Formulaic Objections Part 4 dissects Alex Jones’s evasive Sandy Hook depositions, where he deflects with "false flag" claims (Jesse Smollett, Iraq WMDs) and denies seeing damning emails—like Wolfgang Halbig’s harassment of parents or a 2015 push to promote Jim Fetzer’s debunked book. InfoWars’ Daria Karpova cites Wikipedia and fringe theories as "evidence," ignoring sanctions and discovery requests. The episode reveals a pattern of financial-driven conspiracy peddling, with no accountability, exposing how Jones weaponizes grief for profit while his team lacks basic journalistic rigor. [Automatically generated summary]
And I felt like, you know, if we're going to be talking about this, we should probably check in and discuss how all this came about, what the circumstances are.
And, you know, you can't really, you know, you got to take that with a grain of salt because they're the same newspaper that took us to Iraq based on the wings of the lie.
But I went ahead and checked it out.
And it turns out, wow, God darn, this guy really does know a lot about Alex Jones.
And I was in the position of, look, I had to make myself an expert on Jones.
Me and my partner, Bill, actually had to do that.
And so we watched, oh, gosh, I want to say nearly like 100 hours right off the bat within the span of a couple of weeks.
And I knew, right, like I knew it had a not trivial effect on my brain and perception of the world.
So I was so excited to meet you who's been living in this.
And it turned out Dan knew a hell of a lot about Alex Jones.
As some of y'all know, we recently had a default judgment in our cases, but we're entering sort of the final phase of discovery, which is about the plaintiff's damages, the ways they were harmed by some of this conduct.
And that's required to take us, we had to take a corporate deposition, deposition of Alex Jones.
And in doing so, I knew that I could use Dan's knowledge in this process.
So that's why I reached out to Dan and asked, hey, Dan, would you consult on this case for me?
And Dan said, you know what?
I'd be happy to do that.
And I'd be happy to do it free of charge, completely pro bono to the fans.
Which is why, you know, I would never, I would never want to put somebody in your position who's a commentator and a person who has collected knowledge on Jones in this way in the position of testifying at trial or being a witness the jury would ever hear from or having any stake in the outcome.
And I think, you know, certainly experts who consult on cases like this and provide consultation, some of them do charge for their services.
And that would have been totally above board to do.
But I really, you know, it's been a lot of people.
I mean, I'm not going to, it was definitely really appreciated.
And I love the gesture of you saying that you'll do this for pro bono.
But I don't want to put you on a pedestal because so many people have.
I have had the kind of support on this case that's unrivaled in my career where people will step out of the woodwork and say, I'm happy to do whatever I can to assist you here.
And so, yeah, Dan, Dan's come aboard and has been helping me quite a bit in terms of doing this case.
And one of the big surprises for the listeners out there is that Dan personally accompanied me as my consultant to the depositions of the free speech corporate representative and of Mr. Alex Jones.
So your humble narrator for all these years was sitting in the room, not more than four feet across the table from Mr. Jones himself and from his corporate representative, Ms. Carcova.
So it's not like I shook Alex's hand or like, part of the reason I said no initially, because I was slightly worried for your physical safety to be in the same room with Alex Jones.
And we're, you know, already Dan had assisted me in kind of helping me formulate a lot of the questions that I was going to be asking in that deposition.
But as we're getting answers, Dan's the kind of person who can put his finger on the spot of a fact and say, no, I know that that isn't true.
You need to ask about X or Y.
So your service is really, I mean, I really want to emphasize just invaluable.
There aren't Alex Jones, for as much of a phenomenon as he is and for as culturally influential as he has become, he remains relatively understudied, both in academic and in pop culture settings.
Like it's actually strange how much of his mythos is very shallow.
Like people don't really dig down into what InfoWars is and how it operates and what it does.
You know, one of the things we had talked about before you had decided to help me and consult with me on this is that if you were going to be offering me advice on this and seeing some of the proceedings, you know, part of your insistence was, look, I'm a commentator on Jones.
I critically analyze what he's doing.
I need to be able to continue to do that about this lawsuit.
And if you were an expert witness who was going to be testifying to a jury, you probably shouldn't be doing that, right?
Because eventually your testimony is going to have to be considered.
But if you're just an outside consultant, and when it comes to things that are in the public record now, I couldn't stop you if I wanted to.
Like legally, you have a First Amendment right that trumps anything that's going on.
But no, it's, it's, it's, I knew coming into this that you were still going to be talking about Alex Jones.
Um, and I knew, for instance, that these depositions, if they did become public record, would be part of that.
And what happened, so that your listeners understand, is that there's a protective order of confidentiality in the case, and it provides a process by which if a party gives testimony or documents that it believes it wants to maintain confidentiality or not have them be public, it provides them an avenue for them to do that.
And in this particular situation, much as they have in the past, Infowars chose not to do that.
So very recently, the deposition of Alex Jones and the deposition of Ms. Karpova, the corporate representative, passed into the public domain when they became unchallenged public filings in these cases.
And so there's been some news reporting on them and some of the documents contained within those depositions already.
And so all that's now out in the public record.
So now, listeners, you get to hear a little bit about it, and Dan's going to be able to talk to you about it.
And I want to stress too that, like, it's, I can't, like, one of the downsides of me do like being in the position of like doing this episode and being there is that, you know, obviously I experience things and some of those things I can't talk about because they aren't part of what is in the public record.
No, and in fact, I think that's one of the reasons I wanted to come on this to kind of not for you because you know them, but so that the audience understands how you're talking about these.
There are some ground rules that Dan has to observe when talking about these things.
And one of that is that because his consulting position gives him access to things that do not become public record, as he was saying, there are some things he can't talk about.
Anybody's actual, you know, the thing is, is you go into a deposition room and 90% of what you do is what they call on the record.
There's a videotape roll and there's a transcript roll and there's somebody typing it all down.
10% of that downtime is off the record and there are things that happen there too off the record.
Obviously anything off the record is not something Dan can talk about.
But now we're in a position where, and I'm glad free speech made, or I'm sorry, InfoWars, I call them by their corporate name sometimes free speech systems, which is just the irony of ironies that they name themselves that.
But the fact that InfoWars made the choice or however they came to the conclusion to not make these depositions confidential, I am very glad they did because I believe that for those people who are following this case who understand the public importance of it, there is a lot of enlightening information that came forward.
Yeah, these are going to be an interesting discussion.
So I'm glad Dan can do that.
And it's part of the wonderful parts of our process is that when things do get into the public record this way, that court proceedings can be critically discussed.
And that's something that I'm glad Dan can do.
But yeah, there are certain things that there may be gaps.
I'm sure Jordan will sometimes ask a question that Dan would have to be no comment to.
Like a general lavender wind, like the freshly done laundry in the spring of Normandy.
Yeah.
No, none of that kind of, you know, then that's the thing is Dan got to see sort of an inside baseball process of a legal proceeding that a lot of people don't normally get to see, which is how a deposition is done.
