#378: Formulaic Objections Part 2
Today, Dan and Jordan discuss a trio of depositions that were recently released in the InfoWars/Sandy Hook lawsuit, and marvel at the uniquely brazen vibes of each.
Dec. 16, 2019 - Knowledge Fight
03:08:24
Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| I'm sick of them posing as if they're the good guys, saying we are the bad guys. | ||
| Knowledge fight. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Dan and George. | |
| Knowledge fight. | ||
| Need money. | ||
| Andy and Kansas. | ||
| Andy and Kansas. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Stop it. | |
| Andy and Kansas. | ||
| Andy and Kansas. | ||
| It's time to pray. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Knowledge Fight. | ||
| Knowledge Fight. | ||
| Hey, everybody. | ||
| Welcome back to Knowledge Fight. | ||
| I'm Dan. | ||
| I'm Jordan. | ||
| We're a couple dudes who like to sit around, drink novelty beverages, and talk a little bit about Alex Jones. | ||
| Indeed, we are Dan. | ||
| Jordan. | ||
| Dan! | ||
| Jordan. | ||
| Let me ask you a quick question. | ||
| What's up? | ||
| It's the end of the year. | ||
| People are going to be doing all kinds of recap lists. | ||
| Best of lists. | ||
| All I want to know, Dan, is there anything in 2019 that has surprised you? | ||
| No. | ||
| Exactly, right? | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| I think the thing is... | ||
| Everything is so incredibly surprising. | ||
| Nothing is surprising. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| You're like, I can't believe they would just do that. | ||
| And then you're like, yeah, I can. | ||
| My brain's been burned out to novelty. | ||
| Yeah, yeah, yeah. | ||
| To such a great extent that I can... | ||
| You know, try a nice dish. | ||
| Yeah, right? | ||
| This is crazy. | ||
| This is good. | ||
| All right. | ||
| Cool. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| I guess, okay, I'm a little surprised that I'm not enjoying Luigi's Mansion as much as I thought I would. | ||
| I was actually thinking about asking you for a follow-up on that earlier because I thought that might be the case. | ||
| It doesn't have some of the same charm as the first one. | ||
| Maybe I was 18 when I played the first one and now I'm 35. And nostalgia can kill. | ||
| I'm trying to play it slowly so it lasts, you know? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| And I come back to it, and I don't even know what I'm doing. | ||
| Oh, no! | ||
| I know that I'm fighting ghosts and stuff. | ||
| Right. | ||
| I guess that's a little surprising, but kind of in the wrong direction. | ||
| Is there any kind of, like, quest structure to it, or is it, like, a platformer level? | ||
| Well, I mean, you've got to save your friends who are stuck in paintings by Boo. | ||
| Right. | ||
| King Boo. | ||
| Of course. | ||
| But, I don't know, you just run around, and each level of this hotel is themed, and you have to find a ghost boss. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| 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. | ||
| And I know a lot about not having any surprises, and I don't know anything about Alex Jones. | ||
| Good stuff. | ||
| So there we are. | ||
| 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. | ||
| At the end of November. | ||
| All three of the Musketeers, Rob Dew, Paul Joseph Watson, Alex Jones, all gave depositions in the ongoing Sandy Hook lawsuit. | ||
| And there's some interesting stuff in this. | ||
| And low-key, I think Rob Dews might be the most interesting of the three. | ||
| Which is, I could... | ||
| That's the surprising thing. | ||
| There we go. | ||
| Rob Dew has finally done one thing that's interesting. | ||
| All right. | ||
| That's the surprise of 2019. | ||
| All right. | ||
| 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, we've got to take a little moment to say thank you to some folks who have signed up and are supporting the show. | ||
| It's a good idea. | ||
| So first of all, Caleb, thank you so much. | ||
| You're now a policy wonk. | ||
| I'm a policy wonk. | ||
| Thanks so much, Caleb. | ||
| Next, Matthew. | ||
| Thank you so much. | ||
| You are now a policy wonk. | ||
| I'm a policy wonk. | ||
| Thank you, Matthew. | ||
| Thank you, Matthew. | ||
| Next, Christopher. | ||
| Thank you so much. | ||
| You are now a policy wonk. | ||
| I'm a policy wonk. | ||
| Thank you very much, Christopher. | ||
| Joining the conspiracy. | ||
| Oh, bother. | ||
| Next, Josiah. | ||
| Thank you so much. | ||
| You are now a policy wonk. | ||
| I'm a policy wonk. | ||
| Thank you, Josiah. | ||
| Thank you so much. | ||
| Next, Elliot. | ||
| Thank you so much. | ||
| You are now a policy wonk. | ||
| I'm a policy wonk. | ||
| Thank you, Elliot. | ||
| And then finally... | ||
| My favorite character on The Magicians. | ||
| Sci-Fi is The Magicians. | ||
| Great show. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Great show. | |
| I'm unaware of that show. | ||
| Fantastic show. | ||
| All right. | ||
| Is it all close-up magic? | ||
| No, it's all real magic. | ||
| It's a terrible show, but I love it. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| Okay. | ||
| I like magic. | ||
| 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. | ||
| I like it. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| My favorite. | ||
| Second only to this last person who has signed up on an elevated level. | ||
| I'd like to say thank you so much. | ||
| Rachel, you are now a technocrat. | ||
| I'm a policy wonk. | ||
| Crikey, mate. | ||
| That's fantastic. | ||
| Have yourself a brew. | ||
| How's your 401k doing, bro? | ||
| We got to go full tilt boogie on this, Watson, all right? | ||
| 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 Infowar on you. | ||
| Thank you so much, Rachel. | ||
| Yes, thank you very much, Rachel. | ||
| If you're all out there listening, thinking, hey, I like this show, I'd like to support what these gents do, you can do that by going to our website, knowledgefight.com, clicking the button on there, it says support the show, we'd appreciate it. | ||
| It'd be really helpful. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Where the third act is much longer. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| All right. | ||
| So we're in Marvel territory. | ||
| Our third act is going to have some issues. | ||
| 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. | ||
| He doesn't remember anything or understand anything or nothing had anything to do with him, I assume. | ||
| I am not me. | ||
| Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. | ||
| But the other two have a very bizarre kind of... | ||
| Almost through line through them. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| 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. | ||
| No, me neither. | ||
| I find his voice insufferable and his positions a nonsensical bordering on evil. | ||
| Now, that said, I think he comes off like much more of a human. | ||
| In this deposition. | ||
| Alright. | ||
| Because I think that he has some sort of a brand to protect a little bit. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| And he doesn't want to... | ||
| He has a random attack, so he comes off human. | ||
| Well, there's two elements to that. | ||
| Because there's one in that he does have a history of telling Alex to stop doing the Sandy Hook shit. | ||
| Yes, that's true. | ||
| He does have that in his... | ||
| That 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 obfuscates everything. | ||
| I have no idea what my name is. | ||
| 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 threw him under the bus. | ||
| Sure, sure, sure. | ||
| 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 them. | ||
| He's got a tough tightrope to walk. | ||
| Yeah, I would say so. | ||
| He's like a mid-level mafioso. | ||
| I don't, it's not to express any pity or anything, but it is a tough lie. | ||
| Oh yeah, no, fuck him. | ||
| So we start here towards the beginning of the deposition where we learn that Paul... | ||
| Can you list for me every job position you have held with Alex Jones Infowars or Free Speech Systems LLC? | ||
| I'm not an employee and have never been an employee, so I haven't had an official job position. | ||
| How would you describe your employment relationship or your working relationship with Mr. Jones? | ||
| A contractor. | ||
| So this is interesting. | ||
| Paul's been there for 20 years? | ||
| Yeah, yeah, yeah. | ||
|
unidentified
|
What? | |
| Is Alex going to pay insurance? | ||
| Benefits? | ||
| A 401k? | ||
| Hell no. | ||
| I would certainly hope so for one of his longest... | ||
| I find that very difficult to believe. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| I think it... | ||
| 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. | ||
| This is just like Alex's Vince McMahon with all these independent contractors masquerading as employees. | ||
| I think it must be partially his kind of decision as well. | ||
| 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? | ||
| Well, I mean, he's in the UK. | ||
| That might make things a little difficult. | ||
| That's true, that might. | ||
| I don't think that would be an impediment. | ||
| I have no idea. | ||
| Yeah, and the level of responsibility he's had over the years at Infowars. | ||
| Exactly. | ||
| Editor-at-large, title, and he writes a bulk of the materials. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Like, yeah, he would have every negotiating chip available to him. | ||
| 100%. | ||
| To be an employee, should he want to be. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| So, yeah, maybe there is, like, a mutually advantageous reason for that. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| I'm not entirely sure what it is, but I thought that was pretty strange. | ||
| 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... | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| 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. | ||
| He did push back, right? | ||
| A little. | ||
| 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. | ||
| 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 February 2013, people at Infowars were aware that the parents and the family members were being harassed. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| This being a month after Sandy Hook, you were aware at this time that the parents were being harassed by believers in the Sandy Hook Hopes conspiracy. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Correct. | |
| Okay. | ||
| So that's demonstrated. | ||
| Yeah, that's not good. | ||
| No. | ||
| That's not good for the outlook of Alex in this scenario. | ||
| 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. | ||
| So there's a large awareness of this. | ||
| Oh, yeah. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| But it's unclear there. | ||
| But in this deposition, it's clear that Paul wrote it himself. | ||
| And now let's scroll up to your response. | ||
| Do you remember writing this response? | ||
| Does this bring back that memory? | ||
| Now that it's presented to me, yes. | ||
| I didn't recall it when you initially brought it up, but yes. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| Now, did you do this on your own, or was this a collaborative effort among other people at Infowars? | ||
| Do you remember that? | ||
| No, this would have been me personally. | ||
| Okay. | ||
|
unidentified
|
So... | |
| He might as well... | ||
| He almost said, no, nobody else knows how to read there. | ||
| Yeah, everyone else just... | ||
| He literally... | ||
| He sounded defeated. | ||
| It's just Hunt and Peck with the rest of them. | ||
| Yeah, he's just like, oh, Jesus Christ, of course I wrote it by myself. | ||
| So now this is interesting here for one reason, and that is that this would give Alex a little bit of plausible deniability. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Sure. | |
| Because the interview with James Tracy was done by Paul. | ||
| Maybe Alex could say he never heard it. | ||
| He didn't know about the talk about the harassing of the parents. | ||
| Sure, sure, sure. | ||
| In 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. | ||
| Naturally. | ||
| 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? | ||
| Do you think that what Infowars engaged in was all right? | ||
| It's not great that in a court of law you have to ask people if they actually have morality at all. | ||
| Do you have no decency? | ||
| Yeah, exactly. | ||
| So Paul has 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. | ||
| But in terms of what you think is decent and right in terms of covering this story, do you think Infowars always adhered to what is decent and right in covering this story? | ||
| Well, it's a subjective term, but from my personal perspective, decent and right, I would not have covered it in that way, no. | ||
| So, that is pretty... | ||
| That, I think, is where you could say he's throwing Alex under the bus. | ||
| Yeah, that would be the only one. | ||
|
unidentified
|
But to be fair to Paul, what position is he in? | |
| He has no reason to go to bat and be like, everything was just fine. | ||
| 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. | ||
| 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? | ||
| 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. | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| I want to shoot the shit with him, see what's going on. | ||
| I would say that the lawyers would be wise to not turn this adversarial. | ||
| Fair enough. | ||
| Given that Paul is being candid enough with his answers, why fight with this British guy? | ||
| We might be able to get some piece of information out of it. | ||
| I do appreciate Paul more when he's not able to edit his annoying voice together in a back-to-back nightmarish hellscape. | ||
| Yeah, it does make him seem more human. | ||
| 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 Gucciardi, who were apparently in managerial roles in Infowars. | ||
| Can I get you to drop some tunes at my next party? | ||
| That might be another email. | ||
| That's a different email? | ||
| Yeah, but that's not this one. | ||
| All right, fine. | ||
| So in this email, Paul is telling them what he has told Alex. | ||
| 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. | |
| And so the lawyer sets this up here. | ||
| Mr. Watson, I'd like to show you another document now. | ||
|
unidentified
|
And I would like to show you an email. | |
| That you sent in 2015 on December 17th. | ||
| 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 a real interesting seesaw kind of situation of like, is this a good email? | ||
| Okay. | ||
| We'll see. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I want to read what you sent to Alex. | |
| This Sandy Hook stuff is killing us. | ||
| 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 Rents is. | ||
| You know who he is? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes. | |
| Okay. | ||
| Jeff Rince is a notoriously unreliable conspiracy theorist and rabid anti-Semite, correct? | ||
| I don't know enough about him to call him a rabid anti-Semite, but I would say he was a conspiracy theorist, yeah. | ||
| That's kind of a consistent thread throughout this. | ||
| They keep asking about these, like, Jim Fetzer, like, you know this guy is a... | ||
| Deeply anti-Semitic dude. | ||
| I don't know enough to say. | ||
| What is anti-Semitism at the end of the day? | ||
| So the reason I think that that email is a seesaw is because on the one hand, you have Paul saying, we've 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... | ||
| of concern or this is wrong. | ||
| Right. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It seems like, well, Drudge won't like us so much. | |
| Right. | ||
|
unidentified
|
And we won't be able to get big guests because we're engaging in this kind of bullshit. | |
| Right, right, right. | ||
| So I don't know how I feel about that. | ||
| I mean, it would be like Fox News canceling Tucker Carlson's show because all of the advertisers dropped out. | ||
| Right. | ||
| 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. | ||
| So fuck you! | ||
| Yeah, there is that sort of sense of doing the right thing for the wrong reason. | ||
| I still applaud his ability to speak this. | ||
| At least there is some voice there that's like, we shouldn't be doing this. | ||
| I just wish it came from a place of the right reason to not want to do this. | ||
| Because it does imply that if these things weren't a concern, I wouldn't have a problem with this. | ||
| And that may be the case. | ||
| This is probably the best we're going to get from these psychopaths, though. | ||
| Probably. | ||
| 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. | ||
| See, 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 fucking do this. | ||
| And it's clear there are people there saying, Alex, don't do this. | ||
| Maybe not all the time. | ||
| No, probably not. | ||
| Not all the time, but he just can't control himself. | ||
| 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 again. | ||
| I think that's one of the problems with his sort of improvisational style. | ||
| It will lead you to some places where you're like... | ||
| Just not doing it. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, yeah, yeah. | |
| So in the email, Paul Joseph Watson says that Jeff Rents and Jim Fetzer are batshit crazy. | ||
| Right. | ||
| I don't know about rabid anti-Semites, though. | ||
| They're batshit crazy. | ||
| They're batshit crazy. | ||
| 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. | ||
| The checkmate. | ||
| Tell me how you came to the conclusion. | ||
| That these two gentlemen that InfoWars was relying on were batshit crazy. | ||
| That's a good question. | ||
| Because they were pushing the notion that nobody died at Sandy Hook, which I thought was not credible and was supported by no evidence, so therefore was a crazy conclusion to make. | ||
