#401: Formulaic Objections Part 3
Today, Dan and Jordan reflect on the sentencing of Roger Stone in a very somber way, by discussing some recent video that was released of his very angry and very petty deposition a defamation suit.
Feb. 21, 2020 - Knowledge Fight
01:33:32
Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| It's time to pray. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I have great respect for knowledge fight. | |
| Knowledge fight. | ||
| 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. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Andy in Kansas. | |
| Stop it. | ||
| Andy in Kansas. | ||
| It's time to pray. | ||
| Andy in Kansas, you're on the air. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thanks for holding us. | |
| I'm a huge fan. | ||
| I love your world. | ||
| Knowledge Fight. | ||
| KnowledgeFight.com. | ||
| I love you. | ||
| Hey, everybody. | ||
| Welcome back to Knowledge Fight. | ||
| I'm Dan. | ||
| I'm George. | ||
| 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. | ||
| We're sneaky snakes coming in on a Friday. | ||
| This is a Friday episode on our day off. | ||
| The day of Roger Stone's pardoning, I imagine. | ||
| Well, no, no, no, not yet. | ||
| No, not yet. | ||
| As we're recording, just an hour or so before we started recording, Roger Stone was sentenced to 40 months in prison. | ||
| And your prediction is by the time this episode comes out, he will be pardoned. | ||
| My prediction, although I'm not super into making actual predictions, so we can make this a gamble. | ||
| Of course, of course. | ||
| I predict that it will be a pardon that will come whenever Trump wants to disrupt the next news cycle. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| That either needs to get bad news away from him or possibly Democratic primary. | ||
| Something to have to do with the Democratic primary. | ||
| Throw a Roger Stone pardon in. | ||
| Right, right, right. | ||
| Completely screw up the news cycle. | ||
| Yeah, it's jangling keys to the media. | ||
| It's like, oh, we just unearthed reports that Trump has killed six people by hand, and then he's like, I'm pardoning Roger Stone! | ||
| And they're like, well, we gotta ignore that news. | ||
| It's a thing where it's like, if you're gonna do it anyway, it doesn't really matter when you're gonna do it. | ||
| So why not use it to some effect? | ||
| But then the same argument is like... | ||
| If you're going to do it, it doesn't matter when you do it. | ||
| Might as well do it now. | ||
| Yeah, yeah, yeah. | ||
| As we're in the middle of recording. | ||
| I mean, it could happen. | ||
| Pardoning Blagojevich is him just waggling his dick at justice, so why not just keep it rolling? | ||
| Speaking as a couple of dudes who live in Chicago, Illinois. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Thrilled. | ||
| Fuck you. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Gotta say, he won this city over. | |
| People who love Rod Blagojevich. | ||
| Chicagoans. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, yeah, yeah. | |
| That's what we're known for. | ||
| I think he has about the same amount of public love as Rom. | ||
| We're not very kind to our government officials, mainly because they're not kind to us. | ||
| It seems like there's some of that. | ||
| So anyway, do you have a question? | ||
| Sure. | ||
| Got off a little tangent there. | ||
| Have you ever wanted something classic? | ||
| Let me give you an example. | ||
| Some people have always wanted a classic typewriter. | ||
| That kind of thing. | ||
| Have you ever desired something like that? | ||
| Yeah, I like old radios. | ||
| That's right. | ||
| We've talked about old radios. | ||
| I like really cool tube radios. | ||
| I got one. | ||
| I have a 1930 rehab radio on my mantle. | ||
| I was considering trying to get a collection of radios together. | ||
| But some of that's pretty fucking expensive. | ||
| And that is not in the cards. | ||
| You're not the first person to want a collection of old radios. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| And then some of them, too, are, like, really huge. | ||
| And I don't know how much I could commit to that kind of a decor thing. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Like cabinet-sized old radios. | ||
|
unidentified
|
So I don't know. | |
| I like that. | ||
| But other than that, I don't know. | ||
| I'm not super into antiques. | ||
| Not really. | ||
| Not like a record player guy or anything like that? | ||
| No. | ||
|
unidentified
|
No old style. | |
| Not a real keytar guy? | ||
| No, but actually, the other thing, decor-wise, that I would like is a bunch of, like... | ||
| Either communist or anti-communist propaganda posters. | ||
| Actual ones that aren't just new re-imaginings of what that art aesthetic from the 50s and onward in the Cold War era was. | ||
| I would be really into that. | ||
| Antique posters. | ||
| That sounds cool. | ||
| But also I think those are probably super expensive too. | ||
| And hard to find. | ||
| I imagine so. | ||
| But no, I don't care too much for originals of things. | ||
| Yeah, I've just been watching this show on Netflix called The Repair Shop. | ||
| No, it's called The Repair Shop. | ||
| It's a British show. | ||
| The Great British Repair Show? | ||
| Yeah, basically. | ||
| It is so that. | ||
| It's a bunch of really, really talented restorers at this little shop and they're all happy all the time fixing people's heirlooms and smiling and enjoying themselves and I can't help but want to go on that show with something old and I don't got nothing. | ||
| It's unfortunate that you need something old in order to gain access to this thing that makes you have a positive feeling. | ||
| That's rude of them. | ||
| I know. | ||
| Let me in. | ||
| Just let me hang out for a bit. | ||
| I have not seen that show, Jordan, but I do know a lot about Alex Jones. | ||
| And hence, we can do this podcast. | ||
| Hell yes, we can. | ||
| So, Jordan, today I have something that is, I guess, related to... | ||
|
unidentified
|
Jermaine? | |
| Yeah, in some ways. | ||
| This thing is Dupree. | ||
| Jermaine? | ||
| Dupree? | ||
| I was going to go with Jackson, but we're all right. | ||
| Fine. | ||
| Yeah, what I've got prepared today is I would look at it as kind of like a saying farewell to Roger if he's going to prison for a while. | ||
| Right. | ||
| Like, we won't be able to enjoy some good... | ||
| Like, high register, really, in his element, Roger Stone? | ||
| That's true. | ||
| That's true. | ||
| So today, I found something that I think we can all enjoy. | ||
| And no matter what, even if you feel bad about the fact that Roger's probably not going to prison, he's probably going to get a part in, even if you feel like everything is shitty, you can still enjoy some of this. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, yeah, yeah. | |
| So we'll get down to business on that in a second, but before we do, gotta give a little shout-out to some folks who signed up and are supporting the show. | ||
| So first... | ||
| Griffin303, thank you so much. | ||
| You are now a policy wonk. | ||
| I'm a policy wonk. | ||
| Thank you, Griffin303. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| Next, Jocelyn, thank you so much. | ||
| You are now a policy wonk. | ||
| I'm a policy wonk. | ||
| Thanks, Jocelyn. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you. | |
| Next, Andrew, thank you so much. | ||
| You are now a policy wonk. | ||
| I'm a policy wonk. | ||
| Thank you very much, Andrew. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you. | |
| Next, Connor, thank you so much. | ||
| You are now a policy wonk. | ||
| I'm a policy wonk. | ||
| If that's Friedersdorf, I'm going to lose my shit. | ||
| You were cheating earlier today. | ||
| Oh, I hate him so much. | ||
| Okay, it's not. | ||
| I can assure you. | ||
| Okay, well then thank you very much, Connor. | ||
| Next, Durbin, thank you so much. | ||
| You are now a policy wonk. | ||
| I'm a policy wonk. | ||
| I swear to God, if that's Dick Durbin, I'm going to be... | ||
| That's Durbin Friedersdorf, brother of honor. | ||
| Thank you very much, Durbin. | ||
| Next, CJ. | ||
| Thank you so much. | ||
| You are now a policy wonk. | ||
| I'm a policy wonk. | ||
| Thank you very much, CJ. | ||
| And finally, thank you to somebody who donated on Elevated Level, and we appreciate that very much. | ||
| So, EVN Adelaide, thank you so much. | ||
| 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 gotta go full tilt boogie on this, Watson, alright? | ||
| 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, EVN Adelaide. | ||
| Yes, thank you very much. | ||
| If you're out there listening and you're thinking, hey, I enjoy this show, I'd like to support these gents, you can do that by going to our website. | ||
| There's a little button there that says support the show. | ||
| You can press it. | ||
| It goes to our Patreon, and you can support the show. | ||
| We'd appreciate it. | ||
| It would be really, really helpful. | ||
| So, Jordan, I don't know if you know this. | ||
| What don't I know? | ||
| But back in February 2019, Jerome Corsi filed a lawsuit against Roger Stone. | ||
| Indeed he did. | ||
| He claimed defamation, among other complaints. | ||
| This was the ultimate result of the two men's collaboration during the 2016 campaign, where Corsi and Roger were working together to try to get in touch with Julian Assange. | ||
| Now, we've heard Alex Jones say on air multiple times that he explicitly told Roger to get in touch with Assange, and both Corsi and Roger were working at Infowars at the time, or working with them at very least. | ||
| But it might be too much of a stretch to say that the two men's actions were being done specifically at the organization, That's fair. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Because he's an idiot. | ||
| Whatever the case, when you work with Roger Stone, things tend to not go great for you. | ||
| It's super rare for people to walk away without some kind of darkness looming over their lives, if they're lucky to not get arrested. | ||
| At the center of the falling out that the two of them had was the tweet that Roger posted on August 21, 2016 that said, quote, Trust me, it will soon be Podesta's time in the barrel. | ||
| Hashtag Crooked Hillary. | ||
| This tweet predated the release of the hacked Podesta emails, and based on all available information, it predated anyone outside of WikiLeaks knowing that they were going to be released. | ||
| According to Corsi, a couple days after Roger posted that tweet, Roger asked Corsi to draft a memo that he could use as a cover story for why he tweeted something he should have no business knowing about. | ||
| Right, right, right, right. | ||
| This memo was allegedly about how Roger wrote that tweet based on research that Corsi had been doing on, quote, Podesta and Hillary's alleged relationship with Russian companies. | ||
| Jerome, Jerome, I rat fucked myself. | ||
| I need to rat fuck you to get my rat fuck out of myself. | ||
| After Mueller started investigating and it became clear that this just wasn't true, Corsi came out by late 2018 and admitted that the memo he'd written was a lie and was made specifically to explain why Roger posted that tweet. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| After Corsi came out and made some comments that were not looking good for Roger, who was about to be indicted by Mueller, as the story he had told in interviews with investigators was coming a bit unraveled, Roger went on the attack against Jerome Corsi. | ||
| He started talking shit about him on Infowars, which, if you're Corsi, you kind of should have expected. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Like, Corsi worked for Alex. | ||
| He knows that there's no rules about responsibility that are practiced at Infowars. | ||
| It's ridiculous. | ||
| If you get stabbed in the back by Roger, that's your fault. | ||
| You should never have turned your back to Roger in the first place. | ||
| If you associate with him, metal plate on your back. | ||
| Exactly! | ||
| Absolutely! | ||
| So, Roger railed on Corsi on air and on social media, alleging that Corsi was working with Mueller to jam him up. | ||
| Corsi claimed that these attacks had resulted in him suffering, quote, intentional infliction of emotional distress and assault. | ||
| An article in Newsweek says that Corsi claimed Roger, quote, carried out a campaign of threats against him to cause him to have heart attacks and strokes in order that plaintiff will be unable to testify at Stone's criminal trial. | ||
| Good dodge. | ||
| Good dodge. | ||
| Corsi claimed that Roger was doing this sort of intimidation because he fancied himself a little bit of a gangster type and he loved the mafia. | ||
| This argument gains a little credibility based on the fact that one of Roger's charges in the Mueller case was related to witness intimidation directed towards Randy Credico, the other person Roger tried to use as a scapegoat to explain his advanced knowledge of the Podesta emails. | ||
| His friend. | ||
| His friend that he tried to stitch up for. | ||
| You know how you talk to your friends? | ||
| I'm going to take your dog away from you. | ||
| Prepare to die, cocksucker. | ||
| We're having jokes. | ||
| We're just playing a little game. | ||
| I will still say, though, even though there's... | ||
