig, one of your other sources for your Sandy Hook reporting was Jim Fetzer, right?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Not one of mine, I remember.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		That's a long time ago.
unidentified		Really?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You didn't testify to that in March, that Mr. Fetzer was...
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		He was one of the people questioning it.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		In one of your sources for Sandy Hook coverage, correct?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I don't know what I, I mean, I remember, I don't think he was on my show.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Didn't you testify that Mr. Watson was telling you that Mr. Fetzer was bad?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You shouldn't be relying on him?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I remember Paul saying he didn't like Fetzer.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I do remember that.
unidentified		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Fetzer is a retired professor and a rabid anti-Semite, right?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I don't know if I'd call it that.
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		I don't know that.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You didn't know Mr. Fetzer was a rabid anti-Semite?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		No, I don't know that.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You didn't know that Mr. Fetzer thinks the Jews did Sandy Hook?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		No, I don't know that.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Just like he thinks the Jews did 9-11?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		No.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Oh.
		Oh.
		Alex should really know more about the worlds that he dwells in.
		Seems like it would be helpful to him.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		This is bananas.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So in the Rob Dew deposition, Rob didn't know the name of the guy that they fingered as the Parkland shooter, which is crazy because they're engaged in all of this and this attention, this negative attention, these lawsuits.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You would think that this would be something that, like, okay, we've got to cover our bases on this.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You don't even recognize the guy's name.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Now, Alex doesn't know somebody's name.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You remember at the end of the 2016 election, there was some media coverage about how you would set on your show that Trump had called you and to thank you for your help in the election.
		And some of those mainstream media sources were, you know, kind of trying to pile on you about that.
		Do you remember that?
unidentified		Yes.
unidentified		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Two days after that happened, a woman named Erica Lafferty.
		First, let's back up.
		Do you know who Erica Lafferty is?
unidentified		No.
unidentified		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		She's the daughter of Don Hopspring.
		She's currently suing you.
		You don't know who she is?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I've never talked about her.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		She's been talked about on InfoWars, though.
		You didn't know that?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, and you didn't know that she currently is the named plaintiff in a suit against you in Connecticut called Lafferty v. Jones?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You didn't know that?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Oh, I've seen that name, yeah.
unidentified		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Oh, I've seen that name.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's crazy that that I don't even understand how you can be that level of because it doesn't feel like that's not a genuine answer.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		No, I genuinely believe he has no idea who she is.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Even if you watch it, it seems like, I don't know who's at.
unidentified		I don't know.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, when he's lying or trying to find a way to lie but not lie, he pauses for about 45 to 80 minutes.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		There is a strange, and it just goes to the larger picture of what I see as just blatant disrespect going on by these people who work at Free Speech Systems.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		They must genuinely never have thought they would actually be deposed.
		Maybe.
		They have to believe that.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It would explain the lack of preparation, the lack of lawyerly advice.
		It's possible.
		Or they just thought they won't put these out for a long time.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I guess.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		We'll just be able to keep this under wraps.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Wow.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		This is insane.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		The lawyer plays a video of Alex's from 2016.
		And in it, Alex is discussing some of the evidence and some of the reasons why there's suspicions around Sandy Hook.
		And this is one of them.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		But the biggest piece of evidence, the smoking gun, if you would, of a cover-up of whatever really happened is the Wayback Machine, the Internet Archive.
		We see Sandy Hook's New Town website, K through 12, having zero traffic, 2008, 9, 10, 11, 12, and then all of a sudden, it just explodes.
		It's impossible to have zero traffic to a K through 12 entire school system.
unidentified		And the word is, that school system was shut down for those years.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		That's what the records show.
unidentified		But they tell us it was open.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So you might have some questions about how that evidence works.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And Alex doesn't, he seems very confused when questioned.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		So you said in the video, we see Sandy Hook's website having zero traffic.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		According to this.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		According to you.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		The Internet Wayback Machine.
		Do you believe that that shows Internet traffic?
		Is that what you believe?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		What it shows is what's being archived there.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		And then there's also, it's a group of not just this, but I'd have to go back to it because that was years ago.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Internet Wayback Machine does not show Internet traffic at a school, correct?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		It shows new material and traffic on a website as opposed to.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, you're going to stick by.
		You think it shows traffic, internet traffic.
		That's what it's measuring.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I guess the term would be traffic and posting in activity.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Have you ever read the Wayback Machine FAQ, frequently asked questions?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Ever figured out what it is?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That is not what the Wayback Machine does.
		Oh, my God.
		So you have this smoking gun, as Alex called it on this 2016 video, that is a completely misunderstood, misrepresented piece of information.
		And what makes it all the more troubling is...
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You say there's things showing that there's no traffic coming to the school.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		What are you talking about?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I'd have to pull that up.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		This was years ago.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think you could pull it up pretty easily because it comes from Jim Fetzer's book, right?
		You could just open up Jim Fetzer's book.
		No one has to do it.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I've never read Jim Fetzer's book.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Jones, I'm going to caution you again.
		Please wait till I answer your question.
		Because as you can see, it's very frustrating for this man.
		And he's not here affiliated with Finny Party.
		He's a private person.
		He's paid to provide a service.
		He's coming here to try to write all this down so we have a good record.
		So let's try to behave in the deposition.
		Let me finish my questions.
		You didn't check any other Connecticut school district websites, did you?
unidentified		Because they all look like this, don't they?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I don't remember.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Well, let's say, hypothetically, if you had gone and you had seen that every other Connecticut school district website looks just like this, it'd be pretty irresponsible to go on the internet.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I mean, go on your web show, call this the smoking gun, wouldn't it?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I was predominantly talking about the other information, but I had to go back and get that.
unidentified		Okay.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I'm glad he finally understood what a hypothetical question.
		He finally understood.
		I was waiting for him to answer it and be like, ha ha, yes, you're right.
		That would be wrong.
		And he's like, did you do that?
		Oh, right.
		Hypotheticals are leading to reality.
unidentified		Shit.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I mean, the problem with that is like, yes or no, you're wrong.
		If you go and see that all the Connecticut school districts have this same pattern on the Wayback Machine, if you did look that up, then you're willfully lying.
		If you're not, then you clearly just took this piece of information, presumably, from Jim Fetzer, as it's a piece of his book.
		And Alex does not want that to be the perception because Jim Fetzer just lost that big lawsuit over the book.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And it seems if he put out that book back then and it's, you know, still now he's losing a lawsuit for it, it tends to look like Alex could be heading for a similar path.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I believe Alex has never read his book.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I believe that Alex has never read a book.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I believe that he has been given several quotes from that exact book.
unidentified		It's possible.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		He's told to say them.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Or the same information, like, let's say he read a blog that was based on Fetzer's book.
unidentified		Yeah, yeah, yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I could see that.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That makes more sense.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Or one of his employees read the book and was like, oh, here's a piece of information.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Oh, let's run with that.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Let's give you a cliff notes, yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Which is why it's important for the Rob Dew interview to have actually had some substance to it.
		Trace down what's the process.
		But, nope.
		So in that same clip from the 2016 video, Alex is saying that the records show that the school was closed.