Because that's like testimony, but it's not in a courtroom.
You know, we were in a friend of mine's law office in Austin.
And, you know, you're in this very tight quarters where you have a videographer in the room, a court reporter's taking everything down.
You've got all your pairs of lawyers in the room and you've got the witness and you're all in this room together.
And, you know, for one of these depositions, I think went as long as like five, six hours.
Because unlike I think Jones's first deposition and the first corporate representatives and all of that, which was very shallow and very guarded and very mockery.
For this, we did this at the beginning of December was when I came down to Austin and not being able to mention it or not being able to be like, but you know, all the information that I had that was in those depositions, I had to not know.
And I'm glad that, you know, we're on the other side of it now because it is a bit of a relief.
And then the second challenge was really like questioning prior to agreeing to come down whether or not this was an instance of like sort of affecting the content of the thing we're covering.
And I really wrestled with that and I struggled with that question because it's been something that we've a policy that we've tried to maintain as it relates to Alex's show.
This case is so different than most forms of litigation because of its subject matter that when you need, for instance, an expert on, you know, pipe metallurgy and a plant explosion, there's no chance that that same person is going to be critically covering in the media.
Like that's not a thing.
But what's interesting about this case is when you're in this kind of media litigation, the only people in this country who are genuine bona fide experts on Jones are those who have followed his media career and engaged in the criticism to fight back against it.
And in our first depositions, one of our consultants had been Brooke Binkowski, who was the managing editor of Snopes, now at truth or fiction.com.
And she had been one of, I mean, I feel like she's sort of a modern day Cassandra of she was saying in 2015, 2014, here's what fake news and what Infowars is doing is about to do to our country.
And so she, I knew from the get-go, she would, and she had sat in on some of our depositions too.
And we had the same sort of discussion of there is this scientist view that says the subject of your inquiry should be kept in isolation and you shouldn't let your interactions with it affect your observations of it.
Right.
And then there's the idea that Brooke had, which is, no, the entire point of critically covering him and learning more information about him is because of the danger of harm that he presents to people like my clients.
And therefore, to offer that expertise to people who are trying to vindicate that in the court of law is a noble calling, is how she felt about it.
And that's why I felt that this is such a different type of litigation.
It's so strange that way.
And I think it makes it very difficult for people in your position to ever testify at trial because of that.
And as much as they study his effects, it's legit true.
Nobody in this country has studied the internal mechanics of how Infowars works, how its stories work, how its editorial process works.
Nobody's done it like you guys.
I mean, it's just, there's nobody who's, and it's, it's weird that there was this vacuum that when people saw what you were doing, the reason it was so well received is because there is such a need for that.
Nobody has gone into that kind of depth.
So that's how you became what you are.
So I'm glad you're going to be able to do this today.
So, you know, if that's where they stand, they want to let it all be public.
And they've said that from the beginning.
You know, we've had documentary crews covering every court proceeding.
We have HBOs filming everything.
And they've been receptive to that.
And nobody has even asked for a gag order because, gosh, look at what Jones is saying.
I mean, if you just, if you just turn on his show any day when he talks about this, wow, it's out the window.
So it's nice to counterbalance that with a good, thorough, and non-shallow look at what actually happened in those rooms on those transcripts that day.
Yeah, you know, it would almost necessitate a show about us with a host so dedicated as to find the transcripts from this deposition and to discover that you were there.
Well, I actually want to ask you about a little something else.
Hold on, back up for a second.
One thing that you have said a few times is that in terms of when you did say that Sandy Hook was completely fake, synthetic, there were actors, et cetera, you've said that you've apologized for that, correct?
Well, first off, I said I could see how people see that.
And I also, when people said, please apologize to us, and I'd seen some of the anomalies that I think were wrong that weren't what people were questioning online.
Then I'm like, yeah, of course.
I'm sorry for questioning Sandy Hook, but it wasn't intended in a false way.
I mean, I really thought maybe it didn't happen.
And then the attacks intensified, and people began falsely saying that I was currently saying those things and then exaggerating what I'd said as a way, as a political weapon that Hillary Clinton was using to beat me over the head with it in 2016 on record and run national political ads against me playing edited tapes of me talking about Sandy Hook.
There are a couple of moments, and this is something that happens a bit, where there's an objection of non-responsive because you're just rambling about something.
Second of all, Mr. Jones, you understand this jury is going to watch the videos of you saying unequivocally, not I see how people could think this, but unequivocally saying Sandy Hook is completely, oh no, Mr. Jones, you don't get to interrupt me.
You're here to answer questions for this jury, and I want you to listen to the questions.
You know this jury is going to watch videos of you saying multiple times over and over again, Sandy Hook is completely fake, completely synthetic.
It is not real, right?
And you're going to sit here in this chair and say, oh, actually what I said, actually what I said is I could see how some other people could think it was fake.
You know the jury's going to see those videos and you know they're going to hear your words.
Do you think that they should take you seriously whatsoever when they can see you saying the things you said you didn't say?
And the CIA visiting Adam Lanza before it happened and the FBI, that was in mainstream news, and just all the bizarreness that went on, the public still has real questions, just like they do about Jesse Smollett or the Roe v. Wade baby that never actually died or WMDs in Iraq or just the Gulf of Tonkin or Operation Northwoods or Bubba Wallace or so many of these things that have happened.
Most of these hate crimes and type things end up being false flags.
So I still, when I look at events, question it and say, could this be staged?
And this was one of the storylines that was kind of a big talking point for Alex in the beginning of December, which is why it's appearing in this deposition.
Right, but I'm pretty sure he- He's been talking about it on air recently a bit.
Two examples of racially based antagonistic narratives that I don't know if Bubba Wallace's situation with the NASCAR garage is on the scale of lying about weapons of mass destruction.
I would also say that now in the deposition for damages for the case you've already lost, not the best time to say I still have questions about whether it's a strange move.
But more to the point, what I'm trying to say is like, he's giving these examples, and he's like, all of these hate crimes end up being staged or whatever.
No, that's an that I'm proud of the video and I'm proud of my statement and its full context that I'm sure we'll be able to show the jury and every time too that they will see what I had to say and see that I'm speaking up to the American tradition of being able to challenge authority.
Official stories almost always turn out to be at least partially wrong.
A death penalty sanction with all the stuff we produced, I believe is a fraud, and it's because they're scared of the real evidence coming out and want to be able to tell a jury that this man is guilty.
Now you decide how guilty.
No, juries are supposed to decide if someone is guilty or not, period, not how guilty they are.
So you guys can try to do all your anti-free speech stuff.
All you're doing is waking up the American people.
No, I have privately, I mean, I've told my crew, and I've always said I really have real questions about this, but I can't 100% prove it was totally staged.
But the CIA was definitely involved, and that came out.
And then I was told again by high-level folks in the CIA that it was staged back at the time.
And so I went with them and also what Wolf King-Halbig said and others.