| credibility because of Roger's behavior towards Credico, I think the idea that he was trying to give Corsi a heart attack might be a little much. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Might be a little dramatic. | |
| Yeah. | ||
|
unidentified
|
So the basic plot of Corsi's suit is that based on his being named as a material witness and considering the things that he knew about Roger, he believed that Roger's actions were an attempt to intimidate him out of cooperating with the case against Roger. | |
| In the process, Roger was defaming Corsi in order to smear him and make his testimony seem less credible, or even make it appear that Corsi was the criminal behind this whole thing all along. | ||
| The initial filing of the lawsuit lists the defamatory statements, and honestly, it just sounds like Roger being Roger. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Now, having said that, it might be illegal. | |
| Then that's defamatory. | ||
| It might be illegal for Roger just to be Roger. | ||
| When Roger says hi to his wife, that's defamation. | ||
| I'm not sure where the line is, but none of it seems out of the ordinary. | ||
| So, of course, he's suing Roger for $25 million, which I suspect was never going to go anywhere. | ||
| And honestly, I have a hard time believing that this suit would even have gotten to a trial. | ||
| The claimed defamatory statements seem, as best as I can tell, to be things that would be easy to claim or opinions. | ||
| But that's a matter for a judge, and, you know, I'm not going to make a legal decision. | ||
| In his lawsuit, Corsi decided to hire for his lawyer another person who's been slighted by Infowars, a man by the name of Larry Klayman. | ||
| Hey, you may remember him as the guy who wouldn't stop yelling about how Obama was trying to bring Ebola into the country to attack white people. | ||
| And as the lawyer representing Dennis Montgomery, the guy who was working with Sheriff Joe Arpaio on some shady business that everyone decided to pretend was proof that Trump was being spied on. | ||
| In terms of the places I've come across Clayman, I will say that he has not impressed me much. | ||
| I wouldn't hire him as my lawyer, and it does not look great when you see people who are. | ||
| Yeah, that's scraping a barrel's bottom. | ||
| Like, for instance, right now, Larry Klayman is representing George Zimmerman, who's apparently suing Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg because they tweeted about how Trayvon Martin would be 25 years old right now if he wasn't dead. | ||
| Right. | ||
| That lawsuit is seeking $265 million and is disgusting. | ||
| I don't think that one's going to go well for George. | ||
| That one's disgusting. | ||
| But it's not the... | ||
| The most disgusting thing that Larry Klayman has done with George Zimmerman. | ||
| Because back in December, they teamed up to sue Trayvon Martin's family for $100 million. | ||
| I can't imagine that lawsuit will work out. | ||
| But what it will definitely do is make people really warm up to this Zimmerman guy. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, yeah, yeah. | |
| You know, I was thinking that he... | ||
| You know, it's like when you get piled on, you know? | ||
| So you've been publicly shamed by John Ronson. | ||
| It's similar to that. | ||
| But now my sympathies are gone. | ||
| Ugh, that fucking... | ||
| So, the Southern Poverty Law Center has described Clayman as, quote, pathologically litigious. | ||
| So, I'm gonna watch what I say about him. | ||
| And also, that image of him being, quote, pathologically litigious kind of comes into play in the Corsi situation. | ||
| Because as soon as Corsi sued Roger with Clayman as his lawyer, Roger started attacking both of them, calling into question Clayman's ability as a lawyer and saying he had a low IQ. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| And what do you know? | ||
| Larry Clayman turned around and sued Roger along with Corsi. | ||
| That also sounds right. | ||
| So now they're both claiming defamation against him. | ||
| Is that a conflict of interest for the lawyer to be suing for himself as well as somebody else? | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| So, on April 5th, 2019, Corsi and Klayman joined their suits against Roger, which was now also against Roger's associate, Michael Caputo, with Klayman still acting as a lawyer. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Sure, sure. | |
| Which brings us to why we're here today. | ||
| This is gonna be like World War I, where eventually all of these conservative personalities pick sides, and then everybody's, like, Caitlin Bennett is suing Laura Loomer, and it's all a fucking mess up. | ||
| Laura Loomer's lawyer, Larry Klayman. | ||
|
unidentified
|
No! | |
| Get the... | ||
| Nope, totally. | ||
| Fuck me. | ||
| Alright, well then we know which side she's going to be on. | ||
| So in the past on our show, Larry Clayman has been associated with the organization Judicial Watch since he founded that group. | ||
| But he's actually left it. | ||
| He left back in around 2004 and ultimately started a new group called Freedom Watch. | ||
| In the evening hours of Tuesday, February 18th, 2020. | ||
| I'm Dan, this is 2020. | ||
| God damn it. | ||
| As I was editing up our Project Camelot episode that we released on Wednesday, Freedom Watch posted something that would have been an absolutely perfect Wacky Wednesday episode, and it's honestly, it's like catnip to me, so there's no way I could resist doing an episode about this immediately. | ||
| Of course not. | ||
| They posted a whole shit ton of video of Roger Stone being deposed for this lawsuit. | ||
| God damn it, Dan, you told me that there were, you told me you were reading some of his deposition. | ||
| I thought you only had transcripts. | ||
| You've got fucking video? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Oh yeah, oh yeah. | |
| Oh god. | ||
| I can't wait. | ||
| So as if that wasn't enough to get me excited, like, dude, he's being questioned by the opposing side's lawyer. | ||
| Yeah, absolutely. | ||
| Which is Larry Klayman. | ||
| He's being questioned by Larry Klayman. | ||
| God, this is going to be amazing. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Larry Klayman is the lawyer doing the deposition to Roger. | |
| Oh, God, it's just almost perfect. | ||
| That is very funny. | ||
| That's just a recipe for a disaster. | ||
| Yeah, yeah, yeah. | ||
| So the deposition is five hours long on day one. | ||
| Of course it is. | ||
| And then about 48 minutes as a rejoinder on a second day. | ||
| So this is six hours of shit I had to go through. | ||
| And you know what? | ||
| It doesn't disappoint if you're looking for a complete disaster. | ||
| To give you a little sense, here's just a taste of some of the vibe. | ||
| Did you just call me a bitch? | ||
| You're acting like one. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Holy shit! | |
| I was gonna say as a joke that it devolves into him being like, you're a dick, and he's like, no, you're a dick, and that's what it is! | ||
| I'm not sure it devolves into that. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, it starts there and it keeps going. | |
| It is frequently like that. | ||
| Acting like what? | ||
| Jesus Christ. | ||
| So that should give you a sense of the tone and the level of professionalism on display here. | ||
| I'm going to spare everyone from the pain of having to go through this seriously because it was mostly a jumbled mess of Roger trolling Larry and I'm not sure I honestly learned that much about the case from watching all of it. | ||
| That's not a surprise. | ||
| But I can tell you a few things. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| First, Roger is fucking loving being deposed. | ||
| God damn it! | ||
| I think he loves it, particularly when it's Claywood who's the lawyer because I think... | ||
| From everything I can tell, he hates Larry Klayman. | ||
| See, now we're getting back from our evil rat fucker to Loki traversing the earth, sowing discord. | ||
| I'm very mad. | ||
| I don't like it. | ||
| Of all the different moods a person is capable of, Roger is at his best when he gets to embody righteous indignation. | ||
| Here, he's being asked questions about a case that he is not taking seriously, which allows him to just be a complete dick to an end. | ||
| And, you know, because the target of it is someone who you also are like, oh, fuck yourself. | ||
| It is. | ||
| It is Loki-ish, and you can enjoy it a little bit. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, yeah, yeah. | |
| As evil as Roger is. | ||
| It's really frustrating that sometimes, despite myself, I'm like, get him, Roger. | ||
| Just fucking do it. | ||
| Well, because Roger's kind of good at certain things. | ||
| Right, right, right. | ||
| Evil, but competent at telling someone like Larry to fuck off. | ||
| He's very good at telling somebody like Larry to fuck off. | ||
| Right. | ||
| Second, the other thing that I need to tell you is I don't care what happens with this case. | ||
| It's the very definition of a let-em-fight situation. | ||
| Roger probably definitely said some untrue things about both Corsi and Clayman, so if he gets in trouble for it, who cares? | ||
| Also, if he gets away with it, Corsi and Clayman both suck, so I don't really care either. | ||
| The only outcome of this, no matter how it goes, is that both sides end up wasting resources fighting with each other, and that's all right in my book. | ||
| Fantastic. | ||
| So we have seen how Alex Jones, Rob Dew, and Paul Joseph Watson behave when they're forced to be under oath and in a deposition. | ||
| They change completely and either play dumb or pretend to be serious. | ||
| Right. | ||
| Now, it's time to experience Roger Stone under oath, which I'll say is very similar to Roger Stone anywhere else. | ||
|
unidentified
|
This dude does not give a fuck. | |
| So it begins by talking about some of Roger's history and his educational background and then working for some presidential campaigns. | ||
| You know what I never realized? | ||
| I probably should have known this, and I bet I did. | ||
| I just didn't remember. | ||
| He didn't graduate from college. | ||
| He didn't? | ||
| No, he went to a year of college and then started working for Nixon. | ||
| God, you can be whatever you want to be. | ||
| It's pretty remarkable to me that he doesn't have some sort of a degree or some formal training in political science. | ||
| But I guess that's why... | ||
| No, that makes perfect sense. | ||
| People with a formal degree or training wouldn't do any of this shit, right? | ||
| Roger has to eschew formal training to really tap into his rat fuckery-us. | ||
| Yeah, and so they talk about the early history and then the topic comes up of when these two first crossed paths. | ||
| Did there come a point in time when you met me, Larry Klayman? | ||
| Yes, indeed. | ||
| When was that? | ||
| When you represented me. | ||
| Did I not meet you earlier than that at the old Ebbett Grill with regard to Jack Kemp? | ||
| I don't recall. | ||
| At the time that you met me, I had said I was interested in helping Jack Kemp? | ||
| It's entirely possible, I just don't recall. | ||
| And is it not true that you had me put on the executive finance committee for Jack Kemp? | ||
| I just don't recall. | ||
| Roger does not remember any of this shit. | ||
| So, as it turns out, Larry Clayman and Roger Stone go way back. | ||
| And the two men have a rich history. | ||
| Roger believes that they met when Clayman represented Roger, which we'll get back to, but it appears that their paths crossed when Clayman wanted to work on the Jack Kemp campaign, in which Roger was an advisor. | ||
| That would have been the 1988 election, so that puts them at being acquaintances of 32 years. | ||
| That's a long time. | ||
| I don't recall you as a person. | ||
| I don't recall talking to you. | ||
| There's a little disrespect. | ||
| When I was paying you, that's when I remember you. | ||
| So, for the Jack Kemp stuff, Roger doesn't remember that meeting, so I'm going to go ahead and take that off the table. | ||
| In 1996, Roger was working on the Bob Dole campaign, and things got a little messy when the National Enquirer reported on how he'd posted ads and scandalous pictures of himself and his wife in swingers magazines and online, looking to get some fun going. | ||
| Roger initially blamed an imaginary assistant for posting the ads, but eventually copped to the fact that he'd done it. | ||
| When he finally did come clean, he was still kind of a weasel about it, saying, quote, When that whole thing hit the fan in 1996, the reason I gave a blanket denial was that my grandparents were still alive. | ||
| I'm not guilty of hypocrisy. | ||
| You're being hypocritical in that sentence. | ||
| It does seem that way. | ||
| So, this was a bit of a scandal, because it was 1996, and so much of the right-wing attacks on Bill Clinton had to do with him and his womanizing. | ||
| So this would be a bad look for Dole to have a senior advisor who was out swinging, particularly considering that, according to the Chicago Tribune, Roger was part of Bob Dole's, quote, Clinton accountability team. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yep. | |
| And thus, by September of 96, Roger had stepped down from the Dole campaign. | ||