		And he gets asked about that.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Right after that, the Wayback Machine discussion, you said, the word is that school was shut down for those years.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		That's what the records show.
unidentified		That was your argument, correct?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I'm specifically talking about the other articles I was talking about, yes.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		That's what I'm asking you about right now.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Those records, what are you talking about?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I'd have to go pull them up.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You haven't done that.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		No, not recently.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You've been under lawsuit now for over a year on Sandy Hook-related cases, multiple cases.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		And you haven't done anything to go try to find what your sources for these claims are, have you?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I've done a lot of work.
unidentified		Ooh.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Is that an opinion or a fact?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's an uncompelling response.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I've done all the work.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So, Alex, like I said, he just really doesn't want the perception to be that he's getting his information just from Fetzer and Halbig because that looks really bad.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So he keeps claiming that he can produce other evidence, but then somehow hasn't.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		So if I wanted to know, when you say the records show that the school was closed down, you could produce those records.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I could show what I was talking about at that point.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, or you could produce whatever you were relying on as your source, right?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Now that you've specified.
unidentified		You haven't done that, though, have you?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I don't have a law degree.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
unidentified		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		If you were asked the question, produce to me your source or records or information that you relied on to say the school was closed.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		That's something you could do.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I don't know if it would be what you're looking for.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I mean, look, if you had records or some sort of information, some sort of source showing the school in America's most horrifying school shooting was actually closed, you'd probably save that somewhere, right?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Well, I specifically mentioned, I can, I mean, I remember what people were pointing out, what was going on.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I'm asking you if you would have saved that stuff.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Shit, shit, fuck.
unidentified		What do I say?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Fuck, shit.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Horns.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I mean, I don't have the specifics here in front of me.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I'm not asking what you have in front of you.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I'm asking you, when you had information that the school shooting that is the most famous in American history actually occurred in a school that was closed down and wasn't an operating school, did you save that information?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		You know, I don't remember.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		It's a long time ago, almost seven years ago.
unidentified		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Harry's shittily run business as his defense.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And it was a long time ago, man.
		I had this game-changing information, and I just, it's a long time ago.
		Wait, so this narrative is bunk.
		And I think that in this course of this conversation, they've pretty well laid out, like, you were full of shit on this.
		And his only response is, like, well, I guess I could find your information, but I haven't yet.
		So another one is the Anderson Cooper knows thing.
		They kind of talked about that on the last deposition, so it doesn't come back up.
		And another one is Alex has this dumb narrative about a CNN interview that took place.
		And it was two people that were out in a remote location, and you can see the same car pass behind both of them.
		And Alex is saying that this is meant to be faking the news, and it's meant to, you know, it's supposed to be like, oh, they're pretending they're in different places, but you can tell they're in the same place because the media is all lies.
		Sure.
		And that had nothing to do with Sandy Hook.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		No.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But it had to do with the media lying.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It was actually people waiting for the, I believe it was the jury verdict in the Jody Arius murder trial.
		But Alex says, like, they're pretending they're in different places, but it's clear they're in the same place.
		Ergo, CNN, lies.
		And this gets dismantled so fucking quickly.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Do you remember that bus going behind them?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I remember the story.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		It was that they were at the same location.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, explain what you think's going on here.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'm not saying they're staging Sandy Hook.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I'm saying it's just they were staging that they were at different locations.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Were they staging that they were in different locations?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		That's what I believe the report was.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Do you see how at the top of the picture here you have little boxes that say where they are?
		Are they in different places?
		Or do they both say Phoenix?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Well, sure, but that could mean they're in a different remote location.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Sure, but they're only 40 yards away from each other, right?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You don't remember what they're covering here?
unidentified		No.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He has no awareness of the details of these pieces of his narratives.
		It's so tragic to look at, but it's so obvious.
		I mean, if you listen to him enough with a critical eye, you know that these are the only kinds of answers he could ever offer.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		If pushed on it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Like, why do you think that they're presenting themselves as being in separate places?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's like they're waiting outside a courthouse.
		One person's stationed over here, the other's over here, and they're having a conversation while they wait for the jury to come out.
		Like, that's not suspicious.
		They didn't present it as anything other than that.
		You are presenting it as something other than that.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		This gets to the, like, when people ask us, would you actually sit down and talk with Alex?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's like, look, this is what you get if he thinks he's telling you the truth.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And if he's under oath, this is what you get.
		Imagine how bad it would be if you're not.
		Yeah, yeah.
		So after this point, I think you get to the only point of the interview where the lawyer gets a little bit pointing the finger at Alex because he starts comparing Alex to Nancy Grace and says that he's the same thing as her.
		And, you know, hey, you know, I don't mind the lawyer getting a little personal and being like, you should, what you do is shit.
		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's a statement of fact, Dan.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		That is not an opinion that you and Nancy Grace are basically two peas in a pod.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You do basically the same thing.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I don't follow Nancy Grace enough to know what your definition of her or I are.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, I'll just tell you, Nancy Grace does really, really reckless tragedy porn.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		And you do the same thing with the conspiracy twist, don't you?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		No, I question a system known for continually lying that says that babies were thrown out of incubators that never existed in the DU, and there's WMDs in Iraq when there's not, and then all these, and then the big Aussie standouts.
		We've been lied to so much.
		Just like most Americans, I question official stories that it's not illegal.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		What question did you ask in that video that we just watched?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		What was the question?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I was talking about some of the questions people have.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I'm not, I don't, what was the question?
		What question?
		I heard a lot of statements.
		Can you tell me what the question was?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I was putting out some of the reasons people question things.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You were putting out assertions that were false.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I like this approach because it's not getting bogged down in the, like, what about the babies in the incubators?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah, yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's just letting that roll off his back.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		was the question in that video what was the what are you questioning that That was perfect because the entire, the whole babies, he's doing his classic laundry list of things, hoping that you'll get caught on one.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And then he can be like, haha, now we're in my arena.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And I believe it was in the Rob Dew one that he brings up also the babies and incubators thing.
		Sure.
		And he's like, the lawyer's like, you know, in that case, if one of the people in, like, let's say Saddam's army, they're the people who are being lied about in that case.
		If one of them wanted to sue the media, they should be able to, right?
unidentified		Oh, no.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, man.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's these little unexamined pieces of their flippant self-defenses that can be.
		You can see how easily they can be tweaked.
		And Alex accidentally does that to himself because throughout this entire interview and deposition, Alex keeps bringing up questioning Epstein's death.
		And it leads to, at the end of this, Alex stepping in a big old puddle of mud.
		But we'll get to that as it goes.
		Son of a bitch Because he thinks that that is going to be his big Of course Big, like, yeah, well, you know, you say, I can't question things, but what about, you know, and it just, much like Rob Dew and the babies and incubators, it turns on him very quick.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, this is very clear that Alex and Rob Dew exist in a world where they think they're smarter than everybody and they don't have to prepare and none of this is going to be a big deal.
		I can take care of this.
		You're absolutely right.
		PJ Dubs comes out of this looking like...
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He looks great.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I am out of my class here, so I'm going to be as honest as I need to be while still controlling what I can.
		I'm going to get this in, get this out.
		It's an hour-long deposition.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But the reason that he can do that is because there are pieces of evidence that he was not in with this bullshit.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		He's exculpatory.
unidentified		Yeah.
unidentified		Yeah, yeah, yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And so he can take a little bit of an external, like, well, look, man, I tried to say don't do this.
		I can't control what goes on at Info.
		Yes, I still worked for them afterwards.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I'm an independent cop.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I did what I could.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And that argument, I mean, it kind of works.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I mean, he's a shitbag for so many other reasons, but this one will take off of his list.
unidentified		Yeah, yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's a low priority.
		Yeah.
		So in this case now, Alex is being asked about that video that they just played about all this Sandy Hook stuff.
		And the lawyer asks.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Is any of that true?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Literally every single assertion you made in that video is false, correct?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Not one thing you said in it is true.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I don't, I don't, I'm not, no.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I'm not understanding your answer.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Are you claiming there are things you said in that video that are true?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I'd have to watch the video again.
		There's also a full video.