| So by that same logic, Alex Jones, equally batshit crazy. | ||
| I wouldn't describe him as batshit crazy. | ||
| What kind of crazy? | ||
| I would describe it as him commenting on the controversy of the conspiracy theories that were swirling about Sandy Hook at the time. | ||
| 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. | ||
| No. | ||
| That doesn't seem like a really great legal argument, but I love that. | ||
| I love that. | ||
| It's like, okay, why are they crazy? | ||
| X behavior. | ||
| Alex does X also. | ||
| I do like that this is in an echoey room, because I don't know if anything has ever rung more hollow than his... | ||
| I think he's just... | ||
| Covering the controversy. | ||
| You can thank Skype for that. | ||
| 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 Dubs has convinced me that there's a difference. | ||
| Okay, so, if Jeff Rents 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. | ||
| 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? | ||
| 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 Fetz's big thing for a while. | ||
| So, you know, they had a previous of engaging in very obscure conspiracy theories which would contribute to that description of batshit crazy. | ||
| Do you think that their history of doing that is any different than Alex Jones? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Fuck! | |
| What do I say? | ||
| What do I say? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Shit! | |
| Fuck! | ||
| No, but again, they had the right to engage in that speech under the First Amendment. | ||
| I'm not, 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. | ||
| There's no difference between Fetzer and Rintz. | ||
| There's qualitatively no difference in how they covered conspiracy theories, correct? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I'm sure. | |
| Well, that's your view. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I wouldn't necessarily agree with it. | |
| All right, so in your view, people like Rince and Fetzer are bad, but Mr. Jones not in the same way. | ||
| I would say not in the same way, because I would say Alex was covering the controversy. | ||
| Sure, buddy. | ||
| Yeah, so you get the same. | ||
| Sure, buddy. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| All right. | ||
| So I think that what you have there is absolutely evidence of, I don't have a good answer for this. | ||
| 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. | ||
| 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. | ||
| I feel like that's just something you probably could expect might come up. | ||
| It doesn't seem like there's any preparation here. | ||
| You know, this reminds me, because I was just thinking the exact same thing. | ||
| I was just thinking that their brand of crazy cannot survive. | ||
| In an under oath situation with somebody who is prepared to fuck them up, essentially. | ||
| More or less. | ||
| But it is such that psychopath of, no matter what, I'm the smartest guy in the room. | ||
| I don't need to prepare. | ||
| I don't need to do anything. | ||
| I'm going to outsmart this dude. | ||
| No big deal. | ||
| That's what I get the feeling. | ||
| I'm not sure if Paul is 100% on that tip, because I think he is still being agreeable. | ||
| 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 why is this person different than other conspiracy theorists? | ||
| You've worked for him for 20 years? | ||
| That indicates to me a lack of care or concern about defending yourself. | ||
| It just feels like it's a tacit admission that you're not any different. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Any interview? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| Anything. | ||
| You would have a stock answer, you know? | ||
| Yeah, yeah. | ||
| You don't even have to prepare. | ||
| It seems like a conversation you'd have a hundred times in your life. | ||
| Yeah, exactly. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Very weird. | ||
| So in this next couple, 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. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| 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, a house DJ, and Alex's cousin. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Yeah, it's more effective than our fucking voting machines. | ||
| So Paul sends this email to Buckley. | ||
| He forwards it on, who replies to him. | ||
| And that's where this clip starts. | ||
| When you sent this email, Buckley made a joke, and I want to read it to you, okay? | ||
| 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. | ||
| Buckley here is making a joke about the craziness of those theories, isn't he? | ||
| You would have to ask Buckley. | ||
| I can't speak to him. | ||
| 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 hackers, what did you take that to mean? | ||
| Obviously, I would presume that it's dark humor. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Were you aware that Mr. Jones just a few hours earlier had been on Infowars accusing the parents of being actors? | ||
| I don't think I joked about crisis actors in that email. | ||
| Wasn't that Buckley that used the term crisis actors? | ||
| Okay, let's rephrase the question. | ||
| Were you aware that in that email exchange 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. | ||
| Are you aware of that? | ||
| No, I have no recollection of that. | ||
| How do you feel about that, Mr. Watson? | ||
| I feel that he was completely inaccurate in making that claim. | ||
| Not something you're proud of at InfoWars, correct? | ||
| Well, it's not something that I said, so... | ||
| 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. | ||
| And Paul, I honestly think, is probably playing this almost exactly like he should. | ||
| 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. | ||
| There aren't even any contracts to rip up. | ||
| He's an independent contractor. | ||
| This is an at-will state, man. | ||
| Now. | ||
| Here's what's interesting. | ||
| So, I know that it came out, we've discussed this, and we'll play a clip of it, Alex, saying this later, but Robert Barnes is not in these depositions. | ||
| Right. | ||
| You can tell because no one's yelling objection every five seconds. | ||
| Yeah, yeah, yeah. | ||
| 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? | ||
| Mr. Watson, can you tell me what you did to prepare for your deposition today? | ||
| I spoke to Robert Barnes and Wade Jeffries. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| Did you review any documents? | ||
|
unidentified
|
No. | |
| When did you speak with your counsel? | ||
| Sunday evening, my time, and... | ||
| This afternoon, today. | ||
| So, Wade Jeffries is Alex's lawyer. | ||
| He is now the person who you'll hear saying objection during Alex's thing. | ||
| Not nearly as much as Barnes. | ||
| Right. | ||
| He's probably a better lawyer. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Here's my rate on that. | ||
| It is a very interesting quirk. | ||
| Here's my pitch for you. | ||
| This is a... | ||
| Personal thing that happened between Jones and Barnes. | ||
| I 100% could believe that. | ||
| And not only that, it is a show thing that happened between. | ||
| We have... | ||
| Here's what I'm going to go. | ||
| Here's what I'm going to go with. | ||
| Here's my pitch. | ||
| I know your pitch. | ||
| Here's my pitch, buddy. | ||
| You know my pitch. | ||
| I think he took our advice, Dan. | ||
| You think he realized that Barnes was trying to take over? | ||
| I think so. | ||
| That's my theory. | ||
| That is my theory. | ||
| I think we sow discord amongst the lawyers. | ||
| I don't think there's any likelihood that that's true, but I will go as far with you as to say I would believe it's something personal. | ||
| Oh, 100%. | ||
| That seems very believable. | ||
| I would buy that more than any kind of business issue there. | ||
| Either that or he couldn't afford Barnes anymore. | ||
| 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 these behaviors and all of this stuff. | ||
| Sort of predicated on free speech. | ||
| You know, like, we have just the First Amendment and all this. | ||
| And so they ask him, do you have any education in the field? | ||
| Oh, no. | ||
| 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? | ||
| No, but 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. | ||
| Do you? | ||
| But see, that to me is not the answer you'd give if, like, I've studied it extensively, not in a formal setting, but I'm aware of these various Supreme Court rulings, the limitations, the, you know, 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, so I know about free speech. | ||
| That's not a good answer. | ||
| It seems like he's really taken the idea of free speech is whatever I kind of personally define it as to heart. | ||
| So far as he doesn't have to know what it is legally. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Well, it almost makes more sense to not look into it. | ||
| So that your dumb arguments about what free speech is can never be clouded by your incidental knowledge that it actually isn't bad. | ||
| You know? | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| So another thing that's a big defense is that Alex isn't a journalist. | ||
|
unidentified
|
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. | ||
| If you have somebody with a track record of being batshit crazy and unreliable, it would violate the sense of journalistic integrity to promote what they are saying as fact. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Correct? | |
| Yes, if you were a journalistic, middle-of-the-road, non-partisan, non-commentary outlet. | ||
| So Alex Jones is allowed to do that. | ||
| Other people who claim to be journalists can't, but Alex Jones can do that. | ||
| Under their own journalistic ethics, they wouldn't. | ||
| Alex Jones would, because he's an opinion commentator. | ||
| And he has no journalistic ethics, correct? | ||
| Well, he's not a journalist, so no. | ||
| He doesn't abide by those ethics because he's not a journalist. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Watson. | ||
| So, this opens up a pretty interesting vista. | ||
| Because once you're doing that, once you're like, yeah, this is all just opinion stuff. | ||
| Now it becomes pretty important to nail down, what's an opinion? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, yeah, yeah. | |
| 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 the difference between opinion and fact. | ||
| Here is Paul trying to walk that line. | ||
| I just don't... | ||
| Because we've been talking today a little bit about influencers having opinions versus assertions of fact. | ||
| What's the difference between a fact and an opinion? | ||
| 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. | ||
| Well, you'd agree. | ||
| There are 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. | |
| But something like the Sandy Hook School was not an operating school, that can be proven true or false. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Correct? | |
| Fuck, fuck, shit. | ||
| What do I say? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Fuck, fuck, oh god. | |
| It could be proven, but it's then based on whether you believe the proof that's presented. | ||
| I mean... | ||
| Aha! | ||
| Jesus! | ||
| That should be on humanity's gravestone. | ||
| That exact thing. | ||
| That is exactly why we're all dead. | ||
| Well, I mean, I guess if you have to say something and you can't just be like... | ||
| Yeah, that is a statement of fact. | ||
| Yeah, you're fair. | ||
| 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. | ||
| He might as well have said, well, it depends about your opinion on that. | ||
| Then facts don't exist. | ||
| 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, yes, that is a denial of reality. | ||
| And that is... | ||
| That makes it tough to imagine. | ||
| Because then everything is the domain of opinion. | ||
| There's no responsibility for anything. | ||
| There's no reason to get anything right. | ||
| Just fucking do whatever you want to do. | ||
| And it's sad. | ||
| Makes me really bummed. | ||
| I mean, that is really fucking dark. | ||
| And that he would say... | ||
| 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. | ||
| You know? | ||
| Ugh, we're fucked. | ||
| So because they're just opinion folk, right? | ||
| Over at Infowars. | ||
| And also all reality is opinion. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| They should be held to a lower standard than people who... | ||
| Are foolish enough to believe facts exist. | ||
| Well, that's your opinion. | ||
| Apparently so. | ||
| So Paul expresses that, that they should be held to a lower standard. | ||
| When informers does something like that, takes evidence and makes a judgment, does it have any responsibility to be accurate? | ||
| 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. | ||
| Okay, so you should be held to a lower standard than perhaps other media organizations. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Is that true? | |
| Yeah. | ||
| That's not good. | ||
| Shoot for the stars. | ||
| You should really strive to tell true things. | ||
| But you know, if you lie all the time, that's fine too. | ||
| That's brutal. | ||
| And one of the confounding things that just seems to be completely lost on all of these three people being deposed is... | ||
| and what is being presented as fact if opinion is presented as fact. | ||
| Right. | ||
|
unidentified
|
What is the differentiation between this is just something that... | |
| Well, they need to use their discernment. | ||
| And then you say it's in the white papers. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Or it's all been proven. | ||
| Right. | ||
| It came out in court documents. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| Whenever you'd use those things to reinforce your opinion, you're engaging in fact territory. | ||
| Well, you strive to say that things were in the white papers if they were. | ||
| Sure, sure, sure. | ||
| But if they weren't in the white papers, you shouldn't be held to that standard. | ||
| It's just instinct to say white paper. | ||
| It's bananas. | ||
| It changes opinion to fact. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| That doesn't get resolved at all, really. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Yeah, I was going to say, the joke is what does it. | ||
| And also, there's a bit of a conversation that Buckley attached a meme to the email joke back, and it's like a 4chan meme that has maybe some... | ||
| Offensive connotations to it. | ||
| I wouldn't call him a rabid anti-Semite. | ||
| Which leads to Paul being like, I don't know about this meme. | ||
| Sure! | ||
| And I'm not sure I believe you. | ||
| 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. | ||
| 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. | ||
| So if you don't have awareness, you don't have a joke. | ||
| If you have a joke, chances are. | ||
| And then the second thing is that email that he sent to Buckley and Anthony Gucciardi 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. | ||
| Oh, no! | ||
| Oh, hell yes! | ||
| He lists off a bunch of things that Alex did. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The lawyer says like, okay, Aurora. | |
| Or no, not Las Vegas. | ||
| No, he does think that was fake. | ||
| It was a false flag. | ||
| Oh, that's right. | ||
| That's right. | ||
| There we go. | ||
| That's all Steve. | ||
| Right. | ||
| So he lists off these like Columbine, Oklahoma City, all of these were false flags. | ||
| Right. | ||
| What is something that Alex thought was not a false flag? | ||
| Let's find out. | ||
| 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? | ||
|
unidentified
|
um um I would say the most recent ones post Las Vegas massacre, maybe the Dayton, Ohio shooting, the El Paso shooting, I don't know for sure, but I think after the Las Vegas one, he was more reticent to call them false flags. | |
| After I sued him, right? | ||
| I don't know when you sued him. | ||
| Yeah, you do, buddy. | ||
| 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? | |
| What did happen? | ||
| What isn't just some government false flag? | ||
| He, long pause, comes up with two things that Alex categorically thinks are false flags done by Antifa or whatever. | ||
| 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? | ||
| Perhaps. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| I don't think... | ||
| I struggle with how much Paul just doesn't care what Alex does. | ||
| That's fair. | ||
| Because there's a possibility that he doesn't know what Alex thinks about Dayton or the El Paso shooting. | ||
| Well, what? | ||
| Is he going to watch the show? | ||
| There's no way he's watching the fucking show. | ||
| No, there's a very high likelihood. | ||
| But then again, he's the editor of the website. | ||
| You would think. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Yeah, I imagine that's the only way to deal with Alex as a boss, to be honest. | ||
| Yeah, I don't know. | ||
| So, 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. | ||
| Oh yeah, no. | ||
| Like I said, that joke, I would say probably most, not that I know, but 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 smart shit. | ||
| But I think that you could, if you're Alex, you could say like, yeah, Buckley's a weird dude. | ||
| I didn't, you know, whatever he's saying, I don't agree with. | ||
| Right, right, right. | ||
| Maybe I'm just inflating the importance of it because it's the only thing I really understand. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| 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. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, yeah, yeah. | |
| But we'll see. | ||
| 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. | ||
| I think that's an abuse of being under oath. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah! | |