| I don't really care about Roger swinging. | ||
| You know, it's his business. | ||
| Yeah, good for him. | ||
| I do think that his response to the Inquirer story speaks a lot to his character. | ||
| I understand the culture wasn't accepting of people living alternative lifestyles at that point, but the lengths that he went to pretend that he'd been set up were pretty ridiculous. | ||
| Anyway, Roger threatened to sue the Inquirer, and Larry Clayman was his lawyer in that case. | ||
| Great, great, great. | ||
| So back in 96, that was where Roger is saying their paths first crossed. | ||
| Right, right, right. | ||
| But, because there was no imagined perpetrator to sue here, Roger was lying about that, and there was no libel on the part of the Inquirer, this case went nowhere, and Roger took a pretty big hit to his credibility. | ||
| Consider, he was a college dropout who went to work on shady shit for Richard Nixon. | ||
| He'd worked for Reagan. | ||
| He was an advisor for Bob Dole. | ||
| These is big leagues in the GOP circles of politics. | ||
| But after this scandal, he went down the fight card a little bit. | ||
| His profile just didn't match with presidential candidates, and thus, In 2004, Roger was enlisted to advise a certain candidate on their run for a Florida seat in the U.S. Senate. | ||
| That candidate was Larry Klayman. | ||
| God damn these people. | ||
| A lot of intersections. | ||
| How? | ||
| How is it? | ||
| Is it okay for Klayman to be questioning him in this deposition? | ||
| Is that even okay? | ||
| It's comical. | ||
| That is ridiculous. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That is ridiculous. | |
| Too long time of people who have known each other, who do not like each other, trying to pretend there's some formality. | ||
| I don't get it. | ||
|
unidentified
|
No. | |
| Larry would end up with 1.1% of the vote in the Republican primary, putting him in a very respectable seventh place. | ||
| A Sun-Sentinel article about the candidates in that primary includes a section about claimant, where he compares himself to Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan, and his policy set is described as, quote, he advocates abolishing the IRS, the forcible removal of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, and psychological testing for judges. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Great. | ||
| Would he be administering the psychological testing? | ||
| Slate's Chatterbox had an article about his Senate run, which was mostly about how even back then he had a bit of a reputation for being wildly litigious. | ||
| The piece ends, quote, for Chatterbox, though, there's only one issue in the Larry Klayman campaign. | ||
| If elected, will he pledge not to file any lawsuits for the next six years? | ||
| Quote, categorically no, Klayman said. | ||
| Of course! | ||
| Will he pledge not to sue anyone for the duration of his Senate campaign? | ||
| Quote, no. | ||
| Look, it's a free country. | ||
| That's just a man who likes suing people. | ||
| He doesn't even want anything out of it. | ||
| He just likes filling out that paperwork, deposing people who have no business being deposed. | ||
| Using the law as a weapon. | ||
| Yeah, it's great. | ||
| So I found a really interesting piece about his 2004 run on The Nation. | ||
| According to this article, Larry's adventures at Judicial Watch, where he would file tons of lawsuits, mostly against people in the Clinton orbit, they were funded by Richard Mellon Scaife, the right-wing billionaire mega-donor. | ||
| According to this article, Clayman sought funding from Scaife for his Senate run in a letter that said, quote, As a senator, I will have considerable powers that I did not have at judicial watch, including the ability to investigate and prosecute in the Senate Hillary Clinton, much like Richard Nixon did with the communist spy Alger Hiss. | ||
| If I'm someday to run for president, I need the credentials to do so. | ||
| Being a senator will provide me with this. | ||
| I didn't think it was possible to desire somebody to be president less than Trump, but I will be goddamned if Clayman would be worse at his job. | ||
| This was part of a multi-stage plot that was to result in Hillary being tried in the Senate and Larry Klayman as president. | ||
| It should be pointed out that a scafe spokesperson told the nation, quote, he has not given a dime to Mr. Klayman's campaign, and in fact, he discouraged him from running. | ||
| Anyway, this Nation article is mostly about the question of whether or not soliciting this loan would constitute a campaign finance violation. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| But seeing as it was 16 years ago, I'm not really going to get bogged down in that question. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Sure. | |
| And I'm not really interested. | ||
| Because the answer is yes. | ||
| The important thing for us today is that the reason that Larry needed money is because the only way he could fund his campaign was through soliciting donations through direct mailings. | ||
| And he didn't have access to a large database of names in order to target those mailings. | ||
| When you're in that situation, you know, you don't have a giant mailing list, you need to pay for access to other people's lists of names, as Clayman was doing with the list held by American Target Advertising. | ||
| The problem was, according to this article, that he was spending almost as much as he was bringing in with his strategy, so that wasn't going to cut him. | ||
| That doesn't seem like a good strategy. | ||
| Breaking even on campaign finance donations is not good. | ||
| So you need to reach out to a billionaire megadonor, have them pay for the list or something, and then you end up making whatever. | ||
| Yeah, or have $60 billion yourself. | ||
| That also works. | ||
| Anyway, throughout the rest of Roger's deposition, he and Larry get into a number of fights about this 2004 campaign. | ||
| Roger's position seems to be that Larry led him to believe that he had access to the judicial watch mailing list, which would have helped make his campaign viable, but he did not. | ||
| Roger felt misled, and like his time was being wasted. | ||
| Conversely, Larry keeps alleging that Roger's staff stole computers that he bought with his own money when they left his campaign. | ||
| I believe both of them. | ||
| I'm not sure who I believe, and ultimately, I really don't care. | ||
| These dudes both suck. | ||
| But I wanted to walk you through a bit of this history up top because the clips of them arguing about this stuff, they're not really useful for our purposes. | ||
| Because there's like little interjections and like they're in the middle of a different question. | ||
| They're like, why'd you steal my computer? | ||
| It's a personal fucking question. | ||
| But it's not as out of nowhere and fighty as that might make you think. | ||
| But it just, the way, it wouldn't have been, I don't think I would have been able to present it by clips. | ||
| I just have to sort of. | ||
| But you kind of need to know about that stuff in order to understand that these dudes have a long, deep history and clearly fucking hate each other. | ||
| You stole my computers! | ||
| That's a deposition question! | ||
| It's so fun! | ||
| So it starts out on a not great tone. | ||
| It gets adversarial pretty fast. | ||
| You're aware that the document production requested the production of phone records as well? | ||
| There must not have been any phone records to produce. | ||
| If you didn't get any. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes, I certainly was. | |
| I believe that the text messages were provided. | ||
| E-mails? | ||
| Yes, absolutely. | ||
| Now, you were convicted of not providing information to Congress, which had been requested. | ||
| That is untrue. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Objection. | |
| It's not true. | ||
| That charge was withdrawn, but go ahead. | ||
| And your lawyers actually sent letters to Congress. | ||
| On your behalf, saying that you did not have documents when you did. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Objection. | |
| I'm instructing the witness not to answer. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We're not talking about any criminal matters. | |
| No, we're not talking about criminal matters. | ||
| We're talking about a course of conduct. | ||
| That's what we're talking about. | ||
| I want to make sure he's aware that he needs to produce everything. | ||
| I'm well aware of that. | ||
| You learned the hard way, right? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Objection. | |
| Just because you're delusional does not mean that I have to be badgered by you. | ||
| Am I delusional that you were convicted of seven counts? | ||
| I'm not going to answer that question. | ||
| So you can already get the sense of this needling. | ||
| Like, there's a strategy that Larry's using that's clearly like, I'm gonna get him to yell at me. | ||
| I'm gonna get him pissed off. | ||
| I'm gonna get him pissed off, and he's doing the fucking, you can't handle the truth strategy. | ||
| He's gonna try and piss him off until he admits it. | ||
| Well, that's a dumb strategy, but it's also going both ways. | ||
| There is, like, it develops more into Roger just fucking with him as, like, a little bit of time goes on. | ||
| But you can tell, like, even out of the gate, his strategy is obviously Just, like, poke, poke, poke, and see what happens. | ||
| You're a delusional piece of shit. | ||
| How about that? | ||
| Did you just call me a delusional piece of shit? | ||
| No, I didn't call you a delusional piece of shit. | ||
| Why would you hear that? | ||
| You would only hear that if you were a delusional piece of shit. | ||
| And Roger's lawyer is trying to make clear, like, right out of the gate, we're not answering any questions about criminal matters. | ||
| And Larry keeps trying to get questions in, or, like, references to the Mueller investigation, which should be off-limits. | ||
| For the purposes of this. | ||
| Absolutely. | ||
| But it just keeps happening. | ||
| What computers did the FBI take? | ||
| All the same computers? | ||
| We're not answering these questions. | ||
| This is relevant to document production. | ||
| I'll tie it up. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Go ahead. | |
| You're going to wind up getting sanctioned, Mr. Bichelle. | ||
|
unidentified
|
No, you're going to wind up getting sanctioned. | |
| Like you are in D.C. So let's go. | ||
| Let's not do that. | ||
| Why not? | ||
| I'm not going to be badgered by this asshole. | ||
| You're not badgered. | ||
| Yes, I am. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Go ahead, Keith. | |
| Continue. | ||
| That was one of my first big laughs when Roger's like, I'm not going to be badgered by this asshole. | ||
| This is breathing life into my cold, broken heart. | ||
| This is amazing. | ||
| Wait for it. | ||
| You have no idea how badly this deteriorates. | ||
| This is so good! | ||
| So, you know... | ||
| There's just a clear tone of like, fuck this guy. | ||
| First of all, Roger's lawyer is telling him, calm down, calm down. | ||
| He's like, do you see this guy? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Do you see this fucking asshole guy? | |
| It must be so fun to be Roger's lawyer. | ||
| Your entire day is devoted to just telling him to shut up. | ||
| So this beginning portion here that we're in has to do with, like, document production. | ||
| You heard him asking about, like, what computers there were, and this goes on. | ||
| And so then the question comes up of, like, notes, like handwritten notes. | ||
| Like, what's work product? | ||
| What's relevant to this? | ||
| Mic down for this, because this is another big laugh. | ||
| You keep notes yourself, correct? | ||
| Not on any of these matters. | ||
| I mean, yeah, I make a grocery list. | ||
| Who doesn't? | ||
| You never write anything down? | ||
| Of course I write things down, but not pertaining to anything we're here to discuss. | ||
|
unidentified
|
You didn't write down a lawyer claim as an asshole? | |
| Did I write that down with my fingers? | ||
| Not that I recall. | ||
| That just came to you? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, truth is an absolute defense. | |
| Yes, indeed, we will. | ||
| Yes, we will. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That is the best. | |
| Did you write down Larry Klayman as an asshole? | ||
| Truth is an absolute defense. | ||
| Oh, God. | ||
| I can't breathe. | ||
| I can't breathe. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That is just Roger being like, fuck you. | |
| Yep, yep. | ||
| God damn it, Roger. | ||
| So one of the things that Larry is taking issue with, and he thinks is defamatory, is that Roger went on Infowars, and he said that Larry's never won a case in his life, and he's a loser, and all this. | ||
| So the issue of him being a loser keeps coming up. | ||
| And one of the obvious questions that Larry would have is, if I'm a loser, why did you work with me on my campaign for the Senate? | ||
| Good question. | ||
| And I think Roger's just taunting him. | ||
| You wouldn't have represented me if I was a loser, would you? | ||
| I thought that you, if you had the money, could be a viable candidate for the Senate. | ||
| A loser can't win for the Senate in Florida, correct? | ||