		That's only an excerpt.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Nice.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Nice.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Lame.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Lame.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		One of Alex's other big narratives about why people should be suspicious about Sandy Hook is that Bloomberg sent out an email the night before to get ready for something big.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And this apparently probably is not true.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk about that Bloomberg email that comes up.
		This idea that there was an email sent the day before Sandy Hook saying, get ready, next 24 hours, there's going to be a big event.
		That email, you've been asked for that email, and you say you don't have it, right?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		We were covering reports of the email that was sent out to the activist groups that had been in the news.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Where were you covering it?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		What do you mean when you're covering it?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		We were covering the reports of them activating their anti-gun rights organization.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Well, see, here's the thing, Mr. Jones.
		At first, I thought there must be some email coincidentally sent on the day before Sandy Hook that Bloomberg or his people sent that you must be willfully misinterpreting or something like that.
		But the problem is, nobody who's looked at this has been able to find any evidence that such an email has ever existed.
		And I want to know if you can explain that.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'm just not taking your assertion if that's the case.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's why I've asked you questions in Discovery.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		And you haven't been able to produce that email to me, have you?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Well, you guys were asking if we have an email in our emails.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I was reporting on other news reports about an alert they put out to their group.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Could you find those reports if you needed to?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Could you identify your source?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I see what you're doing there.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Well, I mean, A, you can hold back a source if you want to, but I remember being online.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I can try to go find that again.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		What do you mean you can hold back a source if you want to?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		What does that mean?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I mean, if I have a confidential source on something, I don't allow the whole back of a confidential source for their protection, but that's not what's happened in this case.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I remember the news articles about it that we reported on.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		So you could find those, right?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I should be able to.
unidentified		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Why haven't you?
		Because it can't.
		But the great thing there is that that's really one of, I think that's the only time it really comes up, the idea of holding back information, holding back a source.
		And Alex is doing it specifically to say that's not the case here.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's the only time when that trigger looks like it's going to be pulled.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I'm amazed.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I mean the clear message that you get is just like, okay, can you produce this?
		Why haven't you produced this?
		Well, I can prove all my claims, but I have to watch that video again.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Man.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's all just dumb.
		Everything I've asked you to produce in Discovery.
		You just sent me a treasure trove of emails that you didn't even read.
		And then you didn't even bother to look into other shit that I asked you for.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And then you got drunk on air.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You put out a million-dollar bounty on the board and got censured.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And then man.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So now Alex is asked if he is ashamed of his Robbie Parker impression.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Here we go.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		This bit about Robbie Parker, the whole fake crime bit, that bit.
		I'm curious, do you feel any shame about that?
		Or are you totally fine with seeing a video of yourself do that?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I don't think I did it quite the way you did.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That is an interesting response.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		His first instinct is to protect his abilities as an impressionist.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Instinctively.
unidentified		The first thing he thought was, whoa, whoa, whoa, you're doing a shitty me.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Come on now.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Don't do a shitty version of me.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's weird.
unidentified		I only want my image to be at the highest quality.
unidentified		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Wow.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So, suffice it to say the answer is not really.
		Yeah, well.
		Then they play a video of Alex and Rob Dew talking about all of these anomalies in the Sandy Hook case.
		They're saying these things all as if they're like definitely like, well, the school wasn't open.
		All of these things, not as.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Asserting them as fact or statements.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And so when they come back from that, again, the question comes up of, do you know the difference between an opinion and a fact?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I want to ask you about the things that you and Mr. Deuce said in that video.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		And we can agree there was a list of factual claims made in that video, correct?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		No, I was giving my opinion.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		When you say port-a-potties were delivered an hour after it happened, that's not a factual assertion, do you?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I believe they were delivered soon thereafter.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		That's not what I'm asking you, Mr. Jones.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I'm asking, is that a factual assertion?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I think it's my opinion.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Ooh, that's not.
		That's not an opinion.
		That is an assertion.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So call it.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Time of death.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So Alex keeps trying to use this excuse.
		And the reason why I had a little bit of a sort of fumbly around answer to your, like, he's saying these as statements of fact is because Alex's defense is, I was just explaining why people were suspicious about Sandy Hook, right?
		So that's his way of getting around, like, these are things that I'm saying is like, I'm just explaining why people were suspicious.
		But if you really break that down, the way you would do that responsibly is say, here's something that's not true.
		This is why people were suspicious about it.
		There is a lie going around that, let's say, port-a-potties weren't delivered at blah, blah, blah.
		Instead, he's listing off all of these assertions of factual things and being like, that's why people had suspicions.
		The way that's presented retains the truth of these statements that he's making or the presentation of truth to them.
		So it's still, even though he's saying, like, this is why people were suspicious, X, Y, Z, that's still, At least in some fashion, presenting X, Y, and Z. Right.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Here's why it's wet outside of my apartment.
		Somebody let go, somebody opened the fire hydrant.
		Right.
		That is a statement of fact.
		That's not why people think it's wet.
		Or that's not why people are concerned that it's wet.
		It's just why it's wet.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Right.
		If you're doing this as a, like, this is why people believe this.
		Yeah.
		And you're doing it responsibly and not in a way that is to lend credence and credibility to these things, you would be doing a debunking show.
		And Alex is not doing that.
		He's decidedly not doing it.
		So he tries to explain his excuse here, and it's just so thin.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You started the video talking about the wrong name was being given.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Dew said that they gave the wrong name of the shooter.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		You remember that's what he said, yeah?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Right.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		So Lanza had his older brother's ID on him.
		Why does that support a conspiracy with Sandy Hook?
		Why is that weird?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I think Rob was explaining why people had questions.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		It was a lot of anomalies.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		That's what I'm asking.
		Why is it weird?
		Why does that make you question Sandy Hook?
		That Adam Lanza had his brother's ID on him.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Well, that was Rob Dew saying that.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Why is that?
		You're sitting there agreeing with it, right?
		Why are y'all questioning it?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		We were pointing out why people questioned it.
unidentified		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		When they said Rob said they're pulling guns out of cars, Lanza had a shotgun in his trunk.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Why does that support a question about whether Sandy Hook happened?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Because it also said for memory service, it was a long time ago.
		They said the AR-15 was in the car, too.
		So how was that inside of it?
		Was inside the Bushmaster?
unidentified		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		And you understand the AR-15 was not in the car.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Like I said, this is almost seven years ago.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Actually, this wasn't seven years ago, Mr. Jones.
		This is April 2017.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		No, I know.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I'm just saying, going back to the time, it all gets, you know.
unidentified		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's so weak.
		So, such a weak defense for this.
		Oh, man.
		So, the thing is that Alex, like I said, I keep coming back to this because I think the sense that I get is that Alex is really trying to protect from the perception being that he's just repeating stuff from Fetzer and Halbig.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		We have our own individual sources that we've researched, not just I am repeating.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		Yeah.
		I think that that is really important for him.
		And I think that's what he's doing here.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Same deal with kids going around in circles with their hands up around the school.
		That is false.
		That is not the truth.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I'd have to review it again.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		All these things you were saying as fact, you were saying them just a couple months before you were sued, right?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		And I believe I said in the tape, I believe that Tinny Hook happened.
		That's what people were questioning.
		Is what I'm saying.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Right.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		And all these things, this entire list all comes from Fetzer and Hallbig, doesn't it?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I don't know about Fetzer, but it just came from people questioning.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's important to him somehow to disassociate himself, particularly from Fetzer, and I think it's because he lost the lawsuit.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		It's not because he's a rabid anti-semite.