But Alex has brought up that CIA involvement thing a couple times.
So I want to just touch on that really quickly because I don't think, I'm not even sure if that came up necessarily in episodes that we've done.
So it might be new to some ears.
The CIA wasn't involved in the shooting, but when the FBI released the redacted reports of the investigation, it included interviews with people who knew Adam Lanza and his mother.
There's one interview that they conducted with a person whose name is redacted, which was filed in a report that was dated December 16th, 2012.
This was a friend of Lanza's mother, Nancy, who had her over to the house periodically.
Quote, when Adam Lanza was in ninth grade, Nancy told Redacted that Adam had hacked into a government computer system.
Adam had made it through the second level of security, and when he tried to breach the third level, the screen went black, and the authorities showed up at Lanza's door at 36 Yogananda Street.
Nancy believed that the authorities that showed up at her door were either the FBI or CIA.
Nancy had to convince the authorities that her son was just very intelligent and was challenging himself to see if he could hack into a government system.
If you consider this in the larger picture of that full interview, it's fairly clear that this was not a reliable assessment that Nancy was making.
Then that's where the CIA comes from.
It's Nancy saying that these people were CIA that showed up.
One event that's described in this interview involves that friend leaving invitations to a dinner party in all the neighbors' mailboxes.
Nancy never RSVP'd, so this person asked why.
And Nancy said it was, quote, because there was no return address on the envelope.
She had thought there was anthrax in it.
This is what Alex is using as the foundation of his assertion that the CIA was involved in the Sandy Hook shooting.
He's spinning conspiracy theories about the shooting while under oath in the deposition where he's being sued for things related to his spinning of conspiracy theories about the shooting.
Which to me says that if I'm like, hey, here's how we punish this guy, if you want it to stop, you have to bankrupt him.
That's the reality of it because he's not going to stop.
And if he does stop for the Sandy Hook families, it's just going to go somewhere else, and he's not going to learn from the behavior because in the depositions for the behavior, he's already lost.
You've repeatedly said that this, this court process, this lawsuit, what just happened, is all a sham because you turned everything over and that court still defaulted you anyway, right?
Yeah, so the claims that Alex is making of like complying with all this stuff when confronted with like this is something from three and a half, four years ago that you just ignored.
I want to make one really important clarification.
In terms of the preparation of these clips, I have done a little editing, but the only things that I've cut out are when there will be a call for an exhibit, and then there is a long stretch while the exhibit is being procured.
Yeah, out of a binder.
And so there are long stretches of like just finding shit.
Basically, and so I've cut those down for the sake of listening.
Right.
But not taking out things that would provide greater context or lead to a misrepresentation.
You've got Mrs. Lewis' case where you wrote an affidavit saying your lawyer screwed it up.
And you've got Mr. Hesslin's IEED case, which you just got sanctioned because you sent Rob Dew to the deposition and he couldn't answer any questions.
And if all of those things are true, when you get onto your show and you tell your show that this is all just a kangaroo court and you completely complied but got railroaded, that's not true.
Especially in your deposition where you're fucked up, to have the lawyer remind you you're not even a third of the way through the number of cases that you've ignored.
Do you remember we talked in that last deposition about the Bloomberg email where Bloomberg sent an email out to his people said get ready in the next 24 hours?
I mean, I would say a larger percentage than that agree with my worldview, but I mean, I would say 10% of the countries watch something I've done and agree with me.
So this is a bit of a misstep, I believe, on Alex's part, because he's in a deposition where the goal is determining the damages he's going to be facing in this case.
One of the relevant questions when it comes to defamation, particularly in a case like this where the defamation was broadcast, is how many people were exposed to the defamatory material.
And the interest of his case should make Alex downplay the size of his audience, but his ego won't allow it.
So he says under oath that 10% of the English-speaking world or about 135 million people are in his audience.
That's a wide audience that he's essentially admitting would have been exposed to the things that he's being sued for, which is unclear if he even understood that in this question.
It's so funny to me because from, I mean, like, I can see this perfectly just from Alex's tone of voice is just like, this is a man who knows something's up, but you're saying all the right things to make me say the things that I want to say.
So these questions of like, you've got a big audience, don't you, Mr. Jones?
Even the way that Mark has phrased it is, of course, Alex is going to say, well, yes, my audience is huge.
So this is a particular highlight for me, Mike Down for this, because now that we've established that there's this really large audience, Mark wants to talk about, you know, you have a responsibility to not lie to your audience.
That's the sole document you produced to me just a couple, I guess, a month or two ago, in regard to discovery requests for any documents you had regarding Mr. Posner.
That's the sole document that was in that folder labeled Posner.
That's it.
And that, you will agree with me, appears to be a very large, looks to be about 187-page comprehensive background report on Mr. Posner.
So this is a particularly interesting point in this exchange because Alex seems actually confused by the presentation of this document.
And it's a gigantic and extensive background check on Leonard Posner, one of the parents of the children killed at Sandy Hook.
The fact that Free Speech Systems turned that over in the case is bizarre.
The fact that that was in their files to begin with is bizarre.
Like, all of it does not add up.
I suspect, based on Alex's attempts to workshop an explanation, that one of two things is going on here.
Either he knew about this document and is surprised to see it, so he's trying to come up with the cover story, or he had no idea about its existence, but he realizes how fucked up it is that that was in their files.
So he's trying to come up with a cover story for that.
Either way, the result is an unconvincing mess.
And this question is just left open for a jury to hear without any explanation or exculpatory context on Alex's part.
And I don't think the existence of this document looks good.
Especially considering one of the things that's discussed about Alex and Infowars' behavior is the publishing of Posner's address where he got his mail and stuff.
And so the existence of this kind of extremely thorough background report is not great.
One that has a lot of personal information about it.
You bet.
You know, if I were somebody who had already had a default judgment against me in one case and then specifically releasing a private person's information was at fault in another case, I would not want to have a big stack of that person's private information in my purpose in my corporate files.
And I think that Mark's strategy is flexible enough that he can allow for Alex to say some bullshit and then run into a wall with some of these deflection tactics.
Yeah, you know, and when the sort of linguistic and rhetorical dodges that he uses that are just almost second nature, he couldn't stop himself if he wanted to.
I would imagine not, but you do have to sort of put a pin in them.
Because you do it enough, it does send the message that I'm not going to put up with it.
It's going to be an uneffective and unsuccessful strategy.
And I think that may be how you have to talk to him.
Yeah, well, if he didn't sound like he had failed a book report every time he answered a question, maybe you wouldn't have to talk to him like a fucking child.
But the way Alex answered that question is really puzzling to me.
Like, listening to it, I was very confused.
First, he's aware that Mr. Posner politely complained to Infowars and was ignored.
Then, Alex is unaware that Posner went on to complain to YouTube, but when confronted with how absurd that statement is, considering things he said publicly, Alex tries to explain how he could be mad at Posner about free speech issues, but somehow not aware that he'd complained to YouTube about Alex and gotten a strike on his channel.