| Not without money. | ||
| A loser could win? | ||
| No, no. | ||
| A loser cannot win unless they have money. | ||
|
unidentified
|
What defined loser in your context? | |
| Someone who loses cases repeatedly and who accomplishes little to nothing. | ||
| In this case, in the legal profession. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I'm not sure I understand the question. | |
| How did you do in the Senate race? | ||
| We'll get to that. | ||
| Thanks to you. | ||
| No, thanks to you. | ||
| No, thanks to you. | ||
| Where's that list, Larry? | ||
| Where's that list? | ||
| Where's that list, Larry? | ||
| These are fucking children. | ||
| We're on a goddamn playground. | ||
| What are we doing here? | ||
| They're under oath. | ||
| So I'm not a loser, am I? | ||
| No, you are a loser. | ||
| No, I'm not a loser. | ||
| How'd that Senate run go? | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Not thanks to you. | ||
| Not thanks to you. | ||
| Oh, God. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| So Larry's pissed because Roger was working on his Senate campaign. | ||
| And at the time, from what Larry's saying, it seems like he had an understanding or a belief that Roger was going to be an exclusive employee for him. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| On his campaign. | ||
| Bad belief. | ||
| Now, Roger also at the time was apparently advising Al Sharpton, who was running for Democratic candidate election for president. | ||
| And so this is a problem for Larry. | ||
| Because there's no exclusivity and you're going around talking to Sharpton. | ||
| And we're still talking about the lawsuit happening about what happened in 2019, correct? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes. | |
| Okay, and we're in the deposition talking about Al Sharpton's campaign. | ||
| Well, there is some relevance that'll... | ||
| It's not relevant. | ||
| Sure, it's not relevant. | ||
| So, he's mad that Roger was giving advice to Sharpton. | ||
| Roger insists he wasn't working for Sharpton. | ||
| And then Larry says some bad things about Al Sharpton. | ||
| And what did you do after we parted ways? | ||
| What did you do after that? | ||
| Work for Sharpton? | ||
| Never worked for Al Sharpton. | ||
| Consulted with him? | ||
| Never consulted. | ||
| He's a friend of mine. | ||
| I gave him advice when he asked for it. | ||
| Do you have friends that are basically race-baiting vigilante extortions? | ||
| Objection. | ||
| You consider those your friends? | ||
| Objection, inform, and instructing the witness not to answer. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I mean, for a defamation case, you just defamed Alshon. | |
| You can't defame Alshon. | ||
| I can't defame you either. | ||
| That's what you think. | ||
| Why would a jury decide that? | ||
| I doubt it. | ||
| So, Larry may have... | ||
| Oh, God, Larry. | ||
| Somehow, in a deposition, talking about Roger Stone defaming you, you have to be a racist towards Al Sharpton for no reason? | ||
| And I don't know if that does rise to the level of defamation, calling him a race-baiting extortionist. | ||
| I mean, if he was on Fox News, he'd be fine. | ||
| Yeah, but under oath, weird. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That is weird. | |
| Weird. | ||
| That is a weird thing to say. | ||
| But my favorite thing at the end there is when Larry's like, we'll let a jury decide, and Roger's like, I doubt it. | ||
| Not gonna happen. | ||
| I doubt it. | ||
| Not gonna happen, buddy. | ||
| So that keeps happening in this deposition. | ||
| Like, Larry will say, the courts will decide this, and Roger's like, I doubt it. | ||
| Because he doesn't think this is going to get to trial, which I kind of think is probably about right. | ||
| That's about right, yeah. | ||
| Larry, however, thinks that Roger's saying, I doubt it because he has no faith in the legal process. | ||
| Sure! | ||
| He's being defiant about the court's ruling in advance. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Sure. | |
| But in reality, Roger's just telling him this case stinks, and he's fucking with him, and he's like, this is never going anywhere. | ||
| If this isn't thrown out, I'll eat my hat and go to prison for exactly 40 months. | ||
| The psychodrama that's going on is just fantastic. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| It's very boring to watch all of it. | ||
| It's really fun in little... | ||
| When you distill it down, it's good. | ||
| God damn, they're like an hour-long stretch of boring nothing. | ||
| So, at this point, Larry starts to sort of lay out why some of this is relevant. | ||
| So there's that ugliness that happened back in 2004 when he was running for the Senate, and apparently Roger's people stole those computers. | ||
| And this is informing Roger's beliefs in the present day. | ||
| There's a couple clips about this that I think will really start to thread the needle, because I know it doesn't make sense now, but it should here in a moment. | ||
| Why did you refer to me during that broadcast? | ||
| I suspect because you did something I didn't like. | ||
| What did I do that you didn't like? | ||
| Don't recall. | ||
| So you'll make negative statements about somebody even if you don't know whether anyone did anything? | ||
| I'm entitled to an opinion. | ||
| It's a free country. | ||
| So it just came out of the blue? | ||
| Don't recall what prompted it, to be honest with you. | ||
| In fact, you thought somehow that I was going to be a threat to you with regard to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's so-called Russian collusion investigation. | ||
| Objection of form. | ||
| I'm not going to answer that. | ||
| We're not talking about the criminals. | ||
| You were concerned... | ||
| About my experience with you at the time that you were consulting on my Senate campaign in Florida, correct? | ||
| Conjecture on your part. | ||
| You were concerned that your staff had misappropriated computers and cell phones and the like, which I had purchased with my own money. | ||
| Absolutely not, and I don't know that there's any proof of that. | ||
| So he's saying that you, Roger, defamed me on Infowars because you knew that I didn't like you because your staff stole computers in 2004. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| And that I was a threat because I might work with Mueller. | ||
| This is turning into like a Tarantino Mexican standoff movie situation right here where it's like the hateful eight. | ||
| They're just sitting across the table at each other talking forever. | ||
| It's very strange because I think that... | ||
| You know, Roger, I bet he's confused through a bit of this, because it is confusing. | ||
| The connections the claimant's trying to make between stuff is just like, where is any proof of this? | ||
| Also, Larry, why did you say... | ||
| Why did Roger say mean things about you on air? | ||
| Roger does that with everybody. | ||
| Everybody. | ||
| How would you expect him to act? | ||
| You knew him in 2004. | ||
|
unidentified
|
You barely knew him from 88 of the Jack Kemp campaign. | |
| You know damn well. | ||
| You were his lawyer in 96 when he lied about somebody posting those pictures. | ||
| You know who this guy is. | ||
| Yeah, you've got to know. | ||
| How dare you ask a question like that? | ||
| So he takes another swing. | ||
| Clement takes another swing at this, trying to be like... | ||
| You were worried about me working with Mueller, and that's why when I got involved with Corsi as his lawyer, Rogers doesn't even care about this, because it's just Larry saying things. | ||
| You were concerned that I didn't like you in some way, correct? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Nope. | |
| Not particularly. | ||
| That doesn't concern me one way or another. | ||
| You were concerned that I was angry at you. | ||
| For the time period that you represented me, allegedly represented me, because you were doing Sharpton. | ||
| No, actually, I was angry at you, but that's okay. | ||
| Okay, why were you angry at me? | ||
| Because of a number of misstatements and falsehoods that you told me regarding your ability to raise money. | ||
| Okay, well, money is all that's important to you, right? | ||
| Money is important in terms of getting you elected to the Senate, yes. | ||
| And it's important to fill your pockets. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Do you not work for money, Mr. Clement? | |
| You never paid me a dime. | ||
| You violated my trust, did you not? | ||
| You violated my trust, Mr. President. | ||
| This is therapy. | ||
| Yeah, I was about to say! | ||
| They should be in couples counseling! | ||
| Is this in a fucking deposition? | ||
| This is ridiculous. | ||
| This is an airing of grievances. | ||
| It is. | ||
| And it turns fucking ugly in this next clip. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Because, you know, the defamatory, one of the statements is the claimant hasn't won any cases. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| And it turns out he has. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes. | |
| And Roger's like, well, it was my sense that you hadn't. | ||
| And then it turns into a very nasty insult session. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| All right. | ||
| He's. | ||
| Meaning claimant, never actually won a courtroom victory in his life. | ||
| I believe that to be true at the time, yes. | ||
| Now, you never did any research, did you, to find out whether that was true or not before you made that statement? | ||
| That is an impression that I had, yes. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| But in fact, you actually did know that I had had courtroom victories. | ||
| No, actually I didn't. | ||
| Or you wouldn't have wanted to be my so-called consultant in the Senate campaign. | ||
| That was a long time before this. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| You then say at 1.30, Defendant Stone says he, meaning Clayman, was ousted at Judicial Watch. | ||
| Ask Tom Fitton why he left. | ||
| He was ousted because of a sexual harassment complaint. | ||
| Yes, I'd heard that. | ||
| Where did you hear that? | ||
| Don't recall. | ||
| You heard it from Fitton, didn't you? | ||
| I most certainly did not. | ||
| Okay, but you remember that, but you don't remember where you heard it. | ||
| I don't remember what I heard, but as I've told you previously, I've never spoken to Tom Fitton other than the one time in passing when we shook hands. | ||
| And we certainly didn't discuss this. | ||
| And during that one time in passing, you discussed this, correct? | ||
| We did not. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| So you just gleaned that out of the cosmos? | ||
| You know how politics works. | ||
| People talk. | ||
| Particularly about something like that. | ||
| Well, who talked? | ||
| What were the circumstances that you're leaving? | ||
| Who talked? | ||
| Why would you leave an organization that you founded? | ||
| Who talked? | ||
| I don't recall. | ||
| You don't recall? | ||
| No, I don't. | ||
| You're lying, aren't you, Mr. Stanton? | ||
| No, you're lying, aren't you, Mr. Clayton? | ||
| You're a convicted liar, aren't you? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Stop, stop, stop. | |
| And you're about to be ousted from the bar. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Stop. | |
| Let's take a break. | ||
| Take time for a break. | ||
| Have fun molesting your own children, Larry? | ||
| I read the court decision. | ||
| You read that, huh? | ||
| Yeah, I did. | ||
| We didn't read anything else. | ||
| Fuck you. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, it's time for a break. | |
| Holy shit. | ||
| That's one to leave on. | ||
| That's a good exit line. | ||
| I don't think you're going to get back to a normal, calm conversation after that. | ||
|
unidentified
|
No. | |
| I tried to look into that, and that has something to do with divorce filing and Larry's past. | ||
| I have no idea what the circumstances that are. | ||
| I'm not even going to go anywhere near that. | ||
| Nah, nah, nah. | ||
| The only explanation I can find for that sexual harassment business, it comes from a 2009 lawsuit that Larry had filed against Judicial Watch and its new president, Tom Fitton. | ||
| It was a rangy lawsuit claiming breach of contract, defamation, and other such grievances. | ||
| Part of Larry's argument was that Fitton and Judicial Watch had committed fraud in the trial because they had testified that he was outed from Judicial Watch because of a sexual harassment claim. | ||
| Larry had a deposition from Tom Fitton saying that Larry was not, quote, ousted as a result of a sexual harassment complaint. | ||
| This argument did not move the court. | ||
| From the memorandum opinion in the case, quote, He references only testimony of Paul Orfanides in addressing Mr. Orfanides' understanding of why Clayman left Judicial Watch. | ||
| Got you. | ||
| Clayman pursued an inappropriate relationship with an employee and at most explained his concern that Judicial Watch might have been subject to sexual harassment allegations based on that alleged relationship. | ||
| It seems like this is the best explanation I can find for that situation. | ||