		I don't know about it.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So they get to this claim about port-a-potties at the school.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And Alex is a bit wishy-washy.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		The next one that says, why were port-a-potties, sandwiches, fruit, drinks, and chips brought and set up for people at the crime scene to eat inside the school?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		That's another thing you got from Hallbig, right?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I believe so.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You want to take a wild guess right now whether that's true or not?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I remember the local.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I remember seeing news about the stuff set up.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You think people ate food inside the school at the crime scene?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		That's what you think.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Well, I don't know about that specific.
		I thought you meant about the port-a-potties and food.
		I don't know about the inside of school.
unidentified		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		So that's another thing that you just relied on from Hallbig and just put on your show without checking.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		You're saying it's from Hallbig.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I mean, I'm not.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I thought you just agreed it was from Hallbig.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I'm thinking Halbit did say some of those things.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You just said earlier, probably got that from Halbig.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Man.
		Great.
		If they win this case, if they don't get taken down by this case, it's going to have to be on some bullshit technicality thing where the judge is like, clearly you did all of the wrong things that is, but according to the law, this is on a Tuesday and you said to Buccaneer.
		Like, that's the only way that they get out of it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Like hoping for some sovereign citizen miracle.
unidentified		Right?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It has to be some kind of like, I think in this deposition, he's waiting for him to stand up so he can sit in his chair and be like, no, I'm deposing you.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Like, what are you doing?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Put the system on trial.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, exactly.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So, Alex also wants to fall back into this place where he's like, well, look, I mean, there was a lot of questions because there was a ton of secrecy around the case.
		And they didn't even put out a report until last year or whatever.
		You know, like, he's like, how am I supposed to know there's no official information out?
		Although I would just not believe the official information anyway.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Alex, let me.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Can you take a wild guess as to whether or not that's true?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's not.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		That part about why didn't they let paramedics and EMTs into the building after 27 children were declared dead?
		That's not true either, is it?
		That's false.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I remember it being reported that there was a long wait.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I'm asking you if it's true or not, Mr. Jones.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I don't have the specifics in front of me.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You did in March, right?
		You read two different EMTs who went into the building, performed services in the building.
		You read those reports, correct?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Well, you have to remember they kept a lot of that secret for years.
		It was the longest time anything was ever kept secret.
		And that was also what contributed to a lot of the questions in the community and around the country was the level of secrecy.
		There were a lot of lawsuits.
		I don't remember all the specifics, but there was a lot of stuff kept secret for years and years.
		Didn't put out an official crime report for a very long time, years and years.
		I don't remember all the specifics because a lot of that.
		I'd have to go back online and refresh my, you know, remembering it exactly right.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's unpack all of that.
		Because, first of all, when you read those reports in your deposition, you acknowledged that paramedics went into the building, correct?
		Start there.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		You showed me documents that had recently come out showing that.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Recently come out.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		When do you think those documents came out?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I just know that there was a big controversy about most of the case being kept secret.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Didn't we cover in your testimony last time that those documents were out in 2013, right after the incident?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Isn't that something we covered?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I don't remember specifically.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		If those documents were out in 2013, and here you are in 2017, talking about there being no paramedics in the building, it's a pretty bad error, isn't it, Mr. Jones?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I mean, if that is the case, the New York Times know a lot about WMDs in Iraq and kill millions after the sanctions.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I would never do that on purpose.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
		New York Times messed up bad.
		Some people needed to get fired, didn't they?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Ooh, instantly deflated.
		You see that super long pause, and it's like, well, what about the New York Times?
		Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
		Let's fuck them up, too.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, exactly.
		Oh, yeah.
		No, I thought you were a globalist and you're trying to defend all the globalist stuff.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That is something that does come up, too.
		Is the like, Alex, excuse me, bluntly, like, you and the establishment.
		The lawyer's like, do you think that I wouldn't sue the mainstream media if I had the opportunity to?
		Do you think I wouldn't take that case?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Do you think I am the establishment?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I am not.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And he's like, yeah, but it's sad.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's clear that Alex is still, even in this case, under oath, and here in this deposition, it's clear that he still kind of at least somewhat thinks that this is part of a conspiracy.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yes, absolutely.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And it's very tragic.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I'm just trying to figure out exactly how many other offenses he's committing in this deposition.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And the Homdy one, he's fucked on that one.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Maybe.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Like, there's no way that you can.
		I don't know.
		I can't.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I don't know enough internal details.
		But it doesn't look good.
		So earlier, we talked about Paul's deposition.
		And in it, Paul said that he wrote that email back to Lenny Posner himself.
		Now, because Paul said that, there's plausible deniability for Alex to pretend that he didn't know that family members were being harassed as early as 2013.
		Alex completely blows that.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Alex, we've got a clear path to the end zone for you.
		Just run that ball right on in there.
		All 11 defensively.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I'm not sure it's a clear path to the end zone, but it helps him.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And he destroys that right here.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		And then you and Mr. Watson together composed a response, correct?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I don't remember that.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You don't remember saying that you and Mr. Watson did this together?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I remember talking to Watson about it, and I remember inviting the guy on the show, too.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		There's some heat moment.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So, although there's differing, slightly differing takes on who wrote the email, the fact that Alex is clear that he had a conversation with Paul about it and invited or wanted to invite Posner on the show indicates that he was clearly aware of all of that back then.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So in that email.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I have a quick question.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Do you think he knows the difference between a criminal trial and a civil trial?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Not the finer points.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Because it really does feel like he's trying to pull this, like, I don't know.
		I don't recall.
		I don't know.
		See, you guys can't get me on anything.
		You can't force me to testify against myself.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		See, I don't know if, like, there's an appearance of playing dumb.
		And I think that some of that is playing dumb.
		And I think some of it is just maybe a belief that on their own, they can't prove what we did.
		Or like they can't prove exactly how we arrived at the conclusions we arrived at.
unidentified		So let's just keep that vague.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Even if we lose, we'll lose a ton of money, but we'll be able to keep on with the grift.
		Sure.
		Or something.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I think it's more just defensiveness than anything else.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Almost instinctive, reflexive.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		Yeah.
		If you're someone like Alex, you never want to give up your sources because it will only reveal that you have no idea what you're talking about.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And I think that's when there's the dumbness and the like, oh, I could find that.
		I just, I've been busy.
		I don't know any of that.
		I think it's because on some level, Alex knows you dig too deep into whatever his sourcing was for any of this.
		You're going to find Fetzer.
		You're going to find Halbig.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And it's just not going to look good.
		And it's going to demonstrate that he never did any kind of work to corroborate anything.
		It's just going to look real bad.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I do like his disciplinary policy at InfoWars.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Anything goes.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Anything goes.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I do enjoy that.
unidentified		Yeah, it's like an outback steakhouse over there.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So in the email that Paul sent, he was saying that we do not encourage and condone the actor theory.
		We've distanced ourselves from that.
		So they ask Alex about that, and this is.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		We got a clear path to the end zone for you, Alex.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's a yes or no answer.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		No, no, no, no.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		This pathway is blocked.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Watson writes back, sir, we have not promoted the quote-unquote actors thing.
		In fact, we have actively distanced ourselves from it.
		Over the next six years, that's not true, is it?
		You didn't distance yourself from the actors' thing.
		You actively embraced the actors' thing.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I think that's Paul saying this.
		And no, I didn't get into the actor stuff.
		People brought it up, and I said that's why people had questions.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You produced a video to me entitled, Crisis Actors Used at Sandy Hook.
		And it has an exclamation point, not a question mark.