You can basically hear the gears moving here.
Well, Alex is trying to come up with a just plausible enough explanation for all the details he thinks he has to account for.
Like, oh, no, the reason I did those shows was because I heard that he was getting things taken down all over the place and was against free speech.
Had nothing to do with any personal interaction I had.
So This transitions from being some questions about Mr. Posner to being questions about another parent, Neil Hesslin, who was featured in the Megan Kelly piece that Alex got so mad about.
So this is, I think, a really good approach that Mark is taking with the questioning, where he's getting out in front of Alex's criticism of the media.
He says, one of the ways that Alex can best deflect from taking responsibility for his actions is to point to other media entities and yell about the mistakes they've made or how they're corrupt.
By introducing that on his own, Mark is essentially taking that tool away or at least weakening its impact.
Because if Alex tries to employ that dodge, the response he can clearly expect isn't a distracting argument, but something like, we're in agreement that the media isn't great, but that's not relevant to the discussion we're having.
This is something that I think is a really good tactic you can use when you're talking to hyper-evasive people who are also full of shit.
If there's something that's a standard rhetorical refuge that they tend to take, staking out your own claim in that space makes it so they're less comfortable retreating to it.
And that's a good ploy.
And at the same time, you've re-centered this to being like, did you believe Neil Hesslin when he said this about his kid?
I want to take you back to the night that you first saw that Megan Kelly interview, which probably was a surprise for you considering that it was not what she represented it to you to be, correct?
And on that night when you saw that video and you saw Mr. Hesslin saying those things, I want to take you back to that date.
Okay.
And at that date, you understood that if Infoworst were to make a video saying Mr. Hesslin could not have held his son, that would be very upsetting to Mr. Hesslin.
Who do you know sitting here today who made the choice for Owen Schroyer to put those claims by Jim Fetzer on the air about Neil Husson after the Megan Kelly interview?
You also know that a month after Mr. Schroyer made that video, you then took that five-minute video from the live show and played it on your show again.
So this question, Mark poses, brings up a point that puts Alex in a really uncomfortable position.
He needs the impression to be that Infowar's reporters are all in-depth researchers who bring their own work to the show and deliver hard news.
This is an important image for Alex to maintain since it looks like what journalists do, kind of.
The problem, however, is that Owen has told Mark that when he said that Neil Hesslin couldn't have held his son after the shooting, he was just reading an article someone put in front of him with no awareness of what the article was or what the sources were.
So Alex is now in the position of having to claim that Owen lied.
This is likely because the alternative opens a can of worms that Alex does not want to have opened to the public, and that's asking the question, who put the article in front of Owen?
If Owen isn't lying, then someone in that studio has a shocking level of editorial control over what goes on on the show, and we have no idea who that person might be.
You can see how this question alone could lead to some discomfort, because if such a person exists, you have to ask yourself, how did they get this editorial authority?
Is that part of their job description?
And what kind of digging do they do into the sources that they are providing for the anchors to just say on air?
On the flip side of this, it also opens up a question about who can and can't just tell Owen what to say on air.
If a person who fed him the story was someone like a boom mic operator, then that raises the question: can anyone just put something in front of Owen and he'll read it on air as the news?
Yeah, so Alex is in the position now where one option he has is throwing Owen under the bus.
The other option involves the possibility of some undisclosed editorial manager giving Owen the story to report, or the possibility of complete negligence and lack of oversight about everything they put on the air to the point where any person who's there.
What I find interesting about this so far, and really what is going to do Alex more than anything else is that Alex's ability to understand questions is so shallow that he doesn't realize that by answering one of Mark's questions, he is then raising the possibility that more questions will be asked.
Like he doesn't get that.
He believes that the answer is the end of the question.
So the only two people in the room who are probably going to have any influence on what goes in front of the anchor to say are the producer and the person who's researching you, checking clips and that sort of thing.
If you received information that called into doubt Mr. Fetzer's credibility, you would check in and verify that before ever relying on him again, correct?
This whole thing that he's doing with like, I'm just a talk show host kind of thing, it just, it feels like a, you wouldn't hit a guy with glasses kind of thing.
I mean, like, he's also trying to present this idea of like everything we cover is just like mainstream media stuff.
Like, he pretends that he has high-level secret sources.
He constantly is taking primary source documents and coming up with fantasy interpretations of them.
He's regularly conducting the most softball interviews with dangerous lunatics.
And a lot of the time, he's even reporting stuff based on fake stories from his past or esoteric dreams that he came up with that he had that he thinks are prophetic.
So I've made some comments about tactics and strategies Mark's using that I think are positive.
In the interest of total fairness, I do have to clarify that Mark has a slightly incorrect piece of information that he's putting out here.
David Knight was totally into what Steve was saying about Sandy Hook and actually was still promoting that Sandy Hook was fake on his show until at least 2017.
David got sick of Steve when he said that the Las Vegas shooting was fake and that led to the deterioration of their working relationship.
And then David got really mad when Steve started coming back on the show around the lead up to the 2020 election.
David was insistent that Steve was a con man and the stuff about all the balance being watermarked with blockchain was stupid and that Steve was just lying to Alex.
This is what led to him getting fired and replaced by Harrison Smith hosting the American Journal.
So there is a definite truth to the tension between the two of them.
But David Knight actually was totally fine with this.
So we've got this established that David Knight, around the time of the Megan Kelly interview, at 6 p.m., was emailing himself an article with dirt on Neil Hesslin.
I think this is a good strategy that's being employed here because there's no question for Alex to answer other than just like, do you have reason to believe this is inauthentic?
Right.
It essentially gives Alex no room to move or to spin anything.
There's almost definitely no information that Alex could give about these emails that would be useful.
But letting them just sit there, there's clear indications that senior employees at InfoWars were doing research into things that they could use to smear Hesslin at 2 a.m. or 2.50 something a.m.
And 6 p.m. that day, like there's a stretch of time where he had it's almost like it was his job for the day.
So because there's, I don't know, maybe the appearance of looking for ways to attack this person who was in the Megan Kelly interview seemed like maybe threatening to Alex.
I did not kill their children, and I didn't visit Adam Lanza's house.
The CIA did, and all the rest of that.
And no one sued me back at the time when I was actually talking about it.
It was once I became extremely famous.
Hillary Clinton made an issue about it in campaign ads.
And then Trump won the election.
And then I became this big supercharged political target as low-hanging fruit.
And then they go, oh, he's the Sandy Hook man.
And then the anti-gun control groups and the Democratic Party basically attached themselves to me so that every time I was in the news, they could then bring back up Sandy Hook for the gun control advocacy that they have.
Was any of that meant to be a reason that you contend that the Sandy Hook families are faking, or the same, my clients are faking their distress over Sunday?
I think when, for instance, you can understand how when Neil Hesslin has spent the last moments with his little heroic child who saved some lives that day, looking him in the face with a bullet hole in his head.