| It looks like it's a thing where Paul Orfanides, who was a lawyer at Judicial Watch, had testified that Clayman had a relationship with an employee but didn't say that there was a sexual harassment complaint. | ||
| It seems like maybe this became a bit of a game of telephone from there since Clayman got a bit defensive about it in the court case. | ||
| Part of Clayman's claim of defamation against Roger is that Roger said on InfoWars that he was ousted at Judicial Watch, asked Tom Fitton why he left, he was outed because of a sexual harassment complaint, which is not something Roger could probably substantiate. | ||
| That does make it an inaccurate statement presented as fact, but I also don't know if Larry can prove that Roger didn't know it was true when he said it. | ||
| It's a really hard thing to tell with an asshole like Roger. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Because this is something that people talk about. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| Like, I've seen the claim repeated a bunch of places. | ||
| It took a while to find that case where this probably came from. | ||
| Right. | ||
| But, I mean... | ||
| The rumor's been bandied about for a while. | ||
| Absolutely. | ||
| It's a little bit late to claim now that Roger definitively knew that that wasn't the case whenever he said that, since the rumor was everywhere. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| I don't know if it... | ||
| Because Larry Klayman's also a public figure, in as much as he's... | ||
| It would be very, I think it would be pretty difficult to demonstrate actual malice there, which is kind of one of the benefits, I guess, to being like Roger and just having malice towards everyone. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
|
unidentified
|
So. | |
| Does he? | ||
| If you had to determine whether or not he had malice in court, it gets down to whether or not he can even feel in the first place. | ||
| Is he a psychopathic robot? | ||
| You don't know. | ||
| He's just going to claim whatever. | ||
| He's just a lunatic. | ||
| So you have them going out to break with Roger accusing Clayman of abusing his own children and telling him to fuck himself. | ||
| Going out to break on that one. | ||
| This is an episode of Modern. | ||
| It's tough. | ||
| It's hard to break. | ||
| You're going to have to come back from that one. | ||
| So you come back. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| The tone is just... | ||
| I would just say, we'll come back tomorrow. | ||
| You don't know why you would come back. | ||
| I'll send a rep. | ||
| How long was the break? | ||
| Hey, Larry, get another lawyer. | ||
| This is not going to work. | ||
| Defendant Stone, you called me a piece of garbage, correct? | ||
| If this is an accurate transcript, yes. | ||
| Constitutionally protected free speech. | ||
| Make it a practice of calling people pieces of garbage? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| This is one of the points where I start thinking that maybe this is not a strong-looking suit. | ||
| If one of the things that Larry wants to ask Roger about is Roger calling him a piece of garbage, I have no idea what's even going on. | ||
| I can't imagine a reality where you can get sued for defamation because you call someone garbage. | ||
| It seems like that would be presuming that you think the person is making a factual claim that you are, in fact, garbage, and also that you know the claim is false at the time you're making it. | ||
| It's so easy to see that this is an insult and a statement of opinion. | ||
| It just strikes me that this is like, if this is on your list of defamatory things Roger said, it's a bad list. | ||
| This is silly. | ||
| Roger, if you look down at the transcript, it shows, did you call me a doo-doo head? | ||
| Constitutionally protected free suits. | ||
| Now we just answer the question. | ||
| So in this next clip, we get to the question of Clayman's IQ, which has been attacked by Roger. | ||
| At 411, for those people out there who think that Larry Clayman's IQ is higher than 70, you're wrong. | ||
| You said that, right? | ||
| Yes, if this is an accurate transcript. | ||
| Again, my opinion. | ||
| Now, that's a factual statement, is it not that I don't have an IQ higher than 70? | ||
| It's an opinion. | ||
| This is just not going to fly. | ||
| Larry, if you're trying to prove him wrong, this is the wrong way to go about it. | ||
| This just doesn't seem like those statements are very easily depicted as opinion. | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| Anyway, there's a list of insults. | ||
| That Larry has. | ||
| Do we get a rapid fire? | ||
| A bit, yeah. | ||
| Oh, I want it. | ||
| It's not a huge list, and it's not really that great, but the way Roger responds to it is just like, oh, so good. | ||
| At one o 'clock, you also publish, quote, to be clear, Larry Klayman is a moron. | ||
| He has never won a case in court in his life. | ||
| He may have won a few motions. | ||
| He's a lightweight. | ||
| He's a know-nothing. | ||
| Now, to be able to make the statement that I never won a case in court, you had to look back into my record as a lawyer, correct? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, that's the impression I had. | |
| I believed that, to be sure, at the time I said it. | ||
| So you basically showed a reckless disregard for the truth at a minimum. | ||
| Are you not disputing the other things I said? | ||
| I'm getting to that. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Constitution protected free speech. | |
| So. | ||
| Oh, God. | ||
| Just the... | ||
| You're not going to dispute the whole you're a piece of shit part? | ||
| You're not going to dispute the moron and lightweight know-nothing? | ||
| That's such a dick response. | ||
|
unidentified
|
God, that's so funny. | |
| So, Larry, I think in this next clip he's trying to play like he's sneaky about serving Roger with the papers for the lawsuit. | ||
| You attempted to evade service of process on the cases that were served on you. | ||
| Most certainly did not. | ||
| In fact, I had to have you served at a strip club, did I not? | ||
| You attempted to have me served at a strip club, but I don't think you were successful. | ||
| But I've accepted service at home and in public events for all of your suits. | ||
| Ah, I had to get you at a strip club. | ||
| You tried. | ||
| What a response to that. | ||
| What a response. | ||
| I just love that. | ||
| None of the other details that could be important there, all of them are wiped away by just, you didn't do it, buddy. | ||
| You missed. | ||
| You took a shot. | ||
| You come at the king, you best not miss. | ||
| So now the issue of Cassandra Fairbanks comes up, who is a right-wing writer of sorts and is... | ||
| She writes for Gateway Pundit, I believe, now. | ||
| Or maybe doesn't anymore. | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| Who cares? | ||
| I have not kept up too much with her. | ||
| But she is factored into this because she did some stories, maybe negative, about Jerome Corsi around this time and went on Newsmax and talked bad about Corsi. | ||
| And Larry's implication is that Roger told her to do this. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Which would be a problem, probably, because, you know... | ||
| Yeah, yeah. | ||
| But he doesn't have any evidence, and he's just trying to make this claim and thinking Roger would be like, you got me. | ||
| Regarding Ms. Fairbanks, you've had discussions with her about Dr. Jerome Corsi, have you not? | ||
| I don't recall any specific conversation with her about Dr. Corsi. | ||
| You just can't recall a specific one? | ||
| I can't recall any conversation with her regarding Dr. Corsi. | ||
| Are you aware that the Clintons used to say, we have no specific recollection? | ||
| No, but it's not a bad turn of phrase. | ||
| In this case, that would be the case. | ||
| That would mean that you might have some recollection, but you just don't remember now. | ||
| No, I don't recall ever having any conversation with Cassandra Fairbanks regarding Dr. Corsi. | ||
| So that's going to be a problem for the argument that he did. | ||
| Unless you have some sort of an indication, an evidence, like an email from her to him, or him sending her an email that said, hey, talk shit on Corsi for me. | ||
| Something, anything, any piece of evidence, and it does not seem like there is any. | ||
| So it's just like, hey, did you do this? | ||
| No. | ||
| I think you did it. | ||
| I know, it does seem like he's... | ||
| Look, I don't trust Roger. | ||
| There's a decent chance he did. | ||
| Of course he did. | ||
| But I don't think you're proving it. | ||
| I have no clue. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| So now this turns into a really weird thing where... | ||
| I don't know how any of this is relevant, but Clayman starts talking weird stuff about Cassandra Fairbanks. | ||
| Are you aware there are photos of Cassandra Fairbanks on the internet? | ||
| I would think so. | ||
| Isn't she a columnist? | ||
| Are you aware that there are photos of her in other contexts on the internet? | ||
| I'm trying to be polite. | ||
| No, I'm not. | ||
| I have no idea what any kind of relevance to this hypothetical nude pictures or risque pictures of Santa Fairbanks existing online, what they have to do with this at all. | ||
| In an ideal situation, it's a waste of a question. | ||
| It's a waste of time. | ||
| It doesn't seem to go anywhere. | ||
| But this also leads into... | ||
| I didn't know this. | ||
| Maybe I didn't. | ||
| I just didn't care. | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| But apparently, Jerome Corsi has said that Cassandra Fairbanks told him that she slept with Julian Assange in the embassy, the Ecuadorian embassy, when she went to go visit him. | ||
| One of the... | ||
| Okay. | ||
| All right. | ||
| So we get to talking about that a little bit here. | ||
| How? | ||
| I still don't also know how this is relevant. | ||
| What is going on? | ||
| I have no idea. | ||
| Now, you had an interest in Cassandra Fairbanks because she had had contact with Julian Assange, correct? | ||
| I don't know that we've ever discussed that other than the fact that she has a concern for his well-being. | ||
| And she visited him in the embassy in London? | ||
| I've read that. | ||
| Ecuadorian embassy? | ||
| I've read that. | ||
| Are you aware that she told Dr. Corsi that she actually slept with him in the embassy? | ||
| I saw where Dr. Corsi alleged that, but I don't know to be true. | ||
| Where did you see that? | ||
| Reddit somewhere. | ||
| She told you that, right? | ||
| No. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Stop it! | |
| You put her up to defame Dr. Corsi on his way. | ||
| I most certainly did not. | ||
| Do you have any evidence of that? | ||
| You already asked and made that accusation. | ||
| It's just repetitive. | ||
| It's very weird. | ||
| It's a strategy. | ||
| First of all, I think if you're trying to go up against someone like Roger Stone... | ||
| Not an effective strategy. | ||
| Not going to do it. | ||
| He relishes this. | ||
| Yeah, yeah, yeah. | ||
| You are firmly in Roger Stone's territory. | ||
| Yeah, yeah. | ||
| I don't know, even in another circumstance, if that would be a good strategy to employ. | ||
| It seems like a decent lawyer working with Roger could get anything that's said in this deposition completely taken out of court. | ||
| Tossed out. | ||
| Yeah, the behavior that's being shown here with the arguing and the... | ||
| It just seems like... | ||
| And now we're talking about rumor about other people that aren't involved. | ||
| Yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely. | ||
| And just, like, base assertions of just, like, where'd you hear that from? | ||
| Who told you? | ||
| Who told you? | ||
| You put her up to this. | ||
| You can't just do that. | ||
| I mean, you can, but I just don't know if it's fruitful. | ||
| Well, yeah, yeah. | ||
| So now, this is a stretch. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| So apparently, Roger... | ||
| Did you kill JFK? | ||
| He doesn't ask that. | ||
| I think you did. | ||
| So Roger... | ||
| He asks Roger about something that he said about Jerome Corsi, which was essentially, if you see his lips moving, you know he's lying. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| A common thing. | ||
| It's an old idiom. | ||
| Larry thinks that's about him, even though Roger was talking about Jerome Corsi. | ||
| And listen to the explanation for this. | ||
| It's wild. | ||
| Paragraph 22. It's 626 in the InfoWars video. | ||
| Defendant Stone falsely publishes that, quote, you can always tell when Jerry Corsi is lying. | ||
| Because his lips are moving, unquote. | ||
| See that? | ||
| Yes, definitely. | ||
| You said that, correct? | ||
| Definitely, because he was lying, as we had just said on the previous minute. | ||
| Well, this goes beyond what you claim was a specific lie, that he lies any time that he says anything, correct? | ||
| Well, I think he told multiple lies, to tell you the truth, but yes, I definitely said that. | ||
| You're calling him a total liar. | ||
| I think he lied on some occasions here, yes. | ||
| But this goes beyond just some occasions, right? | ||
| Any time his lips are moving, he's lying, correct? | ||
| That's what I said, yeah. | ||
| In fact, that's an expression that's frequently used with regard to lawyers, isn't it? | ||