| I understand that your opinion on that is one thing, but my facts on it are nonsense. | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| So, now we're going to move on to Robert Dew. | ||
| Let's do it. | ||
| I'm not sure if that's... | ||
| I don't know if he ever goes by Robert, but Rob Dew. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| 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. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Now, that was a bad idea. | |
| understand what this means. | ||
| I, of course he doesn't. | ||
| Which I find fascinating. | ||
| It's clear, based on the lawyers questioning, that they 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 to, you know, 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. | ||
| So we settled, what did they draw straws? | ||
| Mustard. | ||
| They wound up with Rob? | ||
| Okay. | ||
| That's a swing for the fences right there. | ||
| 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. | ||
| But the reason I think it's interesting... | ||
| 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. | ||
| Rob Dude, can I call you Mr. Magoo from the rest of this deposition? | ||
| Rob Magoo. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| 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 Du 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 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 Doob's being forced into a position where he really can't do anything other than physically embody the complete incompetence of Infowars. | ||
| That might be their only defense. | ||
| Hey, guys. | ||
| It's not a good defense, though. | ||
| We're a shitty run business. | ||
| That's what we've got as a defense. | ||
| But then you take the L. Yeah, exactly. | ||
| I mean, you're going to lose that. | ||
| Right. | ||
| Like, if you're just shitty and incompetent, you're still responsible. | ||
| This supports my theory that Alex is just trying to spend all of the money he has left before the judgment comes down. | ||
| You think it's a Brewster's Million situation? | ||
| Because why else would you appoint Rob Dew as your corporate representative? | ||
| You may have nobody else. | ||
| That's possible. | ||
| He's been there forever. | ||
| Then get an intern to do it. | ||
| He's been there forever. | ||
| He has an experience as the quote-unquote news director for the station, the company. | ||
| He's had executive managerial roles. | ||
| He's been there as long as just about anybody. | ||
| Paul's too smart to do this. | ||
| Absolutely not. | ||
| Who else would you get? | ||
| Who's still there? | ||
| Jerome Corsi? | ||
| No, he's suing Alex, too. | ||
|
unidentified
|
You can't get him? | |
| Yeah, but you have him as your corporate representative for this lawsuit. | ||
| You don't want Steve Pachenik doing it. | ||
|
unidentified
|
He's going to get you in more trouble. | |
| No good. | ||
| What are the sources for you? | ||
| Me! | ||
| I'm CBP! | ||
| Roger's going to prison. | ||
| He's out. | ||
| Who do you have? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Kit Daniels? | |
| Darren McBreen? | ||
| Who are you going to send? | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| Also, you can't send an intern. | ||
| Buckley doesn't work there anymore. | ||
| Otherwise, he would probably be doing it. | ||
| Oh, he doesn't work there anymore. | ||
| No, he left a while back. | ||
| That's right. | ||
| So, like, I don't think Alex has anybody else other than Rob that you could probably trust to not, like, what, Owen Schroyer? | ||
| You gonna send Owen Schroyer? | ||
| The cuck slayer? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I don't think so. | |
| I legitimately do think he may not have any other options. | ||
| No, you might be right. | ||
| David Knight, maybe, possibly, but I bet he wouldn't do it. | ||
| I feel like, I don't know, I'd love to see a deposition with him. | ||
| He didn't get deposed? | ||
| If he did, it's not in the release that we got. | ||
| 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. | ||
| It can't be helpful. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| I find Rob Dew's, this deposition, far more fascinating than Alex or Paul Joseph Watson's because of that dynamic. | ||
| It feels like he might as well have, like... | ||
| Send Brendan Dassey in there. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Send anybody. | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| Send the tank. | ||
| The other reason that I find... | ||
| Excuse me. | ||
| Could you please establish your ownership? | ||
|
unidentified
|
It's the opinion of some people that I'm owned by some things. | |
| I don't know why that's my voice for a tank. | ||
| That's weird. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Oh yeah, absolutely. | ||
| Because the answer is always going to be either made it up or Weird right-wing website. | ||
| Or Larry Nichols. | ||
| Some completely uncredible person like a Fetzer or Wolfgang Halbig. | ||
| Absolutely. | ||
| It's always going to be exactly what you know it is, but they pretend it's not. | ||
| It's always going to be some flimsy bullshit. | ||
| Does Rob do give any source? | ||
| We'll see. | ||
| These are the situations where... | ||
| You know how whenever I talk about when Alex sits down and he's like, I'm going to prove chemtrails today. | ||
| That gets me excited. | ||
| Teach a class. | ||
| Because then I'm like, okay, you will actually give me things to go and find. | ||
| I 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. | ||
| And it's because... | ||
|
unidentified
|
By all accounts, this should be their big day. | |
| Yeah. | ||
| Like, they are the truth-tellers in the world. | ||
| They're the ones who are right about everything, and the globalist media can't stand it. | ||
| For sure. | ||
| Here is a formal court setting where Rob Du is tasked with laying out the sources that they have for this. | ||
| Of course. | ||
| For the coverage that they had, and it's just such a dud. | ||
| They also have tons of exonerating witnesses for Trump. | ||
| I don't know if you knew that or not. | ||
| They've got them all. | ||
| And the other thing, too, is if Rob is not going to give you any of the sources, he should pretend that they're privileged sources or something like that. | ||
| We refuse to give up our sources, and there's none of that. | ||
| You would have to have some sort of journalistic ethics or be held to a higher standard. | ||
| There is none of that posturing and bravado. | ||
| So, anyway, here we start Rob's deposition. | ||
| And he says something that is ultimately the least true thing possible. | ||
| Which of the four topics listed at the bottom of page 1 and top of page 2 of Exhibit 1 are you prepared to discuss today? | ||
| 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. | ||
| He is not. | ||
| 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. | ||
| And so they don't press on people who don't work there anymore. | ||
| Like 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. | ||
| I'm waiting for him to try and plead the fifth. | ||
| 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. | ||
| I don't know why I'm here, guys. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Rob is not prepared for this, okay. | ||
| What did you do to prepare for your deposition testimony today regarding sourcing and research for the videos described in plaintiff's petition? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Not much other than speak with my attorney. | |
| What? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Did you look at any documents? | |
| I looked at this document and... | ||
|
unidentified
|
That's it in terms of preparing for this. | |
| Yikes! | ||
| That document that he's referring to is the list of videos that are supposed to be discussed. | ||
| So that's the only thing he did to review. | ||
| Alright, so let me throw this out there for you. | ||
| Now, when you say a woman is beautiful, that is an opinion. | ||
| It's subjective, right? | ||
| 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. It's subjective whether you feel prepared. | ||
| That's fair. | ||
| So they have to keep reminding him that he's there as a corporate representative. | ||
| And he's unprepared for that as well. | ||
| Did you ask him if he's done research for Sandy Hook? | ||
|
unidentified
|
No, I didn't ask him that. | |
| so you don't know whether or not he's done research for Sandy Hook. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you. | |
| I can't remember any videos he was involved with making. | ||
| Right. | ||
| That was 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? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I would say no. | |
| Okay. | ||
| That happens... | ||
|
unidentified
|
A lot. | |
| I gotcha. | ||
| So, in this next clip, they try and explain to Rob what he is there for. | ||
| And then they teach him the alphabet? | ||
| Like, what's going on here? | ||
| He doesn't seem to really grasp it. | ||
| I think he does eventually, but it takes a while. | ||
| Let me clear it up. | ||
| Does Free Speech Systems know whether or not Marcus Morales has done research on Sandy Hook regarding the videos in plaintiff's petition? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes. | |
| The answer is no. | ||
| I didn't ask whether or not you thought. | ||
| 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. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I can't answer that. | |
| And that's because you don't know. | ||
|
unidentified
|
On behalf of the company. | |
| Well, going back to the best of my knowledge, I do not know. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Do you know that? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I didn't understand that. | |
| Okay. | ||
| Nobody's explained that to you prior to right now? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Prior to right now. | |
| 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
|
No, that's not what I understood. | |
| I understood that I was the corporate representative, but I did not know I was... | ||
| We're supposed to go talk to Marcos Morales. | ||
| What did you think you were supposed to do? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Oh my god! | |
| Oh my god, no! | ||
| I might have ended this interview right then. | ||
| You can get the sense that 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? | ||
| I would just be like... | ||
| Get out of here. | ||
| Go do your work, and then we will reschedule this. | ||
| Instead, they keep going. | ||
| To embarrass him, I assume. | ||
| 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? | ||
| Try and get some information. | ||
| Yeah, yeah, yeah. | ||
| And so they talk about... | ||
| 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. | ||
| You should probably. | ||
| But instead, just try and find something that you do know the source of that we can work with. | ||
| 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? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes, I do, because I've edited the video. | |
| Okay. | ||
| Who was the source? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I don't know. | |
| It was probably an anonymous person. | ||
| That's not a good answer. | ||
| You say that you're prepared to talk about the sourcing of a video that you edited, and it's probably some random person? | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Probably is a problem. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| Some random person is another problem. | ||
| It's an issue. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| So that's not good. | ||
| This is where we get into trouble with the law, and people who feel like stuff they want to be true is true. | ||
| I feel prepared. | ||
| Well, that's a fact. | ||
| I feel so prepared for this. | ||
| Alright, ask me a question. | ||
| What's an opinion? | ||
| I have no fucking clue. | ||
| I am so prepared for this. | ||
| Next question. | ||
| What's a fact? | ||
| I have no clue! | ||
| Next question. | ||
| You are so prepared. | ||
| I know! | ||
| So, the piece of information that some random person probably brought up leads to talking about the Anderson Cooper nose disappearing. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| Green screen that Alex believed. | ||
| 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. | ||
| This is a compression error in the video that has happened. | ||
| And Rob Doe doesn't trust that. | ||
| And so I think that you could understand a person getting a little bit frustrated that's like, you'll believe random people, but you don't believe the FBI. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| And he gets a little aggro. | ||
| Mistake or not mistake? | ||
| Anderson Cooper was in front of a blue screen. | ||
|
unidentified
|
And. | |
| The only reason I would say it's not 100% is because somebody asked him if he was there and he denied being at the funeral. | ||
| You know that's not true. | ||
|
unidentified
|
No, there's video of it. | |
| There's video of a guy asking him during a taping of a show. | ||
| He said, hey, were you at the funeral? | ||
| And he goes, no, I wasn't. | ||
| 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. | |
| 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. | ||
| Did you know that? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I've heard people say stuff. | |
| 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. | ||
| Okay. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That comes out of the government. | |
| Do you trust anonymous sources on 4chan? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I don't know if I've ever used an anonymous source on 4chan. | |
| Do you know that's where the picture of Marcel Fontaine was? | ||
| Was found? | ||
| Then used? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Who's Marcel Fontaine? | |
| 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? | |
| Oh, we are? | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Well, I didn't put that up, but from my understanding... | ||
| 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? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Shit. | |
| Fuck. | ||
| Fuck. | ||
| Shit. | ||
| What do I say? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Fuck. | |
| There's Barnes. | ||
| I still don't understand the core concept of a corporate representative. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Did you tell your uncle that? | ||
|
unidentified
|
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 dispersions about Sandy Hook. | ||
| That long pause there, I think, is really indicative. | ||
| When I said that it's not a bravo, macho kind of disrespect, there is a look on his face of 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. | ||
| 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. | ||
| It might have been a thing where he talked to Barnes, and Barnes is no longer their lawyer, and he was not doing a good job. | ||
| Barnes is like, tell him that the FBI is a bunch of liars! | ||
|
unidentified
|
I'm Robert Barnes! | |
| More billable hours! | ||
| Hooray! | ||
| I don't know what, yeah, I have no idea. | ||
| It does seem like they've had a chance. | ||
| There's 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... | ||
| 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. | ||
| That's fair! | ||
| That's totally fair! | ||
| And the lawyer assumes he knows what that entails and he doesn't. | ||
| It's possible. | ||
| Hey. | ||
| Rob, do you think you're prepared for this? | ||
| You bet. | ||
| Okay, then you get on in there, buddy. | ||
| Go get him, big guy. | ||
| So Rob claims that they were respectful to the victims and the family members. | ||
| Alright, so he was unprepared for this interview. | ||
| This is one of these, like, you know, just a slow motion volleyball hit that Rob is doing. | ||
| It just, like, immediately cuts to normal speed and someone on the other side spikes it in their face. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, yeah, yeah. | |
| It's that kind of thing. | ||
| Oh, this is not good. | ||
|
unidentified
|
And I believe kids were shot and killed in the beginning. | |
| Okay? | ||
| And if you look at our articles, we always talk about the victims. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We were never disparaging towards the parents. | |
| Bullshit. | ||
| You've seen the video of Mr. Jones mocking Robbie Parker's father by mocking him crying as a grieving father. | ||
| Surely. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Robbie Parker's father? | |
| I don't know if I've ever seen a video of Robbie Parker's father. | ||
| I mean, Robbie Parker. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Excuse me. | |
| You've seen the video of Mr. Jones mocking Robbie Parker about crying over his dead son, right? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Um... | |
| I don't know if I've seen that video. | ||
| You're a corporate representative! | ||
| 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. | |
| Oh, no. | ||
| Of Mr. Jones mocking Robbie Parker crying over his son. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I'm not. | |
| Okay. | ||
| I wouldn't be either. | ||
| Oh, man. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Oh, man. | ||
|
unidentified
|
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? | ||
| Never seen it. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Is this even legal? | ||
| Did he even do this? | ||
| I feel like he can't... | ||
| I don't know the law well enough. | ||
| Isn't there a rule that's like, by law you're supposed to... | ||
| Like, is there a contempt of something? | ||
| It's certainly contemptful. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| I mean, I don't know in the legal definition, but I find this to be full... | ||