You can almost hear Alex starting to turn into like show mode here.
You can almost hear that flip get that switch get flipped because there's just like, I guess I'm gonna yell now, or I guess I'm gonna get really combative and do a performance.
Well, it was in reaction to him being forced to say, yes, that is, you know, once he got that negative, that terrible headspace of just having to say, yes, I know what you're saying.
He couldn't deflect on anything.
So then it just turned into him being like, there's only one way for me to take control of this again.
Okay, so if Neil Huslin spent these last moments with his son, has this cherished memory, putting his hands through his son's hair, and then he sees Mr. Schroyer and then you get on TV and draw serious doubt about whether he even held his son, whether he's telling the truth.
And he did that after he had asked you to stop, you can understand why that man might have some negative feelings about you.
Because Megan Kelly went and organized the whole thing for publicity to go after the Second Amendment.
They stepped into this, used it for political purposes, went after the American people, and then get surprised when people think it might be staged, might be synthetic.
unidentified
You think Neil Husslin went on national television to ask you to stop as part of a plot to what?
So now Alex has gotten himself into a strange position where he's trying to claim that these people were doing these sort of pageants to attack the Second Amendment.
And it's fun when you're on a radio show and you can broadly say these things.
Do you have any reason to dispute that these parents' grieving process over the past eight years has been impacted by Infowar's actions as it regards San Diego?
Alex is trying to come up with a justification for his actions because he's being confronted with the reality that he traumatized these parents with his shit.
And the place he decides to land is that they used their children's deaths for political gain against the Second Amendment.
Mark's rebuttal is so revealing because Alex can't name a single thing that these two people who are suing Alex ever did in terms of gun advocacy.
He has no idea what these people did or didn't do.
His response was just the normal kind of dodge he'll use when he's being questioned by some shithead like Rogan, who'll just go along with whatever Alex says.
Here's why this is key to understand.
Alex didn't say or do the things he did about the particular parents who were suing him because they were in opposition to the Second Amendment.
What happened was that Alex saw the conversation surrounding Sandy Hook and the shooting there as being a threat to his guns.
So he decided that the Sandy Hook parents were one uniform group, which he needed to attack to change the narrative.
Alex didn't really care about any of them or what they were doing or not doing individually.
He saw the collection of families as an entity he could attack and paint as coming after the Second Amendment, and portraying them as being actors is a really easy, convenient way to invalidate them to his audience.
Maybe some of the parents were involved in gun-related activism.
So to Alex, that means they all were, and they were using the shooting to push their agenda.
To undermine what he perceived as them using the shooting for political gain, Alex attacked individual parents because he felt that by doing so, he was invalidating the group as a whole and protecting the Second Amendment.
And this is when I would go back to the earlier question about Neil Heslin when he was on Megan Kelly and Mark really forced Alex to get to this place of like, yes, I get it.
If he, I mean, he's a human being.
If your son has died and you hold him, I get that that would hurt.
I get that.
And then even then, he can try and justify his behavior after that.
But once you've established that he can look at another human being and say, yes, my actions hurt you, that is underlying all of these justifications.
But I think even in that case, even with that established, Alex could still retreat to the idea that hurting them is an unfortunate byproduct of defending the Second Amendment.
I'd have to go back and look, but I definitely said that I had serious questions about it and could see how it was staged with all the bizarreness, man.
I tell you.
unidentified
No, Mr. Jones, let me just make something really clear.
The reason the statements that I want to talk to you about is you admit that over those five years, you repeatedly, without equivocation, said it was fake.
The children didn't die.
There were actors playing the different parts of different people.
You said those things.
Can you now just admit that for the jury that you said them?
I mean, you also have to cut off the physical exits as well as the financial exits, as well as we've had to cut off a lot of exits to get to a place where Alex is here.
Before we broke, we had talked about whether InfoWars had ever promoted or directed people to Jim Fetzer's book, tried to get more viewership for Jim Fetzer's book, and you weren't aware of that, right?
I want to start at the bottom with Alan Powell's email and he says, Rob, Jim Fetzer put together a book on Sandy Hook to which I contributed two chapters.
Amazon have decided they won't handle it.
I think Jim would agree to it being distributed by Infowars free as a PDF.
We were both just on the phone, we were both just on the Jeff Rinch show today, and Jim gave that right of distribution to Jeff.
Would you see if Alex would have Jim and Jim Tracy on to promote the book and talk a bit about the still running soar of Scandy Hook?
I spoke to Jim Fetzer about this today and said he will speak to you.
If you flip over onto the back part of the page, you just see it says, cheers, Alan Powell.
And then it says, Jim Fetzer, professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota, who wrote a book claiming Sandy Hook was stage, notes that based on the facts of the case, Hesslin's statement that he held his son with a bullet hole through his head could not have happened.
But if I had spent my entire career not reading things and then suddenly was starting to be told more and more terrifyingly that the lawsuits weren't going well, I would take maybe a whole week to just really read through everything that I'm supposed to know about.
That way I wouldn't be surprised when I was in a deposition.
And maybe I wouldn't get caught in so many of these fucking traps.
The only thing that I'm actually, I think when we get into this document, we'll quickly discover that it may not be necessary to even read all of this stuff.
But if so, I may need to give you some time to go read it if you want to do that.
But what I want to ask you about this document is up at the very top, you see that this is an email on June 29th, 2018.
And then also copied, there's a CC line, and there's several other people copied who are either media organizations and there's also some government addresses.
Rob, please send this video to your uncle, the former FBI agent who attended my Connecticut Freedom of Information hearings in Cartford, Connecticut.
He told me that I was right about what was happening, which gave me a tat more courage.
He has friends who can verify this video to be accurate.
And now we know that the children who supposedly died at Sandy Hook are at the Super Bowl on February 3rd, 2013, and that is why we have never ever heard them sing again.
Think about it for just a second.
They sing before 110 million people worldwide with Jennifer Hudson.
They have 87,000 people in the stadium of over 3,500 news reporters, and we never have one interview in the newspaper on television from them.
Why?
Just think about how much money came flowing in after that February 3rd, 2013 Super Bowl performance from across the world.
Why have they never performed again if they were so great to be asked to sing at the February 3rd, 2013 Super Bowl?
Why no appearances on the national early morning television shows?
They sing before 110 million people and they simply disappear.
Even Beyonce met them.
Where are they?
Are they all dead?
Are they coerced and threatened by the NFL and CBS Sports and by their own parents never to talk about the greatest day in their lives?
Are they part of child trafficking?
Who would do this to fourth-grade children when we all know that children need to express their feelings or emotions or it can have long-term mental health issues?
Then below that is a YouTube link, and then it says, please have your uncle verify and tell me that I am not crazy because I have now run out of funds chasing the truth.
Please help if you can afford it.
Wolfgang Halbig.
And then he gives his address and phone number.
Correct?
I've read all that correctly.
Yes.
Okay.