| How do you tell a lawyer's line as lips are moving? | ||
| I've never heard it in that context. | ||
| So you're also referring to me, weren't you, in this statement? | ||
| Wild conjecture on your part. | ||
| I'm his lawyer. | ||
| Wild conjecture on your part. | ||
| Where's the word lawyer? | ||
| And you're suggesting I help him lie, correct? | ||
| Where does it say that? | ||
| That's a phrase that's used with lawyers. | ||
| But where does it say that? | ||
| It doesn't say that. | ||
| You're putting words in my mind. | ||
| You're not that clever. | ||
| Do some research on defamation by implication. | ||
| Good luck. | ||
| Apparently you've done a lot of research but won't testify truthfully. | ||
| Good luck. | ||
| Listen. | ||
| Stop. | ||
| You've got to stop with your commentaries. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Ask your next question. | |
| Make a commentary towards me. | ||
| You asked for it. | ||
| These are children! | ||
| What is happening? | ||
| God. | ||
| You always just imagine that what goes on inside like official places like courtrooms and depositions is like really... | ||
| Rigid, by the book, serious people. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Absolutely. | |
| I bet sometimes it's just like this. | ||
| Oh, yeah, yeah. | ||
| There's tons of... | ||
| I just want... | ||
| I can't get enough of Larry enlisting insults that Roger has given him. | ||
| I want him to go down a list. | ||
|
unidentified
|
February 2nd, 2017. | |
| You called me a rat-faced motherfucker. | ||
| Do I have a rat face? | ||
| Constitutionally protected free speech is my opinion. | ||
| Am I fucking my mother? | ||
| It's my opinion. | ||
| Alright, we'll move on. | ||
| You know how it goes in politics? | ||
| You hear things? | ||
| So another thing that Roger has said that is of issue is he has implied that Jerome Corsi is an alcoholic. | ||
| Yes, sure. | ||
| And so they discussed that claim here a little bit. | ||
| This is a statement that you made, is it not? | ||
| I didn't feel worse. | ||
| If you say so, I don't specifically recall it. | ||
| Again, you're calling him an alcoholic, correct? | ||
| I've drank with him. | ||
| You have no evidence he's an alcoholic? | ||
| I have some personal experience where I've seen him carried out of a restaurant, stoned drunk, yeah. | ||
| That doesn't mean that you're an alcoholic, that you were drunk on an occasion. | ||
| I've seen him drunk on more than one occasion. | ||
| Are you medically capable of making it? | ||
| I can certainly tell when somebody's inebriated. | ||
| So the issue, the way he said it was, he's talking about something that Corsi said, and he said that him saying this... | ||
| Is only proof of him having an alcohol-affected memory. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| So it's not even some kind of a clinical definition of like he's an alcoholic. | ||
|
unidentified
|
No. | |
| He can just be like, yeah, I've seen him fucking drunk a bunch of times. | ||
| His memory, in my estimation, may be affected by alcohol. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| It'd be so easy to get around any of these things. | ||
| This is weak bullshit. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| I hate to say it, but I'm on Roger Stone's side here. | ||
| Fuck Larry Clayman. | ||
| So Larry gets to asking about, like, you know, bank accounts, you know, all this. | ||
| And Roger's lawyer is, you know, we're not doing financial discovery. | ||
| Right, right, right, right. | ||
| But it gets a little bit silly. | ||
| Do you have offshore bank accounts, Mr. Scott? | ||
| We're not answering. | ||
| Do you have offshore bank accounts? | ||
|
unidentified
|
No, I do not. | |
| No, I do not. | ||
| Whatever. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Whatever. | |
| Do you keep resources in gold bars? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Objection. | |
| We're not... | ||
| This is not financial discovery. | ||
| You have no right to ask these questions. | ||
|
unidentified
|
So, objection. | |
| Ask relevant questions, please. | ||
| Do you have Krugerrands? | ||
| God, this... | ||
| Roger's lawyer is so sick of Larry. | ||
| He's just sitting here like... | ||
| He's like trying to be an adult in the room, and it's just pathetic. | ||
| It's just so sad. | ||
| But then you've also got Roger who can't resist taking the bait. | ||
| He hates Larry, so he's going to tell him to go fuck off every now and again and play with him a little bit. | ||
| And you can't, like, don't answer that. | ||
| All right, whatever. | ||
| No, the only person who should feel bad for being in that room is Roger's lawyer. | ||
| That is a bummer for him. | ||
| So there is a story that was published in the Daily Caller about Jerome Corsi. | ||
| Sure. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That Larry is sort of asserting or implying or trying to make the accusation that Roger planted this story against Jerome Corsi. | |
| In this clip, he's talking about knowing a lawyer that's associated with one of the figures in the story that was posted on Daily Caller. | ||
| I asked you a question earlier about this doctor. | ||
| In Florida, I didn't remember his name at the time, that Daily Caller reporter Chuck Ross, who works for Tucker Carlson, wrote about accusing corset fraud. | ||
| The doctor's name is Mendelson. | ||
| Do you know Dr. Mendelson? | ||
| I do not. | ||
| Have you ever heard of him? | ||
| I think I read the story when it was written. | ||
| Now, the lawyer, and there's also somebody mentioned here by the name of Tommy Sickler. | ||
| It was somehow associated with Dr. Mendelsohn. | ||
| Do you see that? | ||
| S-I-C-K-L-E-R. | ||
| You know Tommy Sickler? | ||
| I do not. | ||
| Now, the lawyer who represented Tommy Sickler, you know him, do you not? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Who is it? | |
| I'm not certain. | ||
| Do I? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Okay, well, I don't know Tommy Sickler, so, I mean, I know a lot of lawyers. | ||
| If you name a lawyer, I'll tell you whether I know him. | ||
| Well, I'll go back and find my notes this evening, but I'll ask you questions about that tomorrow. | ||
| That's fine. | ||
| I don't know Thomas Sickler. | ||
| You are aware that a lawyer was in contact with me with regard to this matter with Mendelssohn and Sickler? | ||
| Whose lawyer? | ||
| I'm going to get the name. | ||
| No, I am not. | ||
| And you are aware that he claimed to be your friend. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I don't know who he is. | |
| It's conceivable, but you've got to give me a name. | ||
| There is unprepared, and then there's this. | ||
| How do you not know the name of the lawyer you're asking Roger a question about when the question seems to hinge on whether or not Roger knows said lawyer? | ||
| How could you possibly expect Roger to answer a question about an unspecified person? | ||
|
unidentified
|
That question blew my mind. | |
| I'm watching a movie like, oh, he's the guy from that thing. | ||
| You know that guy. | ||
| I don't know that guy. | ||
| No, no, no. | ||
| You know that guy. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I don't know that guy. | |
| No, he was in that thing. | ||
| What's the thing? | ||
| I might know the guy. | ||
|
unidentified
|
No, the thing where the guy did the stuff when there was a dolphin, maybe? | |
| I need something. | ||
| No, come on. | ||
| You know that guy. | ||
| That is like, if I were Roger in there, I'd feel like I was having a stroke. | ||
| Why are you asking me? | ||
| Excuse me, sir. | ||
| Do I smell toast? | ||
| What is happening? | ||
| I might start crying. | ||
| I don't know the lawyer. | ||
| Who are you talking about? | ||
| Just give me a name! | ||
|
unidentified
|
This is a deposition. | |
| You're asking me about an unnamed lawyer who's related to a case I don't know about. | ||
| Roger, on March 3rd, 2019, you said I had the balls of a castrated dog. | ||
| Now, am I holding a castrated dog's balls right now? | ||
| Constitutionally prepared for a free speech. | ||
| So, the story behind this is that Chuck Ross, a writer for the Daily Caller, had posted an article that raised some questions about a GoFundMe campaign that Corsi had been supporting for a guy named Tommy Sickler, who allegedly had cancer. | ||
| Sickler was apparently in need of an experimental cancer surgery that was to be performed by a Dr. Elliot Mendelsohn. | ||
| Corsi claimed that Mendelsohn had, quote, cured his relative's stage 4 liver cancer, and that Tommy could be saved with this operation as well, but he needed the money to make it happen. | ||
| Apparently, that GoFundMe raised over $25,000, but there were some issues that came up when it got looked into a little bit. | ||
| According to the Daily Caller, they did some digging and found that the link that was provided by Corsi to Dr. Mendelson's clinic directed people to the website of Mendelson Consulting Group, the registered owner of which was mysteriously Tommy Sickler. | ||
| That is certainly a pretty big red flag. | ||
| And the guy who needs money for this miracle surgery happens to also be the owner of the miracle surgeon's business. | ||
| It seems like he would have... | ||
| I mean, maybe he could even get it at cost, you know, if you're the owner of the business. | ||
| That is all the appearances of a con, and it would be pretty easy to assume that maybe Corsi's good nature got caught up in trying to help a guy out. | ||
| However, according to the Daily Caller, they were also unable to find any evidence that Dr. Mendelsohn even exists. | ||
| There is an issue there. | ||
| The Sor Kasi Medical Center in Tel Aviv, where he's said to have practiced, said that no one by that name works at the facility and that they had no records of him. | ||
| It was alleged that Mendelssohn also had a practice in Boca Raton, Florida, but there was no one by that name in the Florida Physician Licensing Database. | ||
| This is a big problem because, of course, he had claimed that his relative, apparently his wife's cousin, had been successfully treated by Dr. Mendelsohn. | ||
| Ooh, that's troublesome. | ||
| Now appears to not exist. | ||
| Right, right, right, right. | ||
| Well, she didn't actually have stage 4 cancer, though, so it's fine because an imaginary doctor can absolutely treat an imaginary disease. | ||
| In fact, maybe that's the only type of doctor that could do any good there. | ||
| So this is the story as it's laid out in the Daily Caller article. | ||
| And I have no idea what's going on here. | ||
| And Corsi has claimed that he didn't make any money off the GoFundMe. | ||
| All I know is what came out in those stories, and you can make up your own conclusions about whatever level of grift you think is being run here, and whether or not Corsi knew what he was doing. | ||
| Previously, when Corsi was suing Mueller, this story in the Daily Caller was used as proof of Mueller leaking things to the press to attack Corsi. | ||
| This is something that had to have come out of the closed-door interviews with Corsi. | ||
| Now that they're suing Roger, the claim is that Roger used his connections at the Daily Caller and his friendship with Tucker Carlson to plant the story to attack Corsi. | ||
| And here's the thing. | ||
| A move like that wouldn't surprise me one bit from Roger. | ||
| The claimant is just saying that it's the case. | ||
| There's no evidence at all. | ||
| It seems like, you know, we've already talked about this, but the strategy is just to make accusations and hope Roger will confess. | ||
| Yeah, absolutely. | ||
| It seems dumb. | ||
| It's like asking a bunch of, like, frivolous, did you go to the store earlier? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Did you go see a movie last weekend? | ||
| Yes, I did. | ||
| Did you kill him? | ||
| Oh, shit! | ||
| You almost got me there. | ||
| I gotta say no this time. | ||
| So it comes up in this deposition that Roger was fired by InfoWars. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| And we know that from, I mean, just knowing what we know. | ||
| Just us. | ||
| And so Larry's assertion is that he got fired because he started talking shit about Corsi on air and started defaming him. | ||
| Oh, no. | ||
| And this is, again, is like, what? | ||
| Why were you fired by InfoWars? | ||
| There was no way I could continue to speak. | ||
| I was entirely consumed with my defense. | ||
| But you have been on television and radio on issues other than with regard to your criminal prosecution. | ||
| Very occasionally. | ||
| You can certainly speak about a lot of other things other than that. | ||
| Very occasionally, but there was not a chance that I was going to continue at Infowars because there wouldn't be enough material. | ||
| You were fired from Infowars because of... | ||
| No, that's categorically false. | ||
| Categorically false. | ||
| Categorically false. | ||
| If that's so, no one ever told me that. | ||
| This strategy is just saying things. | ||
| Yeah, yeah, yeah. | ||
| It's weird. | ||
| That's not good. | ||
| No. | ||
| So, anyway, this next clip. | ||
| Larry accuses Roger of sending goons to Corsi's house. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| And then also makes a shocking revelation about Roger from 2004. | ||