		With that video, you'll admit to me you endorsed this crisis actors thing, didn't you?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Oh, a lot of the videos that we gave you were videos that we were in, but that we did not produce.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I didn't see the specifics.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so if Infowars produced a video and uploaded it to YouTube, and it was titled Crisis Actors Used at Sandy Hook, that would contradict what Mr. Jones, I mean, what Mr. Watson is saying.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		But yes, I mean, I need to see that, but yeah.
unidentified		Okay.
unidentified		Ooh.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Do you?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Why did you say yes there?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I have no idea.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Because if they're asking this question with the specific of an exclamation point instead of a question mark, you got to know that they have that.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You got to know that they have evidence.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's on the list.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		They already told you that they have it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You just admitted that you endorsed the crisis actor theory.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Here's what I would have gone with.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I would have gone with, that was a typo.
bill ogden ▲ ● ▼		Fake a heart attack.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Do something.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Get out of there.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That is an interesting question.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Could they have just been like, can we stop real quick?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He does at a certain point.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He does take a break just because, like, I don't think it's because of a question that is bad.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But I think, yeah, he could have called for a break.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Or can they reschedule?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Maybe.
		I mean, maybe they have been, and their hand is forced.
		That could be.
		We don't know how many times this could have been put off or not.
		I don't know.
		I feel like there's a reason why you would proceed with the Rob Dew deposition in spite of him being completely unprepared.
		That's fair.
		Whereas I think a normal thing to do would be like, do the work you need to do and come back in a week.
		But I don't know.
		I have no idea how these things work.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's the only thing that I mean, if I was then there and I got two of those hypothetical questions and I got them wrong, I would have been like, hey, we're going to break for the next, I don't know, two to three weeks while I actually read up on all the shit you're asking me because I'm going to lose this conversation.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's not looking good.
		And it gets worse because, as we talked about earlier, Alex posted the address of the mailbox that Mr. Posner used.
		And that's bad.
		But my opinion is that it's bad.
		Right.
		And what makes it worse is providing surrounding context to it, which they do here.
		And it does appear that Alex was mad at Mr. Posner and the YouTube strikes on people who were using pictures of their dead children.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Well, you didn't like this foundation Mr. Posner was running.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You didn't like that.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I don't remember the specifics of that.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You said on your show you didn't like it, right?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		What did I specifically say?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You called them bullies.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Didn't you remember that?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I don't remember that specifically.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You said you were going to fight back.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You remember that?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Well, I remember, I don't know if it was those guys, but some of them like saying I said nobody died in Parkland in Florida.
		And saying, Jones is saying no one died again.
		And then getting me to a platform, and we were able to show the videos our own platform.
		And YouTube put us back up and took the strikes off because I didn't say nobody died at Parkland.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You said the Sandy Hook parents were stirring up a hornet's nest, right, by coming after you?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I don't remember the specifics of that or what was pivotally happening, but.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You told the Sandy Hook parents you're not a guy to mess with, didn't you?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I don't know those specifics.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		On your show, you showed maps and addresses used by a parent who complained because, in your mind, he was running an anti-free speech foundation, right?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I did not show that footage.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		What do you mean you didn't show it?
		Aren't you the.
		You run Infowars, right?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		We showed a U-Haul empty parking lot to debunk a thing that the guy has using a false address, and we said that's normal to use an address when you're a public figure.
		Because I remember, like, when you said that, I remember going and trying to find it, and I was like, this is us saying some parking lot in a U-Haul.
		We're not showing what this guy's house is.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, Tori picks up his mail.
		It's a U-Haul story.
		You can get a post office box there.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		You said we were sending people to their houses and stuff.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		That wasn't true.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I've certainly never said that.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's what they were saying.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		That's what the media was saying.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		All I'm asking you.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Never sent anybody to their houses, never done that, ever said people need to harass them.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		That's not true.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		All I'm asking you, hold.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I need to slow down.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		All I'm asking you, Mr. Jones, is you showed maps and addresses used by a parent who complained against you.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		That's what you did.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		That was not the intent of that.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I'm not asking what your intent was.
		I'm asking it happened.
		You showed maps and addresses used by a Sandy Hook parent who complained against you.
		That happened.
unidentified		Sean Mapson doesn't understand.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		No, we showed where his foundation was supposedly set because people were saying it was fake.
unidentified		And we said, that's not proof of something's fake.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That argument is so thin.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		The idea that he had people who were saying that this is a fake foundation, and he put up the address of it and showed a Google map to the location of it as a way of debunking that it was a fake foundation is ludicrous.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		This is a conversation with an eight-year-old who stole a cookie.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Like, every single, like, I'll throw out anything to avoid saying, yes, I stole that cookie.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But what's so crazy about it, what's so weird in my mind, is that Alex is presenting this thing that he did is not a bad thing.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It was actually trying to help Mr. Posner.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		But also, he didn't do it.
		Unless you convince him he did do it.
		Sure, play me the video.
		I didn't do that.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Now, granted, before that, I was saying they were stirring up a hornet's nest, and I'm not someone to mess with.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But I was trying to help.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's why I'm not somebody to mess with.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I'm so helpful.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's what it is.
		Don't mess with me.
		I'm trying to help you.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I find this hard to swallow.
		So now the topic comes up of when was Badondi fired?
		Oh.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		He was fired before Sandy Hook, sir.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		In this clip, Alex plays dumb.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Well, the truth of the matter is you didn't have a problem with Sandy Hook.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You had a problem with him embarrassing you at a Trump rally.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		One thing you're right about is I do need to spend time in Burrowindos more.
		It's just because it's like, I mean, I remember a lot of it.
		I remember what happened.
		And I think if I go dig even deeper, I can get the specifics.
		But I remember telling them trying to find out the specifics.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You've now, this is your second deposition in a Sandy Hook case.
		You've got more going up in Connecticut.
		You've had Discovery in Connecticut.
		You've had Discovery three times in Texas.
		And you're telling me you think you need to go burrow in and figure out what happened?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Well, no, now that I get these kind of questions, I don't think you're asking me these exact questions last time.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I was very much asking you about Mr. Badondi and when he was terminated in the last deposition, wasn't I, Mr. Jones?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I don't remember this video.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Did you show me this last one?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I did not show you this video.
		That's not what I asked, is it?
		I asked you.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I went and I guess tried to get invoices or something, I guess you're saying.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Actually, Mr. Jones, your document production in this case shows you did that in May 2018, right after you were sued.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		The truth of the matter, Mr. Jones, is you knew immediately after being sued that Dan Badondi was going to be a liability for you, didn't you?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Barnes!
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		No.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Nope.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's real damning to me.
		Wow.
		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I believe he is under oath, Your Honor.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You hear stuff like that, and it's just so the lawyer wants to really nail down these how all of Alex's sources are really just Fetzer and Hall.
		And so this is really interesting.
		In a video, Alex is saying that, you know, like retired policemen and school investigators, and they've all been threatened.
		He's like creating the perception that there's tons of people who are being threatened about Sandy Hook.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And this is just great.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Jones, before we break, I asked you about your statement about what state police officers were threatened.
		And you told me Mr. Halbig and maybe somebody else.
		Correct?
unidentified		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Then you said that school investigation experts were threatened.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Who was that?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		It wasn't just Halbig.
		I remember there were some other groups and people asking questions and some other professors other than Fetzers.
		I was really going off what Fetzer said.
unidentified		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		And then you said that in addition to those two groups, that some school safety experts had been threatened.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Who was that?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		They were talking about Halbig.
unidentified		Right.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I mean, all of these are talking about Halbig, right?
unidentified		No.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You're nine.
		You're nine years old.
		Shut the fuck up.
		You just answered yes by saying no.
		The way you said no is a.
		That's you.
		Yeah, that's bad.