| Like I said, the way I would describe it is a rank disrespect. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| And not with the middle finger, but with just like, I don't even care enough to do what I need to do. | ||
| Yeah, yeah, yeah. | ||
| It's fucked up. | ||
| 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. | ||
| It was 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... | ||
| Like, pictures of the children. | ||
| Like, when conspiracy theorists would use their pictures of their kids. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Get those videos DMCA struck, basically. | ||
| Yeah, I know the story. | ||
| He made that a fucking heroic effort. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| So, Alex was pissed off about this because some videos of fringe weirdos that he associates with were being taken down. | ||
| Right. | ||
| As one attack on free speech. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| 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. | ||
| No, an incitement to buy it. | ||
| So they discussed that a little bit, and Rob makes a pretty fucked up claim. | ||
| The videos that the Honor Network had taken down, were those true? | ||
| Sitting here today. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I'd have to see the video to know whether, standing here today, whether I think it was true. | |
| Buddy. | ||
| I think a lot of it he pulled down just because they were giving him carte blanche to pull down whenever he wanted. | ||
| And you're just making that up. | ||
| You have no evidence of that, correct? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I'd have no evidence. | |
| Okay. | ||
| And I just wanted to make sure, again, we're sitting here as you make up information and spread it. | ||
|
unidentified
|
As I make up information and spread it. | |
| Okay. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| It sucks, I mean, to be in that situation where you are just making stuff up. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| So I'd be like, just to be clear, you're making that up. | ||
| Well. | ||
| Well, I mean, I don't have evidence per se. | ||
| Then you just have to answer like, yeah. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Fine. | |
| It's petulant. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| It's very childish shit. | ||
| And I think that's what happens when people who do stuff like Infowars does are cornered. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Like, you can't really have any other response than, like, sort of indignant disappointment. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| Like, it's just, it's sad. | ||
| 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. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right, right, right. | |
| And he's never going to actually believe that he made it up. | ||
| It's never going to be satisfying. | ||
| No. | ||
| 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. | ||
| If they were what they pretend to be, the sourcing... | ||
| Deposition would be six hours long. | ||
| It would be exhausting. | ||
| Alex is 100% correct on everything. | ||
| It would be on the record. | ||
|
unidentified
|
For sure. | |
| It's in the white papers. | ||
| It's not. | ||
| It's just, I don't know shit. | ||
| I just, you know, whatever. | ||
| Yeah, Lennon Posner was just, he had carte blanche to take everything down. | ||
| Why would you base that on? | ||
| Anything? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Nah. | |
| I mean, I feel like it's true. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| So, Rob is also unprepared because he doesn't have access to all the videos they wanted to go over, right? | ||
| Rob, can I stress this one more time? | ||
| You are the corporate representative for free speech system. | ||
| Jordan, here's the thing. | ||
| YouTube took down their YouTube channel, so all those videos are gone. | ||
| Right? | ||
| The internet ate them. | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| Dog internet ate homework. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| Good call, dude. | ||
| 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. | ||
| You don't have this video as your testimony. | ||
| And by you, you mean free speech systems. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I didn't have it in any of the searches that I made. | |
| Okay. | ||
| Where'd you search? | ||
|
unidentified
|
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. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Are you aware that in this case, you produced this video to me? | ||
| Yet, you're not prepared to discuss it. | ||
| The problem is, and I think I discussed this in the last deposition, we don't have video, the titles that you're using, or you're referring to YouTube titles, and those aren't always What the video file is named when it gets uploaded. | ||
| Mr. Du, you gave me this video. | ||
| Free Speech Systems produced this to me, not YouTube. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I understand that. | |
| So, you have it in your possession, correct? | ||
| What is possession? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I don't know if I have it in my possession. | |
| How on earth could free speech systems produce a video to me and it not be in your possession? | ||
| There's only one copy! | ||
| One, you had it and then you spoliated it, which is the destruction of evidence. | ||
| No. | ||
| 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. | |
| Of those three, I think that's probably... | ||
| Yeah, I would choose that one. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| I would choose that one. | ||
| Look, man, we don't have this video. | ||
| You gave it to me. | ||
| Shit. | ||
| Excuse me, sir. | ||
| I would like to amend that back to magic. | ||
| Is magic admissible in the court of law? | ||
| I mean, that is so disrespectful. | ||
| That is just like, manifestly, I don't care. | ||
| I was told I was supposed to do all this stuff. | ||
| I'm not taking this seriously at all. | ||
| Absolutely. | ||
| It's horrifying. | ||
| I mean, horrifying is maybe not the right word, but it's shocking. | ||
| It really is. | ||
| This is the first time I've been surprised in 2019 right now in this deposition right here. | ||
| So the subject of Dan Badandi comes up, and as we know, the Kraken is released from time to time. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| 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. | |
| You're fired. | ||
| Get out of here. | ||
| You never worked here in the first place. | ||
| Stop using that microphone screen that says Infowars. | ||
| Right. | ||
| Cut it out. | ||
| How do we do on that one? | ||
| How's our dude going to fight that battle? | ||
| Rob tries to maintain that illusion. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Sure. | |
| And then the lawyer brings up an email that they found at Discover. | ||
| Shortly after that video... | ||
| He was fired because of what he was doing to those people. | ||
|
unidentified
|
He was doing contract work for us, and we would either accept or not accept his reports. | |
| And after that, you stopped accepting all reports and stopped responding to him, according to your deposition testimony last time we spoke. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I'd have to look at the dates for everything, but yes, that sounds right. | |
| Okay, 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. | ||
| Fun fact, right? | ||
|
unidentified
|
That is a fun fact. | |
| Oh, God. | ||
| Man, they really should have went through the discovery stuff. | ||
| This is bananas. | ||
| Info is really screwed by this, like, we just sent everything over. | ||
| We didn't review anything. | ||
| That's insane. | ||
| The plaintiff's lawyers are going to look through all that stuff. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah! | |
| They're going to find these things. | ||
| Like, hey, you know, you said you fired Dan Bedondi 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. | ||
| Right. | ||
| So, fun fact. | ||
| That is a fun fact. | ||
| Thank you for bringing that to my attention. | ||
| As a representative! | ||
| Also, you personally are on that email, too. | ||
| I don't recall. | ||
| And I reject, oh, did the FBI send that email? | ||
| So, they get to talking about this video that Alex put out, which is called Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed. | ||
| Right. | ||
| And Rob says he can discuss the sources of that because he worked on it. | ||
| Then the lawyer brings up something unfortunate. | ||
| Do you think vampires are real? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Opinion. | ||
| April 22, 2017, after the final statement, that was our last video, is Sandy Hook vampires exposed? | ||
| Do you remember that video? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I do remember that video. | |
| Who researched the information for that video? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I would say myself and Alex did. | |
| What were your sources? | ||
| I believe a Megyn Kelly interview. | ||
| Any others? | ||
|
unidentified
|
And then I believe previous videos that we produced. | |
| Are you aware that on April 22, 2017, that the Megyn Kelly interview hadn't even happened yet? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Oh, it hadn't happened yet? | |
| Okay. | ||
| Fair to say that you're not prepared to discuss this video. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| Yeah. | ||
| I think that's a fun fact. | ||
| Oh, man. | ||
| Yeah, the source for that video was the Megyn Kelly interview. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Which happened afterwards. | |
| Can I go back and revise my answer to time travel's reel? | ||
| Would that one help? | ||
| So, I think this is a pretty understatement, but Rob Doe did not do his job as a corporate representative. | ||
| 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. | ||
| It doesn't feel vindictive. | ||
| The questioning doesn't veer too far into... | ||
| I'm going to humiliate you. | ||
| That's what I'm saying. | ||
| I think the reason that I'm saying that is simply because they can't be humiliated. | ||
| They're shameless. | ||
| I think if it were me in there, I probably would try and set more traps. | ||
| I would try and do all sorts of crazy things. | ||
| Do you believe in climate change? | ||
| That's your angle that you would go on it. | ||
| I don't think that they resort to too much of that. | ||
| But like I said... | ||
| It seems like they're dangerously... | ||
| 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. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| And I think that they're doing, from all indications I can get, I think they're doing a good job. | ||
| Unlike Rob Du. | ||
| Ah, come on! | ||
| You didn't review any emails prepared for today. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That's correct. | |
| Right. | ||
| Do you think you should have? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I wasn't relying on the advice of my attorney. | |
| With how this deposition's gone so far, do you think you prepared enough? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I'm not going to answer that. | |
| Okay. | ||
| I wouldn't either. | ||
| What? | ||
| Rob! | ||
| Rob! | ||
| Really? | ||
| Rob, I'm not going to answer that? | ||
| What do you think that means? | ||
| That's about where the lawyer's being a little bit petty, possibly, but I still think it's a fair question. | ||
| It's like, do you think that you should have done more? | ||
| Actually, I genuinely think that's a great question because that is indicative of the entire ethos of Infowars. | ||
| You also wonder, too, it's not a question that's meant just to prod. | ||
| There's a chance that he might actually think he did exactly what he was supposed to do. | ||
| I genuinely think he does. | ||
| 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? | ||
| As a journalist, don't you have the duty to be right and not first? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you. | |
| Well, and we're not always wearing journalistic hats. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Sometimes we're commenting on something. | |
| So when you're commenting on something, you can just make it up and it doesn't matter. | ||
|
unidentified
|
No, you can say your opinion. | |
| 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? | ||
| I think he doesn't play devil's advocate as much anymore because of instances like these, where we're at today. | ||
| Because I got sued. | ||
| Do you guys not want to answer my question, or do you not understand what questions are? | ||
| I think that that question is being asked incredibly clearly. | ||
| How are you supposed to tell the difference between opinion presented as fact and fact? | ||
| 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. | ||
| It's completely impossible to answer for them. | ||
| That's why I think that that is a dangerous thing for Infowars to even give a bad answer to. | ||
| Yeah, even acknowledging that. | ||
| Because it is. | ||
| Every single thing is presented as truth. | ||
| 100% truth. | ||
| And he says it. | ||
| 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. | ||
| 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? | ||
| Well, I mean, my opinion is me saying that everything has been proven to you is a statement of opinion. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Aha! | |
| We will never solve this because I am a circle. | ||
| So this deposition with Rob Dew ends with the lawyer asking if Rob is proud of what Infowars has done. | ||
| Wait, now is that a personal question or is that a question for him as the representative of free speech systems? | ||
| 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 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? | ||
| I think our reporting stopped what was going to be a lot of anti-gun legislation coming down. | ||
| 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? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I don't think we're going to be remembered for Sandy Hook. | |
| What do you think you're going to be remembered for? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I know that's what you want. | |
| I know that. | ||
| Okay, you whiny little... | ||
| I think that when you're being asked, are you proud of this? | ||
| You should not have... | ||
| If you don't want a show asked... | ||
| There's some sort of an answer you could give that's not yes or no. | ||
| Mistakes were made. | ||
| I think we did some things well. | ||
| Are you proud of every mistake that you've ever made? | ||
| Sure, you could do that. | ||
| You could say, hey, look, Jim Fetzer, or you probably don't want to broach that one. | ||
| No, you don't speak his name. | ||
| 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 Hook. | ||
| So, excuse me. | ||
| That's an ends justify the means argument. | ||
| Excuse me, Mr. Do. | ||
| Are you saying that you spread false information in order to achieve a political result? | ||
| Do you know we have a word for that? | ||
| I mean, it does seem to imply that he doesn't have qualms with... | ||
| Like, putting out false information if it's expedient to his goals. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| And that, to me, under oath, speaking for the company, is not good. | ||
|
unidentified
|
No. | |
| No. | ||
| Yeah, I gasped when he said, hey, we stopped gun legislation. | ||
| Honestly, honestly, I don't know if Goebbels would have said he was proud of the misinformation that he's written. | ||
| Well, I mean, also, you've got to consider, like, these gun paranoia fears that they've had over the decades. | ||
| They didn't need to fake something like this. | ||
| They didn't have to engage in this to stop that legislation. | ||
| Tons of money from the NRA. | ||
| Talk about the MIAC report and all that shit. | ||
| Gun advocacy groups do enough to make sure that a lot of that legislation doesn't pass. | ||
| You don't need... | ||
| People like Alex doing this sort of shit. | ||
| It's delusional. | ||
| 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? | ||
| They might have. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That's true. | |
| They might have. | ||
| So Rob's deposition is like this. | ||
| Real spectacle of incompetence and disrespect that I find really interesting, and I find it to be 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. | ||
| 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. | ||
| 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. | ||
| That's fucked up. | ||
| We had Paul Joseph Watson as the opener. | ||
| We had Rob Dew as the feature act. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| Which is the best spot, as we've clearly seen. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, yeah, yeah. | |
| And as is tradition, we got our headliner, and that is, of course, Alex Jones being under oath deposed again. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| So we had, like, Paul probably was about an hour-long deposition. | ||
| Rob Dew is about an hour-forty. | ||
| Alex is almost three hours of him under oath. | ||
| And a large part of the beginning of it is discussing, like, what means did people communicate with each other internally at Infowars? | ||
| Right. | ||
| Which is, you know, to try and be like, do we have all of these internal communications? | ||
| Emails, all this. | ||
| Did y 'all use Slack? | ||
| That kind of thing. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right, right. | |
| And Alex is very wishy-washy about all of this. | ||
| I don't know what people use. | ||
| What's Slack? | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| God damn it. | ||
| So in this first clip, he claims that he's never texted with anybody about Sandy Hook. | ||
| So you're saying you never received text messages relating to Sandy Hook. | ||
| Is your testimony the same that you've never sent a text message relating to Sandy Hook? | ||