When he asked them to verify that he is not crazy, that's not something that could be done from this email.
So this is an important foundation here that's being built through this email because it kind of boxes Alex in.
And honestly, he did it to himself.
Because he's getting presented with a clearly insane email that Halbig sent Rob Dew trying to reach Rob's uncle.
Alex has to say that it's not coming from a credible person, but he also has to maintain that it wasn't wrong for him to have seen Halbig as a credible source prior to this.
That's why Alex tries to use this excuse that it was actually, this was when he decided that Halbig wasn't a good source and that he shouldn't listen to him.
This is a really dumb piece of information to Alex offer up, essentially unprompted, because what it does is it puts a hard deadline on the point where you yourself are admitting you had no reason to take this person's claim seriously.
This is basically creating an unanswerable question for Alex if you can demonstrate that he took Halbig's claim seriously at any point after this.
And that's a real problem for Alex's appearance of consistency.
This is also a double-edged sword because Alex is also essentially testifying that the things that Halbig did or sent Infowars prior to this were not enough to get him to think that Halbig was nuts and shouldn't be trusted as a source.
So remember the date of this.
This was November 19th, 2016 was when this happened.
Well, again, it's a thing we talk about a bit, and that's the like specificity is a real danger.
Yeah.
When you're giving this, whether it's that exact date of the email or this time that this story was being pushed by Halbig, that is too specific for you to be able to play games with.
So there's a long chunk that I skip over here because between the last clip and the next one, and it's not big, it's not because the stuff wasn't interesting, but because it's not really relevant to some of the questions we have.
It consists of Mark and Alex discussing how the alternative media is really important in the country because the corporate media isn't really something that we can trust to get us out of the mess we're in.
Mark keeps trying to work on in a recognition that it's important for the alternative media to hold themselves responsible when they get things wrong.
And then Alex just goes off about how he's the victim and the mainstream media is out to crush all alternative media.
It's a bit of a circular thing, but it seems like the goal is to try and attempt to build some rapport.
That has the effect of possibly confusing Alex and getting him off his set plans.
And it also makes it so the kinds of rebuttals can't really be used effectively.
Alex can't excuse his behavior by condemning the mainstream media because Mark can just say, you're telling me, man, but that's not what we're here to talk about.
So it's again just sort of creating that camaraderie almost.
So this is another email from Halbig, and you'll notice that this one's dated prior to the one about the Super Bowl choir, which is where Alex's claim that he realized Halbig is no good.
So this email was in Infowars corporate files, which itself is weird because no one at Infowars seems to be copied on this email itself.
It's very weird.
Its existence in the files implies an awareness of its contents since it wasn't emailed to them.
I'm going to go ahead and read the email to you, all right?
Michelle, how could you and your husband, as responsible parents, even allow your precious child Josephine to attend that filthy and deplorable-looking school on December 14th, 2012?
This school, as you must have known, is and was a toxic waste dumped, as reported by environmental consultants who requested more money from City of Newtown leaders before demolishing the school and transported all of the high levels of lead paint, high levels of asbestos, and especially the high levels of PCPs in the groundwater at Sandy Hook out of state.
Josephine, your child should have expected more from you before that tragic day as a parent.
You are supposed to protect her from serious lifelong health risk when you send her to that school every day.
Why would you as a parent and all those other parents who supposedly lost a child to gunfire allow their children as you did to serious toxic waste?
This all unfolded before the first shot at that school even occurred.
Did you not see the filth and deplorable conditions when you went to that school or are you blind?
I do not understand unless you explain it to me and the world why you and your husband failed Josephine, who is a non-verbal child as you stated and depended on protect her from all the serious health risks that you sentenced her to on a daily basis.
Now you talk about school security.
You have got to be joking.
You have all these experts on your staff who are now part of your conspiracy.
They should be ashamed of their actions in supporting you.
A mom puts her own child at risk on a daily basis and is now the expert on school security.
I look forward to meeting you one day when I can take your deposition about not the shooting, not about the shooting, but why you and your husband failed Josephine by sending her to that filthy and deplorable school with all that toxic waste.
We call this child endangerment when you know of the danger that exposed your child to serious lifelong health risk.
You must have known without a doubt because pictures do not, and it says LI, but I believe that means lie.
You put her life in serious risk every day, knowing how filthy and deplorable that school is.
I am enclosing photos that you must recognize since you took your child to school and having a child in special needs, you would expect a school environment and school climate that allows children to learn and teachers to teach, right?
Please explain to me if you can why a school principal Dawn Hopspring would allow her school to be so filthy and deplorable looking.
There is not one female elementary school principal in this country who would allow her school to be that filthy and deplorable both inside and outside and most of all allow her to become a toxic waste dump placing every child in her city.
Right?
All of the pictures are taken by the major crime squad from the Connecticut State Police.
Please respond since you are now the expert on school security.
Wolfgang W. Halbig, www.sandyjustice, sandyhookjustice.com.
And see, some of these clips are a little bit longer where Mark's reading these emails.
And I think that it's important because it honestly was kind of a revelation for me, too, because I understood that Halbig's behavior was characterized this way.
And it really, it really did make me not take it more seriously or anything because I already felt this was a pretty serious case, but it's personal.
It made it more visceral.
And knowing the actual behavior and the ways that he's contacting these family members and the things that he's doing simultaneously to the time when Alex is promoting him and such, it really just gets pretty inexcusable.
I've got a new rule for my life, which is that I don't want to be around people who, if I were to have their emails read to me in a deposition, are both so awful I would have to sigh and put my head in my hands, but also so long that I have to do it multiple times.
And then I'm going to go ahead and read this email to you.
It says, Nick and Laura Phelps did a great job acting in Newtown, on Newtown, Connecticut on December 14th, 2012.
I visited their home today at 1924 Westover Reserve Boulevard, Windmere, Florida, 34786.
And thanks to Lieutenant Van Gailey telling me during my wellness check of Nick and Laura Phelps that they no longer live in Newtown, Connecticut, and that they are now, and they are now Richard and Jennifer Sexton.
Guess what?
He is totally right.
And can you believe it that my Newtown police department guided me in the right direction?
They have a beautiful home with a three-car garage.
They were not home today, but the good news was that the three adult female moms with their children standing outside their homes observed me and wanted to know what I was doing.
It was spring break.
It is spring break for Orange County, Florida school children.
I showed them this picture and I told them that I did not want to go to the wrong house to surprise Nick and Laura from Newtown, Connecticut, aka Richard and Jennifer Sexton today.
It took a few minutes for them to look at the pictures and then when they asked why I wanted to speak to them, I told them that I had been in Newtown and wanted to surprise them since they now live in Florida.
They asked for my name, which I gave them as Wolfgang Halbig.
They told me how I would knew them and I told them that they have been on the national news so I wanted to meet them again.
Our conversation was all about Newtown, Connecticut.
So she said, do you mind if I text her?
I said, absolutely not.