		You just said yes.
		That's a yes.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Maybe one of the other professors was James Tracy, too.
		So, I mean, like, there could be two professors in the bank.
		But all of these other descriptions, like retired state policeman and school investigator, are being presented as two different people.
		They are both Wolfgang Halbig.
		All of these, like, trying to create a chorus of folks, you just got two dudes.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I would like the stenographer to make sure that the record shows, while he did say no, please put a parentheses yes right next to it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Parentheses deflated.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Wow.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So Alex has asked about his narrative surrounding ambulances at the school.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Don't believe in him.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I don't think he comes off looking knowledgeable.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You said in that video ambulances came an hour and a half later.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		That's not true, right?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I don't have a timeline in front of them.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Are you going to claim in this lawsuit that those ambulances came an hour and a half later?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I'm going to have to check that.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Well, I asked you to check it.
unidentified		Did you?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I asked you in Discovery to check it.
unidentified		Did you?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I'm going for memory.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I believe there's some conflicting reports.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I'm not asking what your memory was.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I'm asking if you checked it.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I think I did check it.
unidentified		I don't.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		What were the results of you checking it?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I don't have that in front of me.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		And whatever it was, you didn't give it to me either, right?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		In Discovery?
unidentified		No.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Correct?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Oh, I thought that was rhetorical.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		No, I don't ask rhetorical questions, Mr. Jones.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I want testimony.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Oh, I don't have that in front of me.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I can't speak accurately, though.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's just nothing.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That is tragic.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		In Wisconsin, a judge just ruled that the 200,000 people could be purged from the voter rolls because they have to respond within 30 days to a change of address form.
		And the judge in his ruling literally is like, 30 days, I don't understand.
		You can get it done in 30 days.
		That's plenty of time.
		And that is how people are going to lose the right to vote.
		Alex can get away with this shit.
		That's unacceptable.
		That's unreal.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Maybe it's the end of the road for him being able to get away with this.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I hope so, because this is, I mean, just this deposition alone should be enough to be guilty.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I would be so fascinated to find out what, like, someone who likes Alex and believes him, how would they interpret these answers?
		How would they interpret his clear inability to answer any direct question when anything he should be saying would be completely exculpatory?
		Anything that he presents, the way he presents himself on the show, I have all this, it's all proven, we've got all the documents.
		If he had any of these documents, if he had anything proven, this is the context wherein bringing that out would be like, oh, okay, well, you are completely well within your right to do this.
		And in fact, oh my God, what's this?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You're correct.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Here's the thing.
		If Anderson Cooper did a three-hour deposition where he answered every question confidently and clearly he had evidence backing up, but there was one question where he's like, oh man, I just don't have that one in front of me.
		One of Alex Jones' listeners or Alex himself would have grabbed that clip and been like, see, he's a lying piece of shit.
		You can see it.
		It's all a lie.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		CNN is ISIS.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		But if somebody can watch this deposition and not come away with being like, oh, that guy did everything you say he did.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's insane.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's weird.
		I just don't, I don't know how it would be interpreted.
		I would be very fascinated to know, like, what is the logical explanation for why he is behaving like this?
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Other than flippant disregard.
		Because that's not really a good.
		Because if you consider worst case scenario, he's going to lose tons and tons of money and possibly become financially unviable as a business.
unidentified		Right, right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Best case scenario, he gets away with everything and everything is good.
		Why wouldn't you tend towards behaviors that would lead towards the better outcome?
		Acting like this is only going to make it more likely that the bad outcome happens.
		He's not acting in his own best interests.
		And that implies, to me, he can't act in his best interest.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		There is no best case scenario for him.
		Best case scenario for him is he loses and gets to say he still won somehow.
		Sure.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So now the lawyer plays the video of Alex talking to a caller and saying, I didn't believe it at first, but Sandy Hook was totally fake.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		There were no kids killed there and all of that.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I don't recall that.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I'll have to check the video again.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Well, when pressed on it, his explanation of what his show is is very bizarre.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Illuminating.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		And I legitimately, looking at all that stuff, have gone back and forth on all of this.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, you said false things and then you said things that were true, right?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		No, I have had opinions and I've had different views on things.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, but let's just go ahead and use your word opinion, even though we all know that's not an opinion.
		Your opinion is false.
		Kids died at Sandy Hook, right?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		And I didn't kill them.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Do you see me anywhere in this deposition saying you killed children, Mr. Jones?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Remington didn't kill them.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Do you think you're here?
		You think you're here because you killed children?
		That's the accuracy.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		No, but it is like I'm Adam Lansen or something, and it's all just.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I'm just asking you, you're a journalist.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Do you feel like you're responsible for the things you report?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		If I put out a journalistic report and said this is fact, then that would be that.
		When I'm on a show talking about how I feel, I'm allowed to have my feelings.
		And to say at that point, I even say I've gone all over the map.
		I'm there talking about my emotions.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		This isn't journalism.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely not.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		It's me talking about my feelings.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So apparently, InfoWars is Alex talking about his feelings unless directly presented as fact, which again might be opinion.
unidentified		Ah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		So.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		See, now, earlier in his child custody case, when his lawyer said that he's playing a character, everyone was like, you admitted you're a character.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah, yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And that to me isn't super compelling because it's his lawyer, and also it's in the context of a family case, and it's all very messy.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		This is Alex directly under oath saying, my show is mostly me talking about my feelings.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yep.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Yep.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		My show is the closest that I can get to therapy as a toxic male.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's what I've got.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		This is not the area I would like things to go in, wherein now we look at the show as, what does this say about his feelings?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, exactly.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's not the interpretive direction I want the show to go in.
		But it's going to be hard for me not to think about that.
		Like a lot of this could just be a manifestation of what you feel.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But it's presented as being backed by the white papers and years and years of history.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's documented.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's not good.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's not good.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's a disjointed, nonsensical thing.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
		The thing about the deposition, especially here, is I don't know whether or not he believes anything he's saying.
		That's true.
		I just, I can't, because there's so much of him here that is wriggling.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		There's plenty that could just be desperation thing.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		No, and he even tried in one of the clips that you played earlier, I noticed that he was trying that like apologize to authority kind of way of getting out of something like, yeah, you know what?
		You're right.
		We made some mistakes.
		I'm sorry about that.
		We'll work to fix that in the future.
		As though he was talking to his boss.
		You know, instead of being cover is from the establishment.
		Exactly.
		It really does feel like he thinks he's talking to somebody who can make it all go away if they just decide to leave him alone.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Or to like him.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, exactly.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, it's weird.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's wild.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So Alex wants to talk about Epstein.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And that's interesting because it's a deposition about a Sandy Hook case.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		This I believe.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Whatever he says now, I believe he believes.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Now, what's strange is Alex should have known that something was up because the lawyer does want to talk about Epstein.
unidentified		Oh, he still doesn't get the hypothetical question leading to.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Alex kept bringing up Epstein.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And the lawyer's like, I promise you we'll get to that.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, no.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And if I were Alex, I would be like, let's never.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Never speak to Epstein.
		No, no.
		You know what?
		Actually, I've changed my mind.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		There's clearly a point that this lawyer is going to make.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		He just doesn't get that.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		No.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		He doesn't get that.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		He thinks they're having a conversation, not the lawyer spent hours and weeks preparing for this exact interview.
unidentified		Yep.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Let's talk about Epstein for a minute.
		I've been wanting to talk about that.