| 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. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| 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? | ||
| No. | ||
| I think I've talked about meetings with lawyers about it. | ||
| That's it. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| That seems to be in direct contradiction to Paul Joseph Watson's email that he sent to Buckley and Anthony Gucciardi, which was an on-the-record version of a text that he sent to Alex. | ||
| Yeah, I was literally waiting for him to be like, and here's the text you provided us! | ||
| But I don't think he needs to... | ||
| I don't think that the lawyers need to bring that out. | ||
| You just need, like, here's Alex being duplicitous. | ||
| He says it's not there. | ||
| 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? | ||
| Because I know an employee. | ||
| We just talked to him who could use a little discipline, my friend. | ||
| Alex seems to think that the question is all about whether someone has put out false information intentionally and then been disciplined. | ||
| Whereas the question is really more just like, have you disciplined anyone? | ||
| For anything. | ||
| Yeah, like making a mistake, being hasty, any of those sorts of things. | ||
| I've thrown axes at them. | ||
| 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 14, 2012 and April 18, 2018. | ||
| Your response is none, correct? | ||
| Yes. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| None. | ||
| In six years, apparently none. | ||
| No one has been disciplined. | ||
| I mean, it does really feel like their defense is we're a shittily run business. | ||
| Yeah, I still think that doesn't get you off the hook for this. | ||
| Of course not. | ||
| No. | ||
| That's what I'm saying. | ||
| I think they know they're going to lose because of course they are. | ||
| I think they have to at this point. | ||
| Yeah, and I think they just are like fucking let's push this back as long as possible. | ||
| Let's ride this out. | ||
| Let me reframe this. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Yeah, yeah, fair. | ||
| 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. | ||
| We're not talking facts. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| Like, facts are not going to convince anyone of anything. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Oh my god. | ||
| See if Alex knows the difference. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| You think Sandy Hook is not an operating school? | ||
| You think that's an opinion? | ||
| I don't know the context you're speaking about it in. | ||
| I'm just saying right now, if I told you, if I said to you, Mr. Jones, Sandy Hook wasn't an operating school. | ||
| I believe it was torn down. | ||
| That's not what I'm asking. | ||
| Oh, I'm confused. | ||
| 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? | ||
| I think that's your opinion. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| So those sorts of statements can be said on InfoWars without fact-checking. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Objection form. | |
| I don't know the context. | ||
| 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, of any kind of, like, how would you go about making a claim like Sandy Hook wasn't open on air? | ||
| And it turns out... | ||
| Well, they said it. | ||
| Well, it's an opinion, you know? | ||
| And that is not an opinion. | ||
| 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. | ||
| 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. | ||
| I genuinely believe that they don't. | ||
| I really don't think they do. | ||
| And if I'm going by that 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, 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. | ||
| They don't believe there's a fact. | ||
| 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. | ||
| It is where you would go if you're like, well, everything is indefensible and my behavior is clearly shown to be fucked up. | ||
| I was, you know, hey, look, there's just opinions. | ||
| What is real? | ||
| It does seem like exactly where you would try and hide out. | ||
| That's true. | ||
| You're not wrong. | ||
| I mean, obviously they can't combat it with any kind of facts. | ||
| Because there is a functional use to it, I find it hard to believe that it's just like the inability to recognize reality. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| If it didn't serve a purpose. | ||
| Then I'd be like, that's fascinating. | ||
| But because it does, it's... | ||
| 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, I'm going to say that it's true. | ||
| Like, that's kind of their operating system, I think. | ||
| Could be. | ||
| So we get back to these employees who have not been disciplined at all. | ||
| And we get some examples. | ||
| 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? | ||
| No, it's not. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| You would take disciplinary action if that happened? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes. | |
| Now, what kind of disciplinary action would you take? | ||
| I would generally just try to something like that and probably let him go. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| 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? | ||
| 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. | ||
|
unidentified
|
But Kit... | |
| Did not do that on purpose. | ||
| And it was on thousands of publications. | ||
| He intentionally, on purpose, reported an accusation of a crime based on an anonymous source whose identity he could not verify. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Correct? | |
| 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. | ||
| What sites are you talking about? | ||
| It was a long list of sites. | ||
| It was all over the internet. | ||
| Before Kit Daniels published it? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Mm-hmm. | |
| Yes. | ||
| That's your belief? | ||
| That's why I remember out of the best of my knowledge. | ||
|
unidentified
|
All right. | |
| Kit Daniels testified that he just found it on 4chan and saw it in a tweet by an anonymous Twitter account. | ||
| I don't remember that, so... | ||
| Okay. | ||
| 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? | ||
| Yes. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes. | |
| I believe there was more, but yes, that's not good. | ||
| Ooh, 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 question. | ||
| That is insane to me that he's answering that question honestly. | ||
| I fire the guy. | ||
| 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. | ||
| No, probably not. | ||
| So he asks that one, and then there's another example. | ||
| 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? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you. | |
| That was a publicity stunt by Chibana Yogurt and there was no money. | ||
| 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 fellow reserve board member. | ||
| What? | ||
| Didn't David Knight tell you explicitly that there were no rapes? | ||
| That that was false? | ||
| I don't remember what you're talking about. | ||
| Hey, Hamdi! | ||
| What the fuck? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Did he just... | |
| Did he just commit another crime? | ||
| I'm not entirely sure. | ||
| It does seem like under oath he just said that Hamdi Ulukaya was involved in some sort of nefarious... | ||
| Yeah, I wonder if that is a violation of his... | ||
| It has to be. | ||
| It seems like it would be. | ||
| There's no way that it's like, oh, you can't say it publicly. | ||
|
unidentified
|
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. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Uh-huh. | |
| Yeah, that's insane. | ||
| Yeah, and so you got that really fucked up answer. | ||
| And then also a demonstration that no, when the whole Chobani thing happened, no one was punished. | ||
| But again, Alex is presenting it as because it was a publicity stunt. | ||
| Yeah, that's bananas. | ||
| I'm starting to think that that public apology wasn't genuine. | ||
| No, it seems like it wasn't. | ||
| So there's even more things that he didn't have any disciplinary actions about. | ||
| When your reporter, Owen Schreuer, tried to falsely connect the Austin pizza restaurant Eastside Pies to a pedophile ring, you didn't take any disciplinary action. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Correct? | |
| I don't know. | ||
| I'm not telling specifics what you're talking about. | ||
| You've never taken any disciplinary action against any employee for any of the false things said about Sandy Hook on InfoWars, correct? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Shit. | |
| Fuck. | ||
| Fuck. | ||
| Shit. | ||
|
unidentified
|
What do I say? | |
| Fuck. | ||
| I don't understand. | ||
| I'm not sure what you're getting at. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Really? | |
| Really? | ||
| I want to hang that on the wall. | ||
| 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. | ||
|
unidentified
|
And in fact, they are actively encouraged to do so. | |
| Seems like that's the pattern that's being demonstrated here. | ||
| How do you not know what I'm getting at? | ||
| I am very clearly leading you. | ||
| That's why the really is so like, come on, man. | ||
| You know exactly what's going on here. | ||
| I would hope so. | ||
| So then the topic of Dan Badandi comes up. | ||
| And of course, Alex wants to downplay his relationship with the Kraken. | ||
| Okay, that's Mr. Badandi? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Alright, thank you, Mr. Jones. | ||
| That's the man that Infowars sent to Newtown to report on Sandy Hook in 2014, correct? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you. | |
| Well, he lived up there, so he went and covered it. | ||
| He lives in the Boston area, correct? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes. | |
| So Infowars sent him to Sandy Hook to cover it in 2014, right? | ||
| Not exactly. | ||
| He had his own separate radio show from us. | ||
| Okay, but he did reporting for Infowars in 2014 in San Diego. | ||
| We had him on as a guest, but he wasn't working for us then. | ||
| Okay, he wasn't your reporter? | ||
| Not technically. | ||
| You described him as your reporter. | ||
| I don't remember that I may have. | ||
| He certainly has. | ||
| We have certainly heard him describe Dan Badandi as an employee, says he hired him, said he sends him places. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| That is an opinion, though. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Opinion. | |
| So, Alex tries to play the same game that a Rob Doe does, and that is that our sense of decency was offended by what Dan Badandi was up to, and so we told him to fuck off. | ||
| You bullshit liar. | ||
| What did you think of Mr. Badandi's work in Newtown in 2014? | ||
|
unidentified
|
team. | |
| Thank you. | ||
| I did not follow a lot of it. | ||
| When you did find out about it, what was your reaction? | ||
| What did you do? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Objection form. | |
| I don't remember the specifics. | ||
| When you testified back in March, didn't you say that you had seen what he did and had a reaction to it? | ||
| Are you talking about this report? | ||
| I don't remember this report. | ||
| I'm just talking about his work in Newtown. | ||
| What did you think about his work in Newtown in 2014? | ||
| I don't remember the exact year, but I remember telling him... | ||
| You're not reporting for us. | ||
| Stop using the might flag. | ||
| And I told him, stop. | ||
| 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 of the year. | ||
| Oh, okay. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| I don't like your demeanor, Kraken. | ||
| Yeah, no kidding. | ||
| The guy who I specifically praised for his demeanor. | ||
| I might as well have created a statue because he disrupted Boston bombing-related press conferences. | ||
| I didn't like the way he was carrying himself. | ||
| This is unreal. | ||
| So ridiculous. | ||
| I don't understand why is Alex trying to do both the I don't recall and answer the question thing. | ||
| I think it's hubris. | ||
| It has to be, right? | ||
| I think that sometimes he feels like I can handle this. | ||
| Right? | ||
| Yeah, it feels that way a little bit. | ||
| No. | ||
| Because nothing he says is real. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Right, right, right. | ||
| 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's a point to that line of questioning. | ||
| In the same way with Dan Badandi, bringing him up, there's a reason that we're going down this road. | ||
| Were there depositions in the Hamdi Ulukaya case? | ||
| I don't think it proceeded to that point. | ||
| I think he settled before. | ||
| I was going to say. | ||
| I'm not entirely sure. | ||
| And I don't know if any became public. | ||
| Yeah, because it kind of feels to me like the advice that they must be operating under is like, this is going to settle. | ||
| So, don't worry too much about... | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| We're going to settle this the same way that we did with the other lawsuits. | ||
| That's not what Barnes is saying. | ||
| It's just going to cost you money. | ||
| Yeah, and they also said that I will die before I give in to this... | ||
| Yeah, yeah, yeah. | ||
| I will not be taken down by yogurt! | ||
| Never! | ||
| 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. | ||
| They seem to be pretty clear that any question... | ||
| Kind of traces back to them a little bit. | ||
| Yeah, yeah, yeah. | ||
| And so Alex really wants you to know that Jim Fetzer wasn't a source. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| In addition to Wolfgang Halbig, one of your other sources for your Sandy Hook reporting was Jim Fetzer, right? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you. | |
| Not one of mine, but I remember it was a long time ago. | ||
| Really? | ||
| You didn't testify to that in March, that Mr. Fetzer was... | ||
| He was one of the people questioning it. | ||
| And one of your sources for Sandy Hook coverage, correct? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I don't remember. | |
| I don't think he was on my show. | ||
| Didn't you testify that Mr. Watson was telling you that Mr. Fetzer was bad? | ||
| You shouldn't be relying on him? | ||
| I remember Paul saying he didn't like Fetzer. | ||
| I do remember that. | ||
| Mr. Fetzer is a retired professor and a rabid anti-Semite, right? | ||
| I don't know if I'd call him that. | ||
| I don't know that. | ||
| You didn't know Mr. Fetzer was a rabid anti-Semite? | ||
| No, I don't know that. | ||
| You didn't know that Mr. Fetzer thinks the Jews did Sandy Hook? | ||
| No, I don't know that. | ||
| Just like he thinks the Jews did 9-11? | ||
|
unidentified
|
No. | |
| Uh-oh. | ||
| Uh-oh. | ||
| Alex should really know more about the worlds that he dwells in. | ||
| It seems like it would be helpful to him. | ||
| This is bananas. | ||
| 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. | ||
| You would think that this would be something that, like, okay, we've got to cover our bases on this. | ||
| You don't even recognize the guy's name. | ||
| Now Alex doesn't know somebody's name. | ||
| You remember at the end of the 2016 election, there was some media coverage about how you had said on your show that Trump had called you to thank you for your help in the election? | ||
| And some of those mainstream media sources were kind of trying to pile on you about that. | ||
| Do you remember that? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes. | |
| Two days after that happened, a woman named Erica Lafferty... | ||
| First, let's back up. | ||
| Do you know who Erica Lafferty is? | ||
| No. | ||
| The daughter of Dawn Hopspring? | ||
| She's currently suing you? | ||
| You don't know who she is? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I've never talked about her. | |
| Okay. | ||
| She's been talked about on InfoWars, though. | ||
| You didn't know that? | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| Okay, and you didn't know that she currently is the named plaintiff in a suit against you in Connecticut? | ||
| Called Lafferty vs. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Jones? | |
| You didn't know that? | ||
| Oh, I've seen that name, yeah. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Oh, I've seen that name. | ||
| That's crazy. | ||
| I don't even understand how you can be that level of... | ||
| Because it doesn't feel like that's not a genuine answer. | ||
| No, I genuinely believe he has no idea who she is. | ||
| If you watch it, it seems like, I don't know, who's that? | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| When he's lying or trying to find a way to lie but not lie, he pauses for about 45 to 80 minutes. | ||
| 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. | ||
| They must genuinely never have thought they would actually be deposed. | ||
| Maybe. | ||
| They have to believe that. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Yeah, I guess. | ||
| We'll just be able to keep this under wraps. | ||
| Wow. | ||
| This is insane. | ||
| 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. | ||
| 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 Newtown website, K-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-12 entire school system. | ||
| And the word is, that school system was shut down for those years. | ||
| That's what the records show. | ||
|
unidentified
|
They tell us it was open. | |
| So, you might have some questions about how that evidence works, and Alex seems very confused when questioned. | ||
| So you said in the video, we see Sandy Hook's website having zero traffic. | ||
| According to this. | ||
| According to you. | ||
| The internet wayback machine. | ||
| Do you believe that that shows internet traffic? | ||