| The problem with all of these is that, yes, Roger totally could have and probably has done that in the past, but you have to have something to back it up. | ||
| You need that, yeah. | ||
| You just need something. | ||
| Of course he did shit like this. | ||
| Well, I don't know about sending goons to Corsi's house. | ||
| I wouldn't be surprised. | ||
| There are no bottom. | ||
| The Proud Boys went over or something? | ||
| It wouldn't be surprising. | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| Did you ever send people to go in front of Corsi's house to intimidate him? | ||
| Let me answer the question. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| Categorically, positively, not. | ||
| Do you have some evidence to the contrary? | ||
| Present it. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Now... | |
| Moving on. | ||
| When you were representing me in the Senate campaign as a consultant, I told you about some difficulties I was having with Fitton of Judicial Watch, correct? | ||
| I don't recall that. | ||
| And you told me, I've got people that can take care of that, correct? | ||
| I have no memory of that whatsoever. | ||
| And in fact, I said I don't do those things? | ||
| How do we know that this even happened? | ||
| Just because you say it? | ||
| I'm asking you. | ||
| I have no recollection of that. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It's false. | |
| And I told you not to do that? | ||
| That's completely false. | ||
|
unidentified
|
What things are you talking about, Mr. Clayton? | |
| Mr. Stone knows. | ||
| No, he doesn't know. | ||
| If you have any evidence that I sent these people to Jerry Corsi's home, present it. | ||
| Let's see it. | ||
| Where is it? | ||
| It's categorically false. | ||
| So I guess he's saying that he had people who would murder Tom Fitton back in 2004. | ||
| I guess. | ||
| Or at least, I guess, intimidate him or beat him up or something. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| That seems to be what he's dancing around, implying here. | ||
| It kind of does seem... | ||
| It's fucked up. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Because if it's true, why didn't you say something sooner? | ||
| Oh, you know why. | ||
| Because Roger knows some guys. | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| It just seems like this is terrible. | ||
| This is such an exercise in Roger saying in every possible way, you don't... | ||
| Matter to me. | ||
| I don't care. | ||
| Do you know why I don't remember you? | ||
| Because you suck and you're beneath me. | ||
| You mean nothing to me. | ||
| I would have left already, but this is kind of amusing. | ||
| Yeah, exactly. | ||
| I don't know if you know this. | ||
| I'm having fun insulting you. | ||
| I might go to prison soon, so I'm going to enjoy what time I got left. | ||
| Yeah, it does feel that way. | ||
| So, this next clip, put your mic down for this, just because I think that this kind of gets to one of the larger issues of the... | ||
| What Clayman's putting forth, and that is that, like, in order to really have, like, a financial claim, you have to sort of show how Roger's actions negatively affected. | ||
| Of course. | ||
| Yeah, yeah, yeah. | ||
| And so Larry tries to make that point here, but how this clip ends is, like, it's awesome. | ||
| It's Roger's lawyer finally being like, come on. | ||
| So to say that we are working with Robert Mueller is to say that we're Judas's, correct? | ||
| I didn't say that about you. | ||
| But Barbara Jordan, Deborah Jordan. | ||
| I'm not responsible for the statements of Deborah Jordan. | ||
| I've never told her to say or not say anything. | ||
| In fact, you're aware that I've sued Mueller on behalf of Coursey, correct? | ||
| I did. | ||
| What happened with your lawsuit? | ||
| I was going through the courts. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| Read about it. | ||
| You're aware that... | ||
| On behalf of Corsi, you think that's funny? | ||
| At least I did something for my client rather than sitting there during the trial and getting him convicted. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Ask your next question. | |
| Your lawsuit was dismissed. | ||
| That's why. | ||
| Okay, fine. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Go ahead. | |
| You just couldn't resist bringing that guy in. | ||
| Yeah, bringing the lawyer in. | ||
| Why are you laughing? | ||
| You can't have Dad watching two little boys fight without trying to get Dad involved in there in a little bit. | ||
| Pick a side, Dad! | ||
| And I love Roger being like, ooh. | ||
| I know! | ||
| That was such a, ooh, you're in trouble now. | ||
| What are we doing? | ||
| These are grown men. | ||
| It is weird. | ||
| So this Jordan person is another... | ||
| Deborah Jordan. | ||
| She's another alleged person that Clayman is saying that Roger used as an intermediary to push these negative stories to defame Corsi and himself. | ||
| Again, just with implications. | ||
| If there's evidence, then whatever. | ||
| That's a different story. | ||
| But I don't see any of it presented here at all. | ||
| And so there's another journalist that Larry thinks... | ||
| That Roger is using as a fence. | ||
| And he plans to depose them. | ||
| And Roger's like, good luck. | ||
| They're a journalist. | ||
| What do you think you're doing? | ||
| In fact, you defamed Corsi and me with Kali Bukakis. | ||
| That's your version. | ||
| Well, we'll find out from her, too. | ||
| Yeah, good luck. | ||
| Why good luck? | ||
| You want to depose a journalist about their sources? | ||
| Good luck. | ||
| Were you a source? | ||
| No, but I assume that's what you want to ask her about. | ||
| If you weren't a source, then I guess I can ask her about it. | ||
| You can ask her, but she does not have to answer any questions regarding her sources, whether they're me or not. | ||
| What you're saying is you were a source to the media during your prosecution. | ||
| False. | ||
| Categorically false. | ||
| God, you are an asshole. | ||
| You really are a jerk. | ||
| Go ahead. | ||
| Continue. | ||
| It's how a human would respond. | ||
| That is so funny. | ||
| In addition to the planting stories accusation, there's also an accusation that Roger pulled strings at Newsmax to keep Larry Klayman off of being able to speak on Newsmax. | ||
| I think that it sounds a little conspiratorial the way that Klayman is pitching this story. | ||
| And then it deteriorates. | ||
| This, again, complete derailment here. | ||
| Turn to the email dated June 1st, 2019, 628, to Christopher Ruddy, claiming to PDF from Roger Stone, correct? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Wherein you write to Ruddy, claiming is suing me because he alleges I've interfered with his relationship with Newsmax. | ||
| I don't recall having ever... | ||
| Discussing this asshole with you or Clemente, he is clearly insane. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes. | |
| Now, who's Clemente? | ||
| Clemente is, I don't think he's there anymore, but he was their director of programming at one time. | ||
| He'd worked for Fox News, correct? | ||
| I believe that's correct. | ||
| Now, you don't have any medical background to determine whether or not I'm insane. | ||
| Well, one makes... | ||
| Allegations that I had interfered with your being interviewed with Newsmax on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, having never discussed it with Roddy or Cardillo or Clemente, the only people I knew at Newsmax, yeah, that's pretty crazy. | ||
| You just pull that out of thin air? | ||
| That's pretty crazy. | ||
| You made an allegation that I'm medically insane? | ||
| Insane is, I think, a colloquial expression, but when someone... | ||
| whatsoever, which they're just guessing because they're unhappy that they can't be interviewed when they want to, yeah, I think that's pretty crazy. | ||
| I think that's insane. | ||
| Newsmax bringing on someone like Cassandra Fairbanks to Call my client Corsi a liar over and over. | ||
| That's insane? | ||
| You would have to ask the people at Newsmax that. | ||
| I didn't make any recommendation or decision to have Ms. Fairbanks on the air. | ||
| I have no impact on who Newsmax chooses or does not choose to interview. | ||
| Cardillo sending out tweets in support of you? | ||
| Mr. Cardillo has First Amendment rights like every other American. | ||
| Claiming he's your great friend? | ||
| He is a good friend of mine, but I don't tell him what to tweet. | ||
| I don't tell him who to interview. | ||
| He has First Amendment rights like everyone else. | ||
| Two and two equals four, doesn't it? | ||
| You have nothing. | ||
| Is that insane? | ||
| No, no. | ||
| Wild proof. | ||
| Evidence, Larry. | ||
| Proof, Larry. | ||
| Evidence. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Proof. | |
| Evidence. | ||
| Not guessing on your part with nothing. | ||
| You have nothing. | ||
| This proves nothing. | ||
| That's what you told Mueller, right? | ||
| You have nothing. | ||
| Real quick, you can hear it very lightly. | ||
| Roger said, fuck. | ||
| See, now that's where, if I was Roger Stone's lawyer, I would be like, ooh. | ||
| That's what your clients argued at the trial. | ||
| I'm not going to discuss the criminal case. | ||
| If you want to keep insulting me, this will be over. | ||
| I'm not insulting you. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Like a little bitch. | |
| If you want to keep insulting me, I will just end this and you go running back to the judge. | ||
| Did you just call me a bitch? | ||
| You're acting like one. | ||
| You're acting like one. | ||
| My friend, you got nothing. | ||
| You have a wild guess. | ||
| If you have some evidence that I communicated with Ruddy or Cardillo or Clemente or Cassandra, produce it. | ||
| You've got nothing. | ||
| You're not going to get anything by interviewing him because it's not true. | ||
| Well, I can't produce it if you've withheld it, can I? | ||
| I haven't withheld it. | ||
| You've proved I've withheld it. | ||
| Do that. | ||
| We'll look for it. | ||
| You can look for it all you fucking want. | ||
| You'll find nothing. | ||
| Ask a question. | ||
| I do like... | ||
| Are you medically professional enough to tell somebody that... | ||
| No, I'm not saying you're insane. | ||
| You're fucking crazy, man! | ||
| Yeah, yeah. | ||
| You make an assessment. | ||
| I'm speaking in the vernacular, the colloquial. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| So, you know, hey, I'm not thrilled with people just acting like a bitch. | ||
| No, I don't think that's cool. | ||
| You know, that's a little antiquated and a little inappropriate, certainly. | ||
| But Roger's not a great guy. | ||
| No, no, no. | ||
| It's a misogynistic term. | ||
| I agree. | ||
| I don't expect him to have that kind of position on it. | ||
| I would say that Larry's is weirder. | ||
| His position on having that said to him. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Because they take a little break and they come back and this is just fucking weird. | ||
| Mr. Stone, a few minutes ago you called me a bitch. | ||
| No, I said you were acting like a bitch. | ||
| What is a bitch, according to you? | ||
|
unidentified
|
What's the point of that? | |
| I'm not going to answer that. | ||
| I know what he meant. | ||
| I'm not going to answer the question. | ||
| Come on. | ||
| Ask a serious question. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Mr. Clayman, ask a question. | |
| Let's... | ||
| You sit there, make a text on me, and when I respond, you don't like it. | ||
| Well, what is bitch? | ||
| I'm entitled to know what you meant by bitch. | ||
| Acting like a bitch. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Come on. | |
| What is a bitch? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Stop. | |
| You don't know? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Stop. | |
| You're unfamiliar with the term? | ||
| Is that someone who's gay? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Stop. | |
| No, it is not. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Stop. | |
| It is not a slur of any kind. | ||
| Sparaging gay people? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Stop. | |
| No, it most certainly is not. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Mr. Klayman, you're a lawyer, sir. | |
| Ask your next question. | ||
| Is that really what you think it means? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Come on. | |
| Ask your next question. | ||
| I'm asking him what he thinks. | ||
| I'm not going to answer the question, so ask me a serious question regarding your lawsuit. | ||
| And I'll answer it. | ||
| That's just... | ||
| You're a lawyer. | ||
| Oh, good God. | ||
| That is funny. | ||
| Well, it's that pressure release at a certain point of like, when is somebody going to say it? | ||
| Yeah, I know, right? | ||
| So earlier we heard Larry put forth this idea that Roger was trying to plant these stories of Corsi and Clayman working with Mueller because they make their money off conservative circles. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| And that portrays them as the Judas Iscariot. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Right. | |
| And that cripples their livelihood. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| Now, I kind of think that Larry is trying to do the same thing to Roger in this deposition. | ||