		I think maybe, and I'm going to take a guess here, but I think one of the things that you and I agree on is that large segments of the ruling class of this country, and indeed the world, are psychopaths and criminals.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I agree with that.
unidentified		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		And in fact, because of that, when these really, really strange happenings with Epstein happened, when Epstein killed himself in his cell, allegedly, when he was supposed to be under watch by federal officials, that looks suspicious, to say the least.
rob dew ▲ ● ▼		Correct?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Yes, sir.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		In fact, I think a lot of people in this country think it's most likely true that there was foul play, that Epstein was killed.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		A lot of people think that, right?
unidentified		Yes.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		And now Epstein's a massive public figure.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		He's been in the news a ton, right?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Partially because of something called the Lolita Express, right?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		And we in this country get to talk about public figures, wouldn't you agree?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Two things.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		One, Alex should be terrified.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right now, my hackles are raised.
unidentified		I'm like, oh, I sent something bad coming around this corner.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Alex should not be like, yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		The hair on my arm is standing up.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		The second thing is you can tell how much differently Alex responds.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		These are direct, yes, no, quick answers.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You're on my team.
		Yes.
		Yeah, yes.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Oh, wait, you're talking shit about the elites?
		I mean, I'm willing to testify they're bad.
		He doesn't realize that the entire use of bringing up Epstein is to use it as a case study about why it's okay to say whatever you want about Jeffrey Epstein, but it's not for someone else.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		But let's say that there is a security guard at that federal penitentiary, and his name's Bob Smith.
		If you wanted to get on TV and say Bob Smith killed Jeff Epstein and you were wrong, should you be held responsible for that?
		Private citizen like Bob Smith had no involvement in trying to get on the news?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Is it okay?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I mean, if there were issues and anomalies, and I questioned whether it was whether Bob was involved or not, then no.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		No, what I'm asking, Mr. Tronz, is you just flat out say Bob Smith killed Jeff Epstein.
		Is that okay if you're wrong?
		Or does Bob Smith, do you have some responsibility to Bob Smith to make that right?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Not if I did it out of believing it was true.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That is a weird line, but Alex is pretty far off the beaten path there in terms of his understanding of what is appropriate with private and public figures.
		One of the things that they try to lay out is that by implying and saying directly that no one died there, what you're doing is accusing all of these people of gigantic crimes.
		Not only because they're involved in some elaborate hoax, but because, let's say, if you're a parent and your child didn't die, you have filed false police reports.
		Like there's all sorts of implied crimes there.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		A host of them.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		So by behaving in this way, you are making criminal accusations against people, whether or not you directly say it.
		And Alex tries to play the game of like, I didn't say these people's names.
		It's like, well, you said no one died.
		My client's son did die.
		Because you said no one died, you are talking about them.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I would like to ask you to explain that because you made it.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So because it's clear that this lawyer's taken Alex down a road that's going to fully demonstrate private versus public figures, Alex just starts rambling.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And then probably one of my bigger laughs of the whole proceedings.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I've learned, though, that some stuff's real, even if it's unbelievable that somebody would go kill all those kids.
		That's just unbelievable.
		But it really happened.
		And so I would not ever do that.
		No one I know would do that.
		So it's hard to believe that.
		And so people get in denial.
		That's well known that that happens.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You know what question you're answering?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		You know, you want me to elaborate on a large question about that's a big question, and that's what the whole thing's about, and that's what it comes down to with New York Times versus Sullivan and the whole nine yards.
		I've never intentionally gone out and tried to hurt people by questioning big public events, but we need to question public events.
		That's what it is to be an American.
		And if we don't, we're in North Korea.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I asked you, sir, would you be responsible to Bob Smith?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		And I told you that it would be the specifics, that if there was reporting and information and questions about it, and Bob was the only one that could have had access.
		And then I questioned it, and it turned out Bob was innocent.
		If I wasn't doing it intentionally to go hurt Bob, no.
		Then I'm cool.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Turns out that's probably not the case with private citizens.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		If I if you're relying on people like Jim Fetzer and Wolfgang Halbek pointing the finger at Bob Smith for no reason.
unidentified		Okay, so that's insane.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's God.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Do you know what question you're answering?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I love that.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's my favorite.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's my favorite line of this entire day.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Because I've always wanted to ask him that.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's exactly what you're talking about.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It cuts through a lot of the shit.
unidentified		Yep.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So one of Alex's big defenses is basically that he believes that the family members are public figures.
		Right.
		He believes that just by virtue of them being the victims and family members of a tragedy, they have entered the arena or whatever.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Through no fault of their own, the massive amount of media attention upon them has thus raised them into public figures, opening them up to the point of view.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's interesting because literally courts have ruled the opposite.
unidentified		Right.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Well, there's that.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And Alex doesn't respond well to that being brought up.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, but what I'm trying to get to you, Mr. Jones, is do you agree that there's a difference between an internationally recognized famous person and a person who spent millions, if not billions, trying to influence our country, like Jeff Epstein, and a private citizen just minding their own business?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		There's a difference between those two people, right?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		There is a difference.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		There is a difference in journalistic ethics and how you have to treat those two people, isn't there?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I think there is.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		And at the end of the day, with a private person, you would agree with me that Infowars needs to take appropriate steps to make sure it isn't reporting false things about private people.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Most of what we do is punditry and opinion.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		And when parents and others become public figures and go out with a political mission to restrict gun ownership, then they have stepped into the arena of politics.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You know, courts disagree with you on that, though, right?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I don't know your interpretation of courts.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Well, you are involved in a lawsuit with Leonard Posner and Veronique De La Rosa.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Are you familiar with that lawsuit?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I know about it.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, you know, the Texas Court of Appeals came back and told you they're not public figures, correct?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I know that that's a Democrat court.
unidentified		I'm sure they'll be delighted to hear that.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's a Democrat court.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		All right.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		So essentially, he believes that no law can be made unless it's made by people who agree with him.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And he doesn't have to follow any law and any law that a Democrat judge says is real.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, it seems that way.
		Gotcha.
		Well, because they're all demon globalists.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I mean, that is the logical extension.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		If he actually believes that they're all out to get him in a conspiracy, then yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		So they take a break and they come back, and there's just a couple minutes left here where we get update on Barnes.
		Sure.
		We get the dismount.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And then we also get, first, Alex needing to clarify something about his sources.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And they don't exist.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I find this to be weird.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I'd really need to clarify something because I don't think you understood what I said earlier, so I probably mumbled through it.
		I'm going to clarify my earlier testimony.
		You kept asking about sources and where these sources are.
		When we have articles and things, most of it is links.
		And so I've given you, to my knowledge, everything we've got.
		We'll do another search.
		But 90% of the things is links to other sources that are online.
		And then over time, those links die, and it's very hard to find that stuff.
		So anything that we haven't given you is outside of my office and not in my office.
		When you say a source, that would just be newspapers and archives and TV reports that are outside of my office on the internet.
		Sources for things that I'm thinking about from memory that I need to go out and find.
		So I must have misunderstood what you meant by sources.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I'm sure.
unidentified		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		You'd agree it's not general practice.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		It's not part of your operating protocols to save corroborating information underlying InfoWars as news broadcasts.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Well, we save some of it, but then over time, it gets, you know, over time, we just like piles of articles, news folders with information.
		Yeah, but it tends to get thrown away.
		But most of what we have is articles with links, and that's where people can go look at what we're talking about.
		And the links go to outside websites and outside TV stations and networks and things.
		And so when I talk about, you keep asking about sources of info, where I got something, where I thought something, I need to go back to those original articles that you've been given, but then follow the links through that are on there.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, links.
		Oh, it's links.
		He's so unused to the concept of a follow-up question.
		Jordan, that explains everything.
		He genuinely thought that he came up with a brilliant response.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		He really did.
		It's links.