| Is that what you believe? | ||
| What it shows is what's being archived. | ||
|
unidentified
|
There. | |
| 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. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| Internet Wayback Machine does not show internet traffic at a school, correct? | ||
| It shows new material and traffic on a website that's posted. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| You're going to stick by. | ||
| You think it shows traffic, internet traffic. | ||
| That's what it's measuring. | ||
| I guess the term would be traffic in posting, in activity. | ||
| Have you ever read the Wayback Machine FAQ, Frequently Asked Questions? | ||
| Ever figured out what it is? | ||
| 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... | ||
| You say there's things showing that there's no traffic coming to the school. | ||
| What are you talking about? | ||
| I'd have to pull that up. | ||
| This was years ago. | ||
| 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. | ||
| I've never read Jim Fetzer's book. | ||
| Mr. Jones, I'm going to caution you again. | ||
| Please wait until I answer your question. | ||
| Because as you can see, it's very frustrating for this man. | ||
| And he's not here affiliated with any party. | ||
| He's a private person who'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? | |
| I don't remember. | ||
| 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 would be pretty irresponsible to go on your web show. | ||
| Call this the smoking gun, wouldn't it? | ||
| I was predominantly talking about the other information, but I had to go back and get that. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| Yeesh. | ||
| I'm glad he finally understood what a hypothetical question is. | ||
| 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 then he's like, did you do that? | ||
| Oh, right. | ||
| Hypotheticals are leading to reality. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Shit. | |
| 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
|
And it seems... | |
| If he put out that book back then, and it's still now, he's losing a lawsuit for it, it tends to look like Alex could be heading for a similar path. | ||
| I believe Alex has never read his book. | ||
| I believe that Alex has never read a book. | ||
| I believe that he has been given several quotes from that exact book and told to say them. | ||
| Or the same information, like let's say he read a blog that was based on Spencer's book. | ||
| I could see that. | ||
| That makes more sense. | ||
| Or one of his employees read the book and was like, oh, here's a piece of it. | ||
| Oh, let's run with that. | ||
| Let's give you a cliff notes. | ||
| Which is why it's important for the Rob Du 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. | ||
| Right after that, the Wayback Machine discussion, you said, the word is that school was shut down for those years. | ||
| That's what the records show. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That was your argument, correct? | |
| I'm specifically talking about the other articles I was talking about, I guess. | ||
| That's what I'm asking you about right now. | ||
| Those records, what are you talking about? | ||
| I'd have to go pull them up. | ||
| And you haven't done that? | ||
| No, not recently. | ||
| You've been under lawsuit now for over a year on Sandy Hook related cases. | ||
| Multiple cases. | ||
| And you haven't done anything to go try to find what your sources for these claims are, have you? | ||
| I've done a lot of work. | ||
| Is that an opinion or a fact? | ||
| It's an uncompelling response. | ||
| I've done all the work. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| So he keeps claiming that he can produce other evidence, but then somehow hasn't. | ||
| So if I wanted to know, when you say the records show that the school was closed down, you could produce those records. | ||
| I could show what I was talking about at that point. | ||
| Yeah, or you could produce whatever you were relying on as your source, right? | ||
| Now that you've specified. | ||
| You haven't done that, though, have you? | ||
| I don't have a law degree. | ||
| Sure. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| 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, that's something you could do. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| I don't know if it would be what you're looking for. | ||
| 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? | ||
| Well, I specifically mentioned, I mean, I remember what people were pointing out, what was going on. | ||
| I'm asking you if you would have saved that stuff. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you. | |
| Shit. | ||
| Shit. | ||
| Fuck. | ||
| What do I say? | ||
| Fuck. | ||
| Shit. | ||
| Horns. | ||
| I mean, I don't have the specifics here in front of me. | ||
| I'm not asking what you have in front of you. | ||
| 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? | ||
| You know, I don't remember. | ||
| It's a long time ago. | ||
| Almost seven years ago. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| Okay. | ||
| Where is shittily run business is his defense? | ||
| And it was a long time ago, man. | ||
| I had this game-changing information, and I just, ah, it's a long time ago. | ||
| So this narrative is bunk. | ||
| And I think that in this course of this conversation, they've pretty well laid out, like, you are 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 nose 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... | ||
| 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. | ||
| No. | ||
| But it had to do with the media lying. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| It was actually people waiting for the, I believe it was the jury verdict in the Jody Arias murder trial. | ||
| So, 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. | ||
| Do you remember that bus going behind them? | ||
| I remember the story was that they were at the same location. | ||
| Yeah, explain what you think is going on here. | ||
| Well, I'm not saying they're staging Sandy Hook. | ||
| I'm saying it's just they were staging that they were in different locations. | ||
| Were they staging that they were in different locations? | ||
| That's what I believe the report was. | ||
| 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? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you. | |
| Well, sure, but that could mean they're a different remote location. | ||
| Sure, but they're only 40 yards away from each other, right? | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| You don't remember what they're covering here? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| No. | ||
| He has no awareness of the details of these pieces of his narratives. | ||
| It's so tragic. | ||
| 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 if pushed on it. | ||
| Like, why do you think that they're presenting themselves as being in separate places? | ||
| 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. | ||
| This gets to when people ask us, would you actually sit down and talk with Alex? | ||
| This is what you get if he thinks he's telling you the truth. | ||
| And if he's under oath, this is what you get. | ||
| Imagine how bad it would be if you're not. | ||
| 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 is the same thing as her. | ||
| Hey, you know, I don't mind the lawyer getting a little personal and being like, what you do is shit. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| That's a statement of fact, Dan. | ||
| That is not an opinion. | ||
| You and Nancy Grace are basically two peas in a pod. | ||
| You do basically the same thing. | ||
| I don't follow Nancy Grace enough to know what your definition of her or I are. | ||
| Well, I mean, I'll just tell you, Nancy Grace does really, really reckless tragedy porn. | ||
| And you do the same thing with the conspiracy twist, don't you? | ||
| 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 the Benghazi standouts. | ||
| We've been lied to so much. | ||
| Just like most Americans, I question official stories that it's not illegal. | ||
|
unidentified
|
What question did you ask in that video that we just watched? | |
| What was the question? | ||
| I was talking about some of the questions people have. | ||
| What was the question? | ||
| What question? | ||
| I heard a lot of statements. | ||
| Can you tell me what the question was? | ||
| I was putting out some of the reasons people question things. | ||
| You were putting out assertions that were false. | ||
| I like this approach because it's not getting bogged down in the, like, what about the babies in the incubators? | ||
| It's just letting that roll off his back. | ||
| What was the question in that video? | ||
| What are you questioning? | ||
| That was perfect. | ||
| Because the entire, the whole baby, he's doing his classic laundry list of things, hoping that you'll get caught on one. | ||
| And then he can be like, ha ha, now we're in my arena. | ||
| Yeah, 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? | ||
| Oh, no. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Oh, no. | |
| Oh, man. | ||
| It's these little unexamined pieces of their flippant self-defenses. | ||
| 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. | ||
| You son of a bitch. | ||
| Because he thinks that that is going to be his big, like... | ||
| Of course. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Big, like, yeah, well, you know, you say, I can't question things, but what about... | |
| And it just, much like Rob do and the Babies and Incubators, it turns on him very quick. | ||
| Yeah, this is very clear that... | ||
| Alex and Rob do 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, 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. | ||
| But the reason that he can do that is because there are pieces of evidence that he was not in with this bullshit. | ||
| He's exculpatory. | ||
| 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 InfoWars. | ||
| Yes, I still worked for them afterwards. | ||
| I'm an independent contractor. | ||
| I did what I could. | ||
| And that argument, I mean, it kind of works. | ||
| I mean, he's a shitbag for so many other reasons, but this one will take off of his list. | ||
| Yeah, yeah. | ||
| It's a low priority. | ||
| 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, is any of that true? | ||
| Literally every single assertion you made in that video is false, correct? | ||
| Not one thing you said in it is true. | ||
| I don't, I don't, I'm not, no. | ||
| I'm not understanding your answer. | ||
| Are you claiming there are things you said in that video that are true? | ||
|
unidentified
|
No. | |
| Thank you. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| I'd have to watch the video again. | ||
| There's also a full video. | ||
| That's only an excerpt. | ||
| Nice. | ||
| Nice! | ||
| Lame! | ||
| Lame! | ||
| 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. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| And this apparently probably is not true. | ||
| 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? | ||
| We were covering reports of the email that was sent out to the activist groups that had been in the news. | ||
| Where were you covering it? | ||
| What do you mean, were you covering it? | ||
| We were covering the reports of them activating their anti-gun rights organization. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| Well, so here's the thing, Mr. Jones. | ||
| At first, I thought there must be some email coincidentally sent on the day before Sandy Hook. | ||
| Well, I'm just not taking your assertion if that's the case. | ||
| Well, that's why I've asked you questions in Discovery. | ||
| And you haven't been able to produce that email to me, have you? | ||
| I was reporting on other news reports about an alert they put out to their group. | ||
| Could you find those reports if you needed to? | ||
| Could you identify your source? | ||
| I see what you're doing there. | ||
| Well, I mean, A, you can hold back a source if you want to, but I remember being online, I can try to go find that again. | ||
| What do you mean you can hold back a source if you want to? | ||
| What does that mean? | ||
| I mean, if I have a confidential source on something, I don't allow to hold back the confidential source for their protection, but that's not what's happened in this case. | ||
| I remember the news articles about it that we reported on. | ||
| So you could find those, right? | ||
| I should be able to. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Why haven't you? | ||
| Because you 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. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| That's the only time that trigger looks like it's going to be pulled. | ||
| I'm amazed. | ||
| I'm amazed. | ||
| The clear message that you get is just like, okay, can you produce this? | ||
| Why haven't you produced this? | ||
| I can prove all my claims, but I have to watch that video again. | ||
| Man. | ||
| 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. | ||
| And then you got drunk on air and put out a million dollar bounty. | ||
| Yeah, that's right. | ||
| Got censured, and then... | ||
| Oh, man. | ||
| So now, Alex is asked if he is ashamed of his Robbie Parker impression. | ||
| Here we go. | ||
| This bit about Robbie Parker. | ||
| The whole fake crying bit. | ||
| That bit. | ||
| I'm curious. | ||
| Do you feel any shame about that? | ||
| Or are you totally fine with seeing video of yourself do that? | ||
| I don't think I did it quite the way you did. | ||
| That is an interesting response. | ||
| I find that. | ||
| His first instinct is to protect his abilities as an impressionist. | ||
| Instinctively. | ||
| The first thing he thought was... | ||
|
unidentified
|
Whoa, whoa, whoa. | |
| You're doing a shitty me. | ||
| Come on now. | ||
| Don't do a shitty version of me. | ||
| That's weird. | ||
| I only want my image to be at the highest quality. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Wow. | ||
| So, suffice it to say, the answer is not really. | ||
| Yeah, well. | ||
| Then they play a video of Alex and Rob Du talking about all of these anomalies in the Sandy Hook case. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| They're saying these things all as if they're definitely like, well, the school wasn't open. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| Asserting them as fact or statements. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| 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? | ||
| I want to ask you about the things that you and Mr. Deuce said in that video. | ||
| And we can agree there was a list of factual claims made in that video, correct? | ||
| No, I was giving my opinion. | ||
| When you say porta-potties were delivered an hour after it happened. | ||
| That's not a factual assertion to you? | ||
| I believe they were delivered soon thereafter. | ||
| That's not what I'm asking you, Mr. Jones. | ||
| I'm asking, is that a factual assertion? | ||
| I think it's my opinion. | ||
| That's not an opinion. | ||
| That is an assertion. | ||
| Call it. | ||
| Time of death. | ||
| 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, porta potties weren't delivered and 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, this is why people were suspicious, X, Y, Z, that's still, at least in some fashion, presenting X, Y, and Z. Right. | ||
| Here's why it's wet outside of my apartment. | ||
| Somebody opened the fire hydrant. | ||
| 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 what? | ||
| Right. | ||
| If you're doing this as a, like, this is why people believe this, 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 that. | ||
| So he tries to explain his excuse here, and it's just so thin. | ||
| He started the video talking about the wrong name was being given. | ||
| Mr. Dew said that they gave the wrong name of the shooter. | ||
| You remember that? | ||
| That's what he said, yeah. | ||
| Right. | ||
| So Lanza had his older brother's ID on him. | ||
| Why does that support a conspiracy with Sandy Hook? | ||
| Why is that weird? | ||
| I think Rob was explaining why people had questions. | ||
| There was a lot of anomalies. | ||
| 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? | ||
| That was Rob Dew saying that. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| Why is that? | ||
| You're sitting there agreeing with it, right? | ||
| Why are you all questioning it? | ||
| We were pointing out why people questioned it. | ||
| Okay, when they said, Rob said they're pulling guns out of cars. | ||
| Lanza had a shotgun in his trunk. | ||
| Why does that support a question about whether Sandy Hook happened? | ||
| It was a long time ago. | ||
| They said the AR-15 was in the car, too. | ||
| So how was that inside if it was inside the Bushmaster? | ||
| Okay, and you understand the AR-15 was not in the car. | ||
| Like I said, this was almost seven years ago. | ||
| Actually, this wasn't seven years ago, Mr. Jones. | ||
| This is April 2017. | ||
| No, I know. | ||
| I'm just saying, going back to the time, it all gets... | ||
|
unidentified
|
That's so weak. | |
| 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. | ||
| We have our own individual sources that we've researched. | ||
| Not just, I am repeating whatever anybody... | ||
| I think that that is really important for him. | ||
| And I think that's what he's doing here. | ||
| Same deal of kids going around in circles with their hands up around the school. | ||
| That is false. | ||
| That is not the truth. | ||
| I'd have to review it again. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you. | |
| All these things you were saying as fact, you were saying them just a couple months before you were sued, right? | ||
| I mean, I believe I said in the tape, I believe it's any hope happened. | ||
| That's what people were questioning is what I'm saying. | ||