Waited about 10 minutes only to learn that they did not know me, which surprised me.
They verified the pictures and why would she text them about Newtown, Connecticut, and that someone from there wanted to visit if they were not Nick and Laura Phelps now, Richard and Jennifer Sexton.
At first I did not want to enter since it is a gated community, but several people told me just go on in there.
There is no security guard at the gates.
If there is CCTV, they will see me being told to go in, and that is the only reason or I would not have entered.
Now, who says law enforcement does not know what they are doing?
So, yeah, we have a demonstration and a point made that after this, even all this, your timeline doesn't make sense.
You know, after all this bullshit, the stalking of families, horrifying emails being sent to Nico and Rob.
And after the 2016 point, when you had every reason to doubt his credibility as an expert, you're still repeating his things in the Sandy Hook Vampires video.
The subject line says, how could you as a mother stop and buy your special brand of coffee on December 14th, 2012, when you heard as a mom that shots had been fired at the Sandy Hook school?
So now we have another email where Halbig is harassing the families of Sandy Hook victims.
This email's in corporate files for InfoWars.
And this one's from March 10th, 2015, which is prior to the supposed cutoff of Alex thinking Halbig is credible.
The picture starts to come into focus a little bit, where you have Halbig demonstrating a pattern of behavior that people at Infowars had every reason to know about, given their access to these emails, and Rob Dew, news director for the nightly news, being copied on almost all of them.
Also, this doesn't come up in the deposition, but Wolfgang Halbig was a guest on Alex's show on March 4th, 2015, just six days before he wrote this email harassing Scarlett Lewis.
And, like, it's not hard to put some pieces together of Wolfgang is on Alex's show.
The website, his website's given out.
It's conceivable that donations are accrued by his appearance on here.
And days later, he's engaging in this behavior where he harasses grieving parents.
And then it says, some comments on Halbig's last interview from a law student.
Okay?
And then I'm going to go ahead and read you this email from a gentleman named R. Darren Brumfield.
It was sent to media contacts at Infowars.com.
He writes, two cents from a third-year law student.
Madam or sir, I'm in my final semester of law school.
I listened to the Wolfgang Halbig video and some significant alarm bells went off.
I also wrote on the YouTube page, but I copy and paste here.
Okay, so let's, so I just get this straight.
Starting at 3130, he filed his lawsuit in Seminole County Court in Florida.
Not in federal court in Florida, but in state court, there is a legal requirement called, quote, standing, unquote.
He does not have standing to sue in Seminole County Court.
He was not a party in the shooting in any fashion.
There is also a concept called, quote, jurisdiction, unquote.
Either the man is lying or the judge is insane.
A Florida county-level judge would not have jurisdiction for any reason other than a contract, tort, or crime issue in directly involving Halbig.
Something is completely wrong here.
Had he said, quote, in the federal district of Florida, quote, or whatever district it might be if the state is split, that may at least be plausible.
This is completely insane and cannot go anywhere but into the trash can.
No standing, no subject matter jurisdiction, no personal jurisdiction, two cents from a third-year law student who is legally current in his education.
The man seems to be grasping and stretching.
No judge in their right mind would do such a thing as he describes.
Here's an example.
Imagine there is a crime in Las Vegas and the criminal kills himself.
There is no law whatsoever that would allow Alex or anyone else to file a suit in San Antonio for anything regarding the crime in Las Vegas.
There is no claim that could be made in Texas for something that happened in Nevada.
So here we have that not only did Infowars receive information suggesting that what Halbig was up to was completely insane, in Darren Brumfield's words, but actually Nico ended up forwarding that information directly to Rob Dew, correct?
Well, the email that is forwarded further from Nico to Rob is someone questioning the sanity of this person, which I think in terms of due diligence, maybe you would take a second look at the person and notice that, hey, there's these emails where he's harassing Sandy Oak family members.
You might think that would happen, but I guess it didn't.
And this is a bizarre sort of picture that you get from these emails.
But I think it's remarkable to see that Alex's response to this is bordering on what he would expect a person to feel.
And it's like, the Kraken's a mythological beast, right?
Yeah.
Trying to get into sort of the record and have Alex respond to, like, you know, the Kraken, that's not somebody that's, you knew he's going to go cause trouble.
Yeah, I think a lot of the appearance that you get from this deposition is certainly a lack of remorse, a lack of having learned anything, a lack of even seeming to be willing to understand the problem.
Yeah, and even beyond that, like a real lack of institutional guardrails within InfoWars, where there is no standards for what they can or can't report.
I think that we'll probably skip over a fair amount of this because it is in the same way that Rob's deposition was, there were a lot of just like, I don't know.
Although, I will say that I think that some of the strategies that she does employ in terms of answering questions are not much better and maybe are more shocking and way more offensive than some of the things I've seen.
So at the beginning of this, at the start, Mark asks a number of questions to try and nail down how much preparation Daria did for the deposition and with whom she consulted.
The preparation is clearly minimal and the questions are kind of repetitive, so I'm going to skip past that bit where that's discussed.
I'll put it this way.
On a scale of 1 to 10, she's not very prepared, but a little more than Rob Dew.
So the topic that Daria is referring to is the sourcing and research that went into the productions of the videos that are listed in the plaintiff's case.
So I don't know what she needs the false flag Wikipedia page for.
It's strange because, again, as the corporate representative, like the lion's share of what she's supposed to be discussing is like sourcing and personnel who worked on the videos in question.
Yeah.
And that has nothing to do with the Reichstag fires Wikipedia.
In other words, what I'm wondering is, from reading that article, did you come away with the idea that there is substantial evidence?
In other words, non-trivial evidence, which people could use to support the idea that the USS Maine was intentionally destroyed by the United States government.
So at this point, I think it becomes a bit clear that the strategy of the articles that Daria has in the folder amounts to a lazy attempt at illustrating that false flags have happened in the past, and thus it's not so out of left field for Alex to question whether any event may or may not be another one.
That's all good and well, but it's really superfluous to the questions at hand.
And the thing that I find most interesting is that while being questioned about the article concerning the sinking of the main, Daria seems unwilling to commit to even saying that there's evidence that it was a false flag, only going so far as to say that there's controversy.
Hey, listen, if you think water is air and that's how we have to talk about it and I have to say water is air and air is water, that's fucking fine as long as we agree.
Yeah, it's that idea that the beginning of communication is the definition of terms.
You can't really, and I do think that that does come into a problem with interacting with folks from InfoWars, as it seems from these depositions in particular that I've seen.
I mean, it seems like you're not having, you're talking in different languages.
When we talked to John Ronson, he very briefly had this moment where we went kind of far off and he just said, you know, he was wondering, how is it that we can judge Alex, you know, just in this sense of like, do we judge him the way we judge other people?
Because he's clearly not like other people.
Who can you judge him by?
What is the standard by which Alex can be judged?
And it's like, when you have an entire organization that is thinking it's totally fine to print out a Wikipedia article and take it to a deposition, I don't know.
So we've got the bio of these two people, which I think is, I mean, I don't think it matters much, but at least it seems more relevant to what you might bring.
The reason I wanted to have this article is that I thought one of the victim's mothers there was interesting information regarding the victim's mother and her request to have an open casket for the funeral.
It seems to me that the motivation for doing so would be to exploit a child's death for a political agenda.
Let's say six years from now, your child walks into elementary school and is massacred in a gun violence incident, and some news organizations are saying that your child is fake.
Can you see that a possible way to combat that would be to have an open casket funeral for your child?
So Daria didn't pick up on this, but the reason that Mark brought up the fact that the parent is Jewish and decided to have an open casket funeral for her son is because that's a huge deal.
In most Jewish traditions, it's not acceptable to have an open casket funeral.
Out of respect, it's traditionally understood that you're not supposed to gaze upon the face of the deceased.
The fact that a person of Jewish heritage would make the decision to have an open casket funeral because people were saying that her son didn't exist indicates a very strong conviction that the world not be allowed to pretend that this didn't happen or try to mentally hide behind safe images.
As Veronique, the mother in question, told the forward, quote, I just want people to know the ugliness of it so we don't talk about it abstractly, like these little angels went to heaven.
No, they were butchered.
They were brutalized.
And that's what haunts me at night.
It's a subtle nuance that's being hinted at in this question that's completely missed by Daria because in preparation for this deposition, it doesn't seem like she's done all that much.
I mean, the strange thing is I believe her, but partially because she's on the other side, so she's not going to do that stuff because she knows it won't fucking do a thing.
And so of all the documents that you've reviewed regarding the plaintiffs, the only ones you've reviewed that you chose to go review were two articles about Mrs. Posner choosing to have an open casket for her son.
Correct?
unidentified
That wasn't the reason why I reviewed the article.
I'm asking you, of all the documents you reviewed about the plaintiffs before this deposition, the only two that you did review are articles that discuss Noah Posner's funeral having an open casket.
The only two pieces of documentation that you have reviewed for this deposition about the plaintiffs are two articles, both of which discuss in the article Noah Posner's open casket funeral.
Okay, so when it comes down to the documents that you reviewed for this deposition about the plaintiffs, the only information that you're really gleaning from this that's useful to this deposition has to concerns Noah Posner's open casket and the appearance of his body.
Like it's a you have Wikipedia articles, Steve and Wolfgang's self-written bios, correct, and multiple articles about the Posner, Noah Posner having an open casket funeral.
No, I understand that you have in your history at InfoWars since 2015, you've probably on occasion seen some of these videos.
I understand that.
What I'm asking you is since the date you were told you were given this deposition in November and you were preparing for this deposition, you haven't watched any of these videos, right?
Once we've established here that she hasn't watched these videos in preparation, it turns out also that by extension, that means she doesn't even know what they say.
And then Mark will push back about, like, what did you do to try and figure out, if anything, who made this video, who worked on this, what are the sources?
Well, what I'm saying is if there's an expert and you've been relying on him, guy supposed to be a school safety shooting expert, whatever it is, right?
And you're relying on him.
And then, just hypothetically, that person just starts saying absolutely crazy things.
And it's pretty clear they're going off their rocker.
Maybe they were even credible at one time.
But suddenly they start saying a bunch of crazy things.
To the company, when it's deciding whether to put stuff on about Sandy Hook, it needs to, it should consider whether what the things its expert is saying are crazy, correct?
Well, if he's the expert on the subject matter and who knows a lot more on the subject than any of us working at free speech systems, it would be reasonable to believe that we would want to listen what consider what the information that he's bringing.
What exactly in Wolfgang Halbig's history and expertise makes him an expert that you should defer to on whether this picture of the Super Bowl choir is actually pictures of children who were murdered?
So you see this picture, and in trying to determine whether it was created by a sane, rational human being, you look at it and go, I have no strong feelings either way.
No, I mean, there's the problem with this little chunk right here is we're in a situation where the rules are such that you can't, Mark can't be like, hey, listen, you know.
And she can't be like, I know, but you know, right?
Personally, I would rather think that those kids were alive than having because the tragedy of being murdered for no reason, the innocence of those children who didn't deserve that kind of fate.
I would hold out hope to the last bit of my soul, hoping and praying that that picture was that that was something that be possible for those kids to be alive.
If I saw that picture and then asked somebody a question about that picture and then they gave me that response, I would throw a table through the wall.
It's really hard to understand this mentality unless you recognize that people like Daria, and I would assume most of the people at Infowars, don't ascribe to the rules of reality, things like cause and effect or object permanence.
In her mind, choosing to believe that the kids who were killed at Sandy Hook are actually secretly in the choir at the Super Bowl, that's an optimistic idea because the alternative is choosing to believe that the kids are dead.
There's so many problems with this idea.
I mean, the most obvious being that what she's describing is essentially just living in a fantasy world because reality is too tough.
But also, she seems to be ignoring how this isn't an isolated thing.
Like, if the kids at Sandy Hook were secretly in that choir, the implications of that are horrific.
And I don't know if this would actually be an optimistic scenario.
If the government had just pulled off a massive false flag and then they were rubbing it in by having the fake kids sing at the Super Bowl, I suspect those kids would not live past halftime.
These are people who work for the literal devil.
They're not above that shit.
I find it hard to believe that if the globalists did something like this, they would just leave those loose-hanging threads out there.
So if you think about it, from your point of view, if you think about it, if the parents, if my clients saw this picture, they should give them a lot of hope, right?
They should react really positively to this with a lot of hope inside, right?
And I would much rather, and I don't know a person with a heart who'd rather think, who would rather believe that the kids are dead versus that the kids might be alive?
I would say it's reasonable for a person with a heart to have that sort of optimism as I'm sure Alex wanted to believe that those kids, if there was any possibility that the kids were not dead, then he was going to grab onto it because that's a much better proposition to have in your heart and mind than to realize that they weren't.
So, Alex Jones, according to how the company views things in terms of your Sandy Hook coverage, Alex Jones said the kids didn't really die and they were really alive in part because he has such a big heart and a lot of hope and optimism.
She's there in an official capacity and still decided to take a very ill-advised swing at trying to pretend that spreading Sandy Hook conspiracies was actually an act of kindness.
Listen, the editorial position of InfoWars and Free Speech Systems is that not only was Santa real in Miracle on 34th Street, he is real outside of Miracle on the 34th Street.
I mean, you know, that's the weird thing that I'm getting right now.
I was so quick to believe her earlier whenever she said that she wouldn't do that stuff because I do believe that she does think that if you were that you would never engage with conspiracy theorists if you're if your kid dies because it won't matter either way.
Like that makes sense to me.
She's saying this with the same tone of like emotional honesty and this is batshit crazy.
Yes, there are a couple moments where you get that outside of the I don't know like answers about sources and I didn't do anything to prepare for this.
And like this, that moment, those two of