		He really thought that, okay.
		Look, you're a newbie to my whole version of journalism.
		All right.
		So when I have a source, now this, a lot of other journalistic outlets don't do this.
		When I have a source, I'll do what's called a hyperlink.
		You know what?
		I'm just going to call it a link.
		Hyperlink might be a little hard for you to understand.
unidentified		Right.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		So I'll make one of the words like a little blue.
unidentified		Right.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And then you click on it, and that's my source, right?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Crazy.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Now, the internet.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Never heard of such a thing.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's made of fire.
		And who knows what's going to get burned?
		So when you click on the link, sometimes it's not there anymore.
		I'm sorry.
		This all makes sense.
		Please do not follow up with any other questions.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's I'm flabbergasted by this level of needing to clarify that.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I really think he.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And he seems to be thinking, like, hey, you know, it's a great defense.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Some of these links are dead later.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		They're gone.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You've already talked about the Wayback Machine.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Okay, now I understand that, but that's only for traffic on school websites, Dan.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Forgot.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Didn't you know that?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Forgot.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's all it was.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So here we get this update on Barnes, who, as we know, may or may not still be Paul's lawyer.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Certainly not Alex's.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		I understand Mr. Barnes, Robert Barnes, is no longer representing you?
unidentified		No.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Is he still employed by the company?
		No.
		So he's not general counsel in India.
unidentified		No.
unidentified		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		While he was there, did he have any managerial responsibilities?
unidentified		No.
unidentified		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Did he have any director positions at the company?
unidentified		No.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Did he at one point serve as general counsel?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		That's the name you call it.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		He was trying to manage some things.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		What?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		What does that mean?
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		He's trying to manage some things.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		He was trying to get the cases organized.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so he's practicing law.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		Okay.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I wonder if that line of questioning has anything to do with a suspicion that he was doing more there.
		I don't know.
		It could just be sort of standard question stuff, but based on how frequently Barnes was appearing on InfoWars, how Alex said he was going to give him a show, it does seem to like the fact that that line of questioning was the director at InfoWars, is in a managerial role, that makes me think that they might have a different suspicion.
		But I might be overreading things.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
		The first thing that I thought was what they're asking for is you didn't disclose something.
		Like, there's some communication between you and Barnes or between Barnes and somebody that you guys didn't disclose.
		I wonder.
		That's the only thing I can think of.
		And your argument that you didn't disclose it is because he wasn't an employee or a manager or a director.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I wonder if that's the case.
		But it could be just nothing.
		Yeah, no, it could just be.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Is Barnes still around?
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Normal ass question.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah, yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But it just read a little weird to me.
		So here's the last clip, and it's Alex being asked if he's sorry.
		Spoiler alert, he's not.
		And his big dismount.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		But I want to ask you, now looking back on this, are you sorry?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		You know, I did all this from a good place in my heart, and I'm really sad the establishment has lied so much and done so much that the public doesn't believe what they're told him.
		Well, there's been a real loss of confidence in the system.
		Wow.
		Everything I've done has been from a place of really trying to get people to think and trying to find out the truth.
		And I've certainly been wrong about things.
		But it came from a place of really trying to do my best job.
		And so I'm overall proud of getting the public to be skeptical and getting people to think for themselves.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		Let me get this straight.
		These videos we just watched today.
		You're proud of those videos?
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I'm proud of the compendium of my work, not small clips taken out of context.
		And I'm a good person.
		And I pioneered exposing Epstein 13 years ago.
		Said they fly around aircraft for the Clintons with kidnapped children.
		And it's been proven right.
		Everybody comes up and shakes my hand, apologizes in Austin.
		Now, the liberals do, they go, we're sorry.
		And we were wrong about you on a bunch of other stuff.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		So in some ways, you're a victim.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Well, let's just say Tom's running out for the establishment.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Epstein didn't kill himself.
mark bankston ▲ ● ▼		All right, Mr. Judds.
		Thank you for your time today.
		Until next time.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		They're laughing at him.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, boy.
		That's.
		So when that didn't kill himself, he's going to go out on a meme.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that's his plan.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		When that tweet went around, people did not believe that Alex ended his deposition saying Epstein didn't kill himself.
unidentified		Wow.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		But he did.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That's good stuff.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Wow.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Good stuff.
		Good, strong stuff from everybody at InfoWars, really.
		I wanted to do a present-day episode for today because I wanted to find out if you did that surgery.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		That in-studio.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Of course, of course.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
unidentified		People ripping computer chips out of their army.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I need an update on that.
		But sometimes things happen.
		You get thrown a curveball.
		You've got to watch seven hours of testimony from these obfuscating weirdos.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		This is.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I can't hang with him being like, you know, it's really sad that the mainstream media isn't trusted enough anymore that my brand of fucking with people is like, it's almost like him being like, well, it's your fault that I even have a job.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		You made me do this.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You guys made this space because sometimes you get things wrong where now I can lie and make a shit ton of money.
		This is your fault.
		You should have been acting.
		He is.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		He is manifesting that.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		That's insane.
unidentified		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		It's very.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And Alex, you're not a good person.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		No.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You're a shit person.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		I think what is so interesting to me is how all of these three are so different in theme.
		Well, I mean, it's all about Sandy Hook, but the feeling is so very different.
		Like Paul covering his ass kind of being slightly agreeable.
		Slightly candid.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Rob Dew being completely underwater, not knowing what he's doing.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		No.
		I can't believe that that's.
		I genuinely can't believe it's legal.
unidentified		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		I really can't believe that what he did is legal.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And then Alex being Alex.
		Yeah.
		But also just the feeling that I get watching this deposition as opposed to the last one is it feels like Alex is closer to the wall.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Like it feels like the room is closing a little bit.
		His ability to dodge things is greatly diminished.
		Without Barnes there just yelling objection all the time, it kind of the flow of the questioning is much different.
		The lawyer not having to deal with Barnes' antics makes him way more effective.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Oh, yeah.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		And the way that like repeatedly, Alex would do those things, like the babies in the incubators.
		And the way it's just like, say whatever you need to say, I'm going to proceed.
		Like not allowing him to do those pivots and dodges.
		Like you can see what happens then.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
unidentified		No, it's a it's a he's patient with the child.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		He's like, okay, have your little tantrum.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Then we're going to come right back here.
		I'm not going to engage with you.
		I'm not going to do.
		Man, that really bums me out that that's true.
unidentified		What?
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Because that suggests then that Barnes did Alex a good job.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Good job, Barnes.
		Well, I mean, he was serviceable in his role of being like a complete asshole.
		Being an accessory.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that's right.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		So, yeah, we'll be back on Wednesday, but this has been a lot of depositions.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, this has been some serious deposition talk.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Oh, boy.
		But until then, we have a website.
		We do.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's KnowledgeFight.com.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		We are on Twitter.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		We are on Twitter.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		It's at Knowledge Underscore Fight, NatGoToBed, Jordan.
unidentified		And we are on Facebook.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		And if you want to download the show, you can go to iTunes.
		You can go to wherever.
		You listen to podcasts.
unidentified		You can leave a review.
jordan holmes ▲ ● ▼		You know, you do the whole thing.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
unidentified		It'd be nice.
dan friesen ▲ ● ▼		Yep.
		We'll be back.
		But until then, I'm Neo.
		I'm Leo.
		I'm DZX Clark.
		I am the juiciest Ice Cube.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		Andy and Kansas.
		You're on the air.
		Thanks for holding.
unidentified		Hello, Alex.
		I'm a first-time caller.
		I'm a huge fan.
alex jones ▲ ● ▼		I love your work.

▲