| Right, and all these things, this entire list all comes from Fetzer and Holbeck, doesn't it? | ||
| I don't know about Fetzer, but it just came from people questioning. | ||
| It's important to him somehow to disassociate himself, particularly from Fetzer, and I think it's because he lost the lawsuit. | ||
| It's not because he's a rabid anti-Semite. | ||
| I don't know about rabid anti-Semite. | ||
| So they get to this claim about porta-potties at the school, and Alex is a bit wishy-washy. | ||
| The next one that says, why were porta-potties sandwiches fruit? | ||
| Drinks and chips brought and set up for people at the crime scene to eat inside the school. | ||
| That's another thing you got from Halbig, right? | ||
| I believe so. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| You want to take a wild guess right now whether that's true or not? | ||
| I remember seeing news about the stuff set up. | ||
| You think people ate food inside the school at the crime scene? | ||
| That's what you think? | ||
| I don't know about that specific. | ||
| I thought you meant about the porta-potties and food. | ||
| I don't know about the inside of the school. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| So, that's another thing that you just relied on from Halbig and just put on your show without checking. | ||
| You're saying it's from Halbig. | ||
| I mean, I'm not... | ||
| I thought you just agreed it was from Halbig. | ||
| Well, I mean, I'm thinking Halbig did say some of those things. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| You just said earlier, probably got that from Halbig. | ||
| Man. | ||
| Great. | ||
| If they win this case, if they don't get taken down by this case, it's gonna 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, it's on a Tuesday, and you said Tubalcain. | ||
| Like, that's the only way that they get out of this. | ||
| Alex must be, like, hoping for some sovereign citizen miracle. | ||
| Right? | ||
| 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! | ||
| Like, what are you doing? | ||
| Put the system on trial. | ||
| Yeah, exactly! | ||
| So, Alex also wants to fall back into this place where he's like, well, look, I mean, there's 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. | ||
| Alex, let me, let me, can you take a wild guess as to whether or not that's true? | ||
| It's not. | ||
| 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? | ||
|
unidentified
|
That's false. | |
| I remember it being reported that that was a long wait. | ||
| I'm asking you if it's true or not, Mr. Jim. | ||
| I don't have the specifics in front of me. | ||
| 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? | ||
| 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 remember all the specifics, but there was a lot of that. | ||
| I'd have to go back online and refresh my memory get exactly right. | ||
| 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. | ||
| You showed me documents that had recently come out showing that. | ||
| Recently come out. | ||
| When do you think those documents came out? | ||
| I just know that there was a big controversy about most of the case being kept secret. | ||
| Didn't we cover in your testimony last time that those documents were out in 2013, right after the incident? | ||
| Isn't that something we covered? | ||
| I don't remember specifically. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| 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? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you. | |
| I mean, if that is the case, the New York Times, knowing a lot about WMDs in Iraq and killed millions after the sanctions, I would never do that on purpose. | ||
| Absolutely. | ||
| New York Times messed up bad. | ||
| Some people needed to get fired, didn't they? | ||
| Ooh, instantly deflated. | ||
| You see that super long pause, and it's like, well, what about the New York Times? | ||
| Yeah, absolutely. | ||
| Fuck them up, too. | ||
| Yeah, exactly. | ||
| Oh. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Oh. | ||
| Shit. | ||
| No, I thought you were a globalist, and you're trying to defend all the globalist stuff. | ||
| That is something that does come up, too, is the, like, you and the establishment. | ||
| And the lawyer's like, do you think I wouldn't sue the mainstream media if I had the opportunity to? | ||
| Do you think I wouldn't take that case? | ||
| Do you think I am the establishment? | ||
| I am not. | ||
| And I was like, yeah. | ||
| It's sad. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Yeah, absolutely. | ||
| And it's very tragic. | ||
| I'm just trying to figure out exactly how many other offenses he's committing in this deposition. | ||
| The Hamdi one, he's fucked on that one. | ||
| Maybe. | ||
| Like, there's no way that you can... | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| I can't... | ||
| 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. | ||
| Alex, we've got a clear path to the end zone for you. | ||
| Just run that ball right on in there. | ||
| All 11 defensive numbers. | ||
| I'm not sure it's a clear path to the end zone, but it helps him. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| And he destroys that right here. | ||
| And then you and Mr. Watson together composed a response, correct? | ||
| I don't remember that. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| You don't remember saying that you and Mr. Watson did this together? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you. | |
| I remember talking to Watson about it, and I remember inviting the guy on the show, too. | ||
| So, although there's slightly differing takes on who wrote the email, the fact that Alex is clear that he had a conversation with Paul about it and wanted to invite Posner on the show indicates that he was clearly aware of all of that back then. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| So, in that email... | ||
| I have a quick question. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Do you think he knows the difference between a criminal trial and a civil trial? | ||
| Not the finer points, probably. | ||
| 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. | ||
| 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... | ||
| Being dumb. | ||
| Maybe a belief that, on their own, they can't prove what we did. | ||
| Like, they can't prove exactly how we arrived at the conclusions we arrived at. | ||
|
unidentified
|
So... | |
| Let's just keep that vague. | ||
| Even if we lose, we'll lose a ton of money, but we'll be able to keep on with the grift or something. | ||
| I think it's more just defensiveness than anything else. | ||
| Almost instinctive reflexive. | ||
| 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. | ||
| I think that's when there's the dumbness and they're like, oh, I could find that. | ||
| 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 Hal Big. | ||
| 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 gonna look real bad. | ||
| I do like his disciplinary policy at Bowers. | ||
| Anything goes. | ||
| Anything goes. | ||
| I do enjoy that. | ||
| Yeah, it's like an Outback Steakhouse over there. | ||
| 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... | ||
| We got a clear path to the end zone for you, Alex. | ||
| It's a yes or no answer. | ||
| No, no, no, no. | ||
| This pathway is blocked. | ||
| 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 actor's thing. | ||
| You actively embraced the actor's thing. | ||
| I think that's Paul saying this. | ||
| And no, I didn't get into the actor's stuff. | ||
| People brought it up, and I said that's why people had questions. | ||
| 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? | ||
| Oh, a lot of the videos that... | ||
| We gave you, were videos that we were in, but that we did not produce. | ||
| I don't see the specifics. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Yes, I mean, I need to see that, but you know. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| Ooh. | ||
| Do you? | ||
| Why did you say yes there? | ||
| I have no idea. | ||
| Because... | ||
| If they're asking this question with the specific of an exclamation point instead of a question mark, you've got to know that they have that. | ||
| You've got to know that they have evidence. | ||
| It's on the list. | ||
| They already told you that they have it. | ||
| You just admitted that you endorsed the crisis sector theory. | ||
| Here's what I would have gone with. | ||
| I would have gone with, that was a typo. | ||
| Fake a heart attack. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Do something. | |
| Get out of there. | ||
| That is an interesting question. | ||
| Could they have just been like, can we stop real quick? | ||
| He does at a certain point. | ||
| He does take a break. | ||
| I don't think it's because of a question that is bad, but I think he could have called for a break. | ||
| Yeah, or can they reschedule? | ||
| Maybe. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Yeah, 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. | ||
| That's the only thing that... | ||
| I mean, if I was in 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. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Well, you didn't like this foundation Mr. Posner was running. | ||
| You didn't like that. | ||
| I don't remember the specifics of that. | ||
| You said on your show you didn't like it, right? | ||
| What did I specifically say? | ||
| You called them bullies. | ||
| Didn't you remember that? | ||
| I don't remember that specifically. | ||
| You said you were going to fight back. | ||
| You remember that? | ||
| 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 on our own platform, and YouTube put us back up and took the strikes off, because I didn't say nobody died at Parkland. | ||
| You said the Sandy Hook parents were stirring up a hornet's nest, right, by coming after you? | ||
| I don't remember the specifics of that or what specifically was happening, but... | ||
| You told the Sandy Hook parents you're not a guy to mess with, didn't you? | ||
| I don't remember those specifics. | ||
| 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? | ||
| I did not show that footage. | ||
| What do you mean you didn't show it? | ||
| You run Infowars, right? | ||
| We showed a U-Haul empty parking lot to debunk a thing that the guy has using a false address. | ||
| We said that's normal to use an address when you're a public figure. | ||
| I remember when you said that, I remember going and trying to find it. | ||
| I was like, this is us saying... | ||
| It's a parking lot and a U-Haul. | ||
| We're not showing what this guy's house is. | ||
| Yeah, that's where he picks up his mail. | ||
| It's a U-Haul store. | ||
| You can get a post office box there, right? | ||
| You said we were sending people to their houses and stuff. | ||
| That wasn't true. | ||
| I'm not... | ||
| I've certainly never said that. | ||
| Well, that's what they were saying. | ||
| That's what the media was saying. | ||
| All I'm asking you... | ||
| Never sent anybody to their houses. | ||
| Never done that. | ||
| Never said people need to harass them. | ||
| That's not true. | ||
| All I'm asking you... | ||
|
unidentified
|
I need to slow down. | |
| All I'm asking you, Mr. Jones, is you showed maps and addresses used by a parent who complained against you. | ||
| That's what you did. | ||
| That was not the intent of that. | ||
| 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. | ||
| No, we showed where his foundation was supposedly set. | ||
| People were saying it was fake. | ||
| We said, that's not proof that something's fake. | ||
| That argument is so thin. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Insane. | ||
| This is a conversation with an eight-year-old who stole a cookie. | ||
| I'll throw out anything to avoid saying, yes, I stole that cookie. | ||
| But what's so crazy about it, what's so weird, In my mind is that Alex is presenting this thing that he did as not a bad thing. | ||
| It was actually trying to help Mr. Posner. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Now granted, before that I was saying they were stirring up a hornet's nest and I'm not someone to mess with. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| But I was trying to help. | ||
| That's why I'm not somebody to mess with. | ||
| I'm so helpful. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| That's what it is. | ||
| Don't mess with me. | ||
| I'm trying to help you. | ||
| I find this hard to swallow. | ||
| So now the topic comes up of when was Badandi fired? | ||
| Oh. | ||
| He was fired before Sandy Hook, sir. | ||
| In this clip, Alex plays dumb. | ||
| Well, the truth of the matter is you didn't have a problem with Sandy Hook. | ||
| You had a problem with him embarrassing you at a Trump rally. | ||
| One thing you're right about is I do need to, I guess, spend time and burrow into this war. | ||
| 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 to try to find out the specifics. | ||
| 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? | ||
| Well, now that I get these kind of questions, I don't think you were asking me these exact questions last time. | ||
| I was very much asking you about Mr. Badondian when he was terminated in the last deposition, wasn't I, Mr. Jones? | ||
| I don't remember this video. | ||
| Did you show me this last time? | ||
| I did not show you this video. | ||
| That's not what I asked, is it? | ||
| I asked you. | ||
| I went and I guess tried to get invoices or something, I guess you're saying. | ||
| Actually, Mr. Jones, your document production in this case shows you did that in May 2018, right after you were sued. | ||
| The truth of the matter, Mr. Jones, is you knew immediately after being sued that Dan Badandi was going to be a liability for you, didn't you? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you. | |
| Barnes? | ||
|
unidentified
|
No. | |
| That's real damning to me. | ||
| I believe he is under oath, Your Honor. | ||
| You hear stuff like that and it's just... | ||
| The lawyer wants to really nail down how all of Alex's sources are really just Fetzer and Holtbeck. | ||
| And so this is really interesting. | ||
| In a video, Alex is saying that retired policemen and school investigators, they've all been threatened. | ||
| He's creating the perception that there's tons of people who are being threatened about Sandy Hook. | ||
| And this is just great. | ||
| 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
|
Mm-hmm. | |
| Okay. | ||
| Then you said that school investigation experts were threatened. | ||
| Who was that? | ||
| It wasn't just Halbig. | ||
| I remember there was some other groups and people asking questions and some other professors other than Fetzer, because I wasn't really going off what Fetzer said. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| And then you said that in addition to those two groups, that some school safety experts had been threatened. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Who was that? | |
| They were talking about Halbert. | ||
| Right. | ||
| I mean, all of these are talking about Halbert, right? | ||
|
unidentified
|
No. | |
| 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 yes. | ||
|
unidentified
|
No. | |
| That's you. | ||
| That's you. | ||
| Yeah, that's bad. | ||
| You just said yes. | ||
| That's a yes. | ||
| Maybe one of the other professors was James Tracy, too. | ||
| So, I mean, like, there could be two professors in the banks. | ||
| But all of these other descriptions, like, retired state policeman and school investigator are being presented as two different people. | ||
| They are both Wolfgang Helbig. | ||
| All of these, like, trying to create a chorus. | ||
| Of folks, you just got two dudes. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Parentheses deflated. | ||
| Wow. | ||
| So Alex has asked about his narrative surrounding ambulances at the school. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Don't believe in him. | ||
| I don't think he comes off looking knowledgeable. | ||
| You said in that video ambulances came an hour and a half later. | ||
| That's not true, right? | ||
| I don't have a timeline in front of me. | ||
| Are you going to claim in this lawsuit that those ambulances came an hour and a half later? | ||
| I'm going to have to check that. | ||
| Well, I asked you to check it. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Did you? | |
| I asked you in Discovery to check it. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Did you? | |
| I'm going from memory. | ||
| I believe there's some conflicting reports. | ||
| I'm not asking what your memory was. | ||
| I'm asking if you checked it. | ||
| I think I did check it. | ||
| I don't... | ||
| What were the results of you checking it? | ||
| I don't have that in front of me. | ||
| And whatever it was, you didn't give it to me either, right? | ||
|
unidentified
|
discovery Correct? | |
| Oh, I thought that was rhetorical. | ||
| No, I don't ask rhetorical questions, Mr. Jones. | ||
| I want testimony. | ||
| Oh, I don't have that in front of me. | ||
| I can't speak accurately to that. | ||
| That's just nothing. | ||
| That is tragic. | ||
| In Wisconsin. | ||
| A judge just ruled that, you know, 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. | ||
| Maybe it's the end of the road for him being able to get away with this shit. | ||
| I hope so, because this is... | ||
| I mean, just this deposition alone should be enough to be guilty. | ||
| I would be so fascinated to find out what 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? | ||
| You're correct. | ||
| 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 was 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. | ||
| CNN is ISIS. | ||
| But if somebody can watch this deposition and not come away with being like, oh, that guy did everything you say he did. | ||
| It's insane. | ||
| It's weird. | ||
| I just don't know how it would be interpreted. | ||
| I would be very fascinated to know. | ||