| You're aware that the judge that sat on the Clavin Bundy prosecution was one Gloria Navarro? | ||
| Yes, I was not a fan of hers. | ||
| You're aware that she was recommended to the bench to Barack Obama by Harry Reid? | ||
| I didn't know that specifically, but I knew she was a Democrat. | ||
| You don't have a very high regard for Harry Reid, do you? | ||
| No, nor do I have a high regard for this particular judge and the way that she treated the Bundys. | ||
| You're aware that she denied me prohibition entry? | ||
| But I don't know why. | ||
| You're aware that she denied him a speedy trial? | ||
| Yes, I did. | ||
| You're aware that she threw him into solitary confinement? | ||
| Yes, that's why I wanted the president to pardon him. | ||
| You're aware that for two and a half years they were incarcerated, the Bundys, along with other defendants? | ||
| Yes, I think it was outrageous. | ||
| That's why I wanted the president to relieve them. | ||
| Do you find it inappropriate that the president would intervene with regard to your sentencing in a criminal case, but never take any action on behalf of the police? | ||
| So that feels like an attempt by Larry to paint Roger as being not committed to the right-wing cause. | ||
| He would take a pardon personally from Trump for himself, but he isn't outraged that Trump wouldn't pardon the Bundys. | ||
| The first problem here is that there's no evidence that Roger wasn't mad about the Bundys' situation. | ||
| I would assume. | ||
| Yeah, I would assume he was pissed. | ||
| Of course he was. | ||
| The second problem is that in July 2018, Trump did pardon Dwight and Stephen Hammond. | ||
| Ammon and Cliven Bundy, their cases ended in a mistrial, so they're not even in jail. | ||
| So people surrounding this, you know, first the Bundy, the Bunkerville, and then the Malhoor Wildlife, those standoffs. | ||
| They're not in prison. | ||
| Yeah, that's... | ||
| I have no idea what Larry's talking about. | ||
| I can't believe... | ||
| Yeah, sure. | ||
| Sure, Larry. | ||
| Normally, I wouldn't think too much about something like this, and I would just ignore it, but so much of Larry's argument about Stone seems to be about how Roger was trying to use outlets like Infowars and Newsmax to smear him and Corsi because they make their living off this conservative market, and thus they're making them toxic to those outlets, and it would hurt their reach. | ||
| It seems to me, mostly because what Larry is saying doesn't make much sense, that this line of questioning feels like him trying to do that same thing to Roger, to paint him as a turncoat to the Bundys, noted heroes of the fringe conservative world. | ||
| This deposition is so far off the rails throughout that I don't really feel like it's too weird to suggest that that might be the motive for that question. | ||
| It feels totally plausible. | ||
| The only other motive I can think of is just to try and... | ||
| Win an argument with Roger Stone because he's under oath. | ||
| And it's not going well for Larry. | ||
| So, we have a couple more clips left. | ||
| This one is pretty funny. | ||
| Larry asks Roger about a little news item that came out back when he was running for Senate. | ||
| You remember when you were, as you put it, a political consultant working on my Senate campaign? | ||
| Vaguely, it was quite a while ago. | ||
| You remember that there came a point in time when I was going to the airport at Dulles with cats. | ||
| Yes, I do. | ||
| And that I was detained at Dulles. | ||
| As I recall it, you were detained because you made some joke about the cat not having a bomb. | ||
| Right. | ||
| Now, you were my campaign consultant at the time. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Right. | ||
| And you released that story, did you not, to Jim DeFede. | ||
| D-E-F-E-D-E of the Miami Herald after we stopped working with each other. | ||
| I most certainly did not. | ||
| Michael Caputo did that, didn't he? | ||
| I have no knowledge of that whatsoever. | ||
| And you have no evidence of it. | ||
| These are more of your picking things out of thin air. | ||
| Why would anybody make a statement, a joke about a bomb while going through TSA? | ||
| Shows me a lack of judgment, in all honesty. | ||
| Good question. | ||
| You haven't shown a lack of judgment with regard to your connection. | ||
| Not compared to you. | ||
| Jesus. | ||
| At what point is Roger just going to be like, do you want your fucking computers back? | ||
| What do you want? | ||
| What do you fucking want? | ||
| It's, uh, yeah. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I can't believe you would bring that up in a deficit. | |
| So 16 years ago, I made a joke about my cat not having a bomb when I was going through the TSA. | ||
| That story, you leaked it to the press 16 years ago. | ||
| No, I didn't. | ||
| Well, then your friend Michael Caputo did. | ||
| You don't have any proof of any of this. | ||
| This is so stupid. | ||
| It is very stupid. | ||
| This is a man holding a grudge for 30 years. | ||
| Seems like it. | ||
| So Larry wants to go back over a lot of stuff. | ||
| Sure, yeah. | ||
| So he's like, you can take your time, read these things in the affidavit, and Rogers is not having any of it. | ||
| So this is how things end. | ||
| We have time to review the affidavit. | ||
| I'm not going to read your biography. | ||
| And tell me whether anything's inaccurate. | ||
| I'm not going to read your biography and all of your asinine claims because you're an egomaniac. | ||
| I'm just not going to do that. | ||
| If you have a specific question... | ||
| We'll go to the court about it. | ||
| I agree. | ||
| Let's go to the court about it. | ||
| I want to do that. | ||
| Your reputation here is well-known. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well-known. | |
| I'm asking you. | ||
| You can take your time. | ||
| Go through it paragraph by paragraph. | ||
| Tell me if anything's inaccurate. | ||
| I'm not going to do that. | ||
| We went through this yesterday. | ||
| I didn't ask it that way. | ||
| He likes to hear his biography. | ||
| It makes him feel important. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| Certified. | ||
| Yes, please do. | ||
| I'd like to speak to the judge myself about this. | ||
| Better do it quick. | ||
| Before you're disbarred. | ||
| Stop. | ||
| No further questions. | ||
| So that's... | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| Someone yelling and no further questions is like, but just end this. | ||
| There's so much petty like, oh, we'll see in court. | ||
| I'll talk to the judge myself. | ||
| Oh, you will? | ||
| I'll talk to the judge. | ||
| So most of this like defamation, a lot of it, like some of it is stuff that Roger said on Infowars or on social media. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| And then a good bit of it is things that are being presented as things that Roger fed to the media. | ||
| The stuff that Roger said is stuff like things that are very easily, just like that was my opinion. | ||
| This is protected speech. | ||
| Hey, here's what I'm doing. | ||
| I'm saying you suck in different, more colorful ways. | ||
| If you just want me to say you suck, then boil it down to you suck. | ||
| So there's another lawyer there who asked Roger some questions right here at the end. | ||
| There's another lawyer. | ||
| A competent one? | ||
| Sure. | ||
| After Clayman's done, he comes in and asks Roger about these other instances, like the Cassandra Fairbank story, Newsmax, all that, and look how easily this is handled. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I just have a few questions, and I'll get us out of here. | |
| So, are you aware, in the complaint in Corsi versus Stone and Newsmax and Cardillo, the case that my client is involved in, There are allegations regarding Cassandra Fairbanks' appearance on Newsmax television on January 30, 2019. | ||
| Are you aware of that? | ||
| I am. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Were you aware in advance of January 30, 2019 that Cassandra Fairbanks was going to appear on Newsmax on that day? | |
| I was not. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Did you discuss the possible appearance of Cassandra Fairbanks on Newsmax with anybody at Newsmax at around that time? | |
| I did not. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Christopher Ruddy? | |
| Did not. | ||
|
unidentified
|
John Bachman? | |
| Did not. | ||
|
unidentified
|
John Cardillo? | |
| Did not. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Did you discuss with anybody at Newsmax at or about that time presenting anything negative about Jerome Corsi? | |
| I did not. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Did you encourage anyone at Newsmax to present Jerome Corsi in a negative light? | |
| I did not. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Did you ask anybody else to contact Newsmax on your behalf to encourage them to present Jerome Corsi in a negative light? | |
| I did not. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I have nothing. | |
| Let the record reflect that this witness has been convicted of five counts. | ||
| Let the record show that this man's bar license is under attack in New York for his serial misconduct. | ||
| I have no further questions. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Very professional. | |
| He's just gotta get it in there. | ||
| Larry, I think all that he was aiming to achieve would have been achieved in a minute. | ||
| Absolutely. | ||
| That deposition should have lasted at most 10 minutes. | ||
| Because if those questions that are being asked to Roger, which he's answering directly, if you have evidence that he's lying, boom! | ||
| You've got him in a lie there. | ||
| You can present your evidence. | ||
| Aha! | ||
| I do have proof that you did speak to Cassandra Brinks and told her to write this article. | ||
| You don't need to bring up her potential nude pictures or her sleeping with Julian Assange. | ||
| Who gives a shit? | ||
| Here we have an email saying that you talked to Cassandra Brinks. | ||
| Remember sending this email? | ||
| That's a good follow-up question. | ||
| Not a good follow-up question. | ||
| Did you know that Cassandra Banks has nudie photos on the internet? | ||
| In this deposition, you do not need to work out motive for, like, you hated me because of the 2004 Senate run. | ||
| You don't need to demonstrate that. | ||
| It's useless to the case. | ||
| How does it take six hours when a good lawyer is like, well, we got nothing in about five minutes. | ||
| One minute. | ||
| Insane. | ||
| That's one minute. | ||
| One minute. | ||
| Insane. | ||
| I think part of it is because Roger likes to fight. | ||
| Also, what kind of bullshit law did he learn that's just on TV law? | ||
| That's what somebody says when they're like, let the record show. | ||
| This dude's a sovereign citizen type of like, let the record show that he's convicted of five... | ||
| Everybody fucking already knows, man. | ||
| The record does show whatever he's been convicted of. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Also, you've referenced it 40 times. | |
| Did we just start recording? | ||
| Man. | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| It's interesting to me. | ||
| On this occasion of Roger being sentenced, it is nice to know that he had a last hurrah. | ||
| Yeah, yeah, yeah. | ||
| It is nice. | ||
| He has to wreck fuck one more time before he rides off into the sunset. | ||
| And I think that what this does is it... | ||
| I think Roger and Clayman are both bad. | ||
| They're both bad actors. | ||
| I don't particularly care to scale them or anything. | ||
| But it really does demonstrate the difference between having it and not. | ||
| Roger has it. | ||
| I was just about to say, through this whole deposition, it's like... | ||
| This is how he gets so many people. | ||
| Everybody knows he's going to stab you in the back, but he's charismatic and he's funny and he can throw some zingers out. | ||
| And if you feel like he's on your team, you're like, yeah, we can take down anybody. | ||
| And then you get stabbed in the back. | ||
| The siren song of his rapier wit and sort of cruelness, like the funny meanness, I could see it being very easy to get sucked into thinking that this will never go wrong. | ||
| Yeah, of course. | ||
| I got him on my team. | ||
| Have you seen what good he can do for people on his team? | ||
| But I mean, it's also because you're as dumb as Larry Klayman, I guess. | ||
| I don't say that. | ||
| He might sue. | ||
| So, we'll be back on Monday with another episode, but until then, we have a website. | ||
| We do have a website, Dan. | ||
| It's knowledgefight.com. | ||
| Correct. | ||
| We're also on Twitter. | ||
| We are on Twitter. | ||
| It's at knowledge underscore fight and at go to bed Jordan. | ||
| We're also on Facebook. | ||
| We are, and if you'd like to download the show, please go to iTunes or other podcast apps, download, rate, leave a review, donate, do the whole thing. | ||
| Absolutely. | ||
| We'll be back, but until then, I'm Neo. | ||
| I'm Leo. | ||
| I'm DZXClark. | ||
| I keep my money in gold bars. | ||
| Andy in Kansas, you're on the air. | ||
| Thanks for holding. | ||
| Hello, Alex. | ||
| I'm a first-time caller. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I'm a huge fan. | |
| I love your work. |
Export Selection