| What is the logical explanation for why he is behaving like this? | ||
| 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. | ||
| Right, right, right. | ||
| 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 interests. | ||
| 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. | ||
| You know? | ||
| 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. | ||
| There were no kids. | ||
| Killed there and all of that. | ||
| I don't recall that. | ||
| I'll have to check the video again. | ||
| Well, when pressed on it, his explanation of what his show is is very bizarre. | ||
| Illuminating. | ||
| And I, legitimately, looking at all that stuff, have gone back and forth on all of this. | ||
| Yeah, you said false things, and then you said things that were true. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right? | |
| No, I have had opinions and I've had different views on things. | ||
| 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. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Objection. | |
| Kids died at Sandy Hook, right? | ||
| And I didn't kill them. | ||
| Do you see me anywhere in this deposition saying you killed children, Mr. Sheldon? | ||
| Remington didn't kill them. | ||
| Do you think you're here? | ||
| The dead teacher didn't kill them. | ||
| You think you're here because you killed children? | ||
| That's the accusation? | ||
| No, but it is like, I'm Adam Lanzen or something, and it's all just... | ||
| I'm just asking you, you're a journalist. | ||
| Do you feel like you're responsible for the things you report? | ||
| If I put out a journalistic report and said this is fact, then that would be that. | ||
| But 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. | ||
| This isn't journalism? | ||
| Absolutely not. | ||
| It's me talking about my feelings. | ||
| So, apparently, Infowars is Alex talking about his feelings, unless directly presented as fact, which again might be opinion. | ||
| 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. | ||
| And that, to me, isn't super compelling because it's his lawyer, and also it's in the context of a family case. | ||
| It's all very messy. | ||
| This is Alex directly under oath saying, my show is mostly me talking about my feelings. | ||
| Yep. | ||
| My show is the closest that I can get to therapy as a toxic male. | ||
| That's what I've got. | ||
| 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? | ||
| Yeah, exactly. | ||
| 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. | ||
| A lot of this could just be a manifestation of what you feel. | ||
| Right. | ||
| But it's presented as being backed by the white papers and years and years of history. | ||
| It's documented. | ||
| That's not good. | ||
| That's a disjointed, nonsensical thing. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Yeah, there's plenty that could just be desperation. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| 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 like, this is going to continue going. | ||
| Well, that's because he thinks that this lawyer is from the establishment. | ||
|
unidentified
|
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. | ||
| Or to like him. | ||
| Yeah, exactly. | ||
| Yeah, it's weird. | ||
| That's wild. | ||
| So, Alex wants to talk about Epstein. | ||
| And that's interesting because it's a deposition about a Sandy Hook case. | ||
| This I believe. | ||
| Whatever he says now, I believe he believes. | ||
| Now, what's strange is Alex should have known that something was up because the lawyer does want to talk about Epstein. | ||
| Still doesn't get the hypothetical question leading to... | ||
| Alex kept bringing up Epstein, and the lawyer's like, I promise you we'll get to that. | ||
| Oh, no. | ||
| And if I were Alex, I would be like, let's never get to that. | ||
| Never speak to Epstein. | ||
| No, no. | ||
| You know what? | ||
| Actually, I've changed my mind. | ||
| There's clearly a point that this lawyer is going to make. | ||
| He just doesn't get that. | ||
| No. | ||
| He doesn't get that. | ||
| He thinks they're having a conversation, not the lawyer spent hours and weeks preparing for this exact interview. | ||
| Yep. | ||
| Let's talk about Epstein for a minute. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Yes, I agree with that. | ||
| And in fact, because of that, when these really, really strange happenings with Epstein happened, when Epstein killed himself in his cell, allegedly, Yes, sir. | ||
| Correct? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes, sir. | |
| 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. | ||
| A lot of people think that, right? | ||
| Yes. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Partially because it's something called the Lolita Express, right? | |
| Yes. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| And we in this country get to talk about public figures. | ||
| Wouldn't you agree? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Two things. | ||
| One, Alex should be terrified. | ||
| Right now, my hackles are raised. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I'm like, ooh, I sent something bad coming around this corner. | |
| Alex should not be like, uh, yeah. | ||
| The hair on my arm is standing up. | ||
| The second thing is you can tell how much differently Alex responds. | ||
| Oh, yeah. | ||
| These are direct yes-no quick answers. | ||
| You're on my team, yes. | ||
| Oh wait, you're talking shit about the elites? | ||
| I'm in, I'm in, yes. | ||
| 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. | ||
| 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? | ||
| Is it okay? | ||
| I mean, if there were issues and anomalies, and I questioned whether it was whether Bob was involved or not, then no. | ||
| No, what I'm asking, Mr. Jones, 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? | ||
| Not if I did it out of believing it was true. | ||
| 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. | ||
| There's all sorts of implied crimes there. | ||
| A host of them. | ||
| 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. | ||
| I would like to ask you to explain that, because you made a... | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| 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. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| And then probably one of my bigger laughs of the whole proceedings. | ||
| 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. | ||
| You know what question you were answering? | ||
| You want me to elaborate. | ||
| You asked me 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. | ||
| And 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. | ||
| I asked you, sir, would you be responsible to Bob Smith? | ||
| And I told you that it would be the specifics. | ||
| That if there was reporting and information and there were questions about it and Bob was the only one that could have had access and then I questioned and it turned out Bob was innocent. | ||
| If I wasn't doing it intentionally to go hurt Bob, no. | ||
| Then I'm cool. | ||
| Turns out, that's probably not the case with private citizens. | ||
| Especially if you're relying on people like Jim Fetzer and Wolfgang Helbig pointing the finger at Bob Smith for no reason. | ||
| Okay, so that's insane. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That's... | |
| God. | ||
| Do you know what question you're answering? | ||
| I love that. | ||
| That's my favorite line of this entire day. | ||
| Because I've always wanted to ask him that. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Do you know what you're talking about? | |
| It cuts through a lot of the shit. | ||
| 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. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| Or whatever. | ||
| 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... | ||
| Now, it's interesting because literally... | ||
| Courts have ruled the opposite. | ||
| Right. | ||
| Well, there's that. | ||
| And Alex doesn't respond well to that being brought up. | ||
| 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? | ||
| There's a difference between those two people, right? | ||
| There is a difference. | ||
| There is a difference in journalistic ethics and how you have to treat those two people, isn't there? | ||
| I think there is. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Most of what we do is punditry and opinion, and when parents and others become public figures and go out with a political mission to restrict gun ownership, then they've stepped into the arena. | ||
| Politics. | ||
| You know courts disagree with you on that, though, right? | ||
| I don't know your interpretation of courts. | ||
| Well, you are involved in a lawsuit with Leonard Posner and Veronique De La Rosa. | ||
| You familiar with that lawsuit? | ||
| I know about it. | ||
| Yeah, you know the Texas Court of Appeals came back and told you they're not public figures, correct? | ||
| And I know that that's a democratic court. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you. | |
| I'm sure they'll be delighted to hear that. | ||
| That's a Democrat court! | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Alright, so essentially he believes that no law can be made unless it's made by people who agree with him. | ||
| And he doesn't have to follow any law that a Democrat judge says is real. | ||
| Yeah, it seems that way. | ||
| Well, because they're all demon globalists. | ||
| Right. | ||
| I mean, that is the logical... | ||
| That is the logical extension. | ||
| If he actually believes that they're all out to get him in a conspiracy, then yeah. | ||
| So they take a break, and they come back, and there's just a couple minutes left here where we get an update on Barnes, we get the dismount, and then we also get, first, Alex needing to clarify something about his sources. | ||
| They don't exist! | ||
| I find this to be weird. | ||
| I really need to clarify something, because I don't think you understood it when I said earlier, so I probably mumbled through it. | ||
| You can 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 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. | ||
| I'm sure. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| You'd agree it's not general practice, it's not part of your operating protocols to save corroborating information underlying Infowars' news broadcasts. | ||
| 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... | ||
| 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 bought 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. | ||
| Oh, links! | ||
| Oh, it's links! | ||
| He's so unused to the concept of a follow-up question. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Jordan. | |
| That explains everything. | ||
| He genuinely thought that he came up with a brilliant response. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Right. | ||
| So I'll make one of the words like a little blue. | ||
| Right, right, right. | ||
| And then you click on it and that's my source, right? | ||
| Crazy. | ||
| Now the internet... | ||
| Never heard of such a thing. | ||
| 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. | ||
| That's... | ||
| I'm flabbergasted by this level of needing to clarify that. | ||
| I really think he... | ||
| And he seems to be thinking, like, hey, you know, it's a great defense. | ||
| Some of these links are dead links. | ||
| They're gone. | ||
| You've already talked about the Wayback Machine. | ||
| Okay, now I understand that, but that's only for traffic on school websites, Dan. | ||
| Forgot. | ||
| Didn't you know that? | ||
| Forgot. | ||
| That's all it was. | ||
| So, here we get this update on Barnes, who, as we know, may or may not still be Paul's lawyer. | ||
| Certainly not Alex's. | ||
| I understand Mr. Barnes, Robert Barnes, is no longer representing you? | ||
|
unidentified
|
No. | |
| Is he still employed by the company? | ||
| No. | ||
| So he's not general counsel in any way? | ||
| While he was there, did he have any managerial responsibilities? | ||
|
unidentified
|
No. | |
| Did he have any director positions at the company? | ||
|
unidentified
|
No. | |
| Did he at one point serve as general counsel? | ||
| If that's the name you call it, he was trying to manage some things. | ||
| What? | ||
| When does that mean he was trying to manage some things? | ||
| He was trying to get the cases organized. | ||
| Okay, so he's practicing law. | ||
| Yes. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay, thank you. | |
| 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 question, like, was he a director at InfoWars? | ||
| Is he a managerial role? | ||
| That makes me think that they might have a different suspicion. | ||
| But I might be over-reading things. | ||
| 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. | ||
| I wonder if that's the case. | ||
| But it could be just nothing. | ||
| It could just be a normal-ass question. | ||
| 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. | ||
| But I want to ask you, now looking back on this, are you sorry? | ||
| 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 anymore. | ||
| There's been a real loss of confidence in the system. | ||
|
unidentified
|
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. | ||
| Let me get this straight. | ||
| These videos we just watched today, you're proud of those videos? | ||
| 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. | ||
| He said they'd fly around on aircraft for the Clintons and kidnap children. | ||
| And it's been proven right. | ||
| Everybody comes up and shakes my hand and apologizes in Austin now. | ||
| The liberals do it. | ||
| They go, we're sorry. | ||
| And we were wrong about you on a bunch of other stuff. | ||
| So in some ways, you're a victim. | ||
| Well, let's just say time's running out for the establishment. | ||
| Epstein didn't kill himself. | ||
| All right, Mr. Jess. | ||
| Thank you for your time today. | ||
| Until next time. | ||
| They're laughing at him. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Oh, boy. | |
| That's funny. | ||
| Epstein didn't kill himself. | ||
| He's going to go out on a meme. | ||
| That's his plan. | ||
| When that tweet went around, people did not believe that Alex ended his deposition saying Epstein didn't kill himself. | ||
| But he did. | ||
| That's good stuff. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| That in-studio surgery. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Of course. | |
| Of course. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| People ripping computer chips out of their... | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| I want to need an update on that. | ||
| But sometimes things happen. | ||
| You get thrown a curveball. | ||
| You got to watch seven hours of testimony from these obfuscating weirdos. | ||
| This is... | ||
|
unidentified
|
I can't... | |
| 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. | ||
| You made me do this. | ||
| 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 accurate. | ||
| He is. | ||
| He is manifesting that. | ||
| That's insane. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| It's very sad. | ||
| And Alex, you're not a good person. | ||
| No. | ||
| You're a shit person. | ||
| 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. | ||
| 100%. | ||
| Being slightly straight up. | ||
| Agreeable. | ||
| Slightly candid. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Rob Du being completely underwater, not knowing what he's doing. | ||
| No. | ||
| Just... | ||
| I can't believe that that's... | ||
| I genuinely can't believe it's legal. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| I really can't believe that what he did is legal. | ||
| And then Alex being Alex. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| But also just... | ||
| The feeling that I get... | ||
| Watching this deposition as opposed to the last one, it feels like Alex is closer to the wall. | ||
| 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, the flow of the questioning is much different. | ||
| The lawyer not having to deal with Barnes' antics makes him... | ||
| Way more effective. | ||
| Oh, yeah. | ||
| 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 gonna proceed. | ||
| Like, not allowing him to do those pivots and dodges. | ||
| Like, you can see what happens then. | ||
| Yeah, no, it's a... | ||
| He's patient with the child. | ||
| He's like, okay, have your little tantrum. | ||
| Then we're gonna get him right back here. | ||
| I'm not gonna engage with you. | ||
| I'm not gonna do... | ||
| Man! | ||
| That really bums me out that that's true. | ||
| What? | ||
| Because that suggests then that Barnes did Alex a good job. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Good job, Barnes. | |
| Well, I mean, he was serviceable in his role of being like... | ||
| A complete asshole. | ||
| Being an accessory. | ||
| Yeah, that's right. | ||
| So yeah, we'll be back on Wednesday, but this has been a lot of depositions. | ||
| Yeah, this has been some serious deposition talk. | ||
| Oh boy. | ||
| But until then, we have a website. | ||
| We do. | ||
| It's knowledgefight.com. | ||
| We are on Twitter. | ||
| We are on Twitter. | ||
| It's at knowledge underscore fight. | ||
| Nat, go to bed Jordan. | ||
| We're on Facebook. | ||
| We are on Facebook. | ||
| And if you want to download the show, you can go to iTunes. | ||
| You can go to wherever. | ||
| You listen to podcasts. | ||
| You can leave a review. | ||
| You know, you do the whole thing. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Sure. | |
| It'd be nice. | ||
| Yep. | ||
| We'll be back. | ||
| But until then, I'm Neo. | ||
| I'm Leo. | ||
| I'm DZXClark. | ||
| I am the juiciest ice cube. | ||
| Andy in Kansas, you're on the air. | ||
| Thanks for holding. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Hello, Alex. | |
| I'm a first-time caller. | ||
| I'm a huge fan. | ||
| I love your work. |
Export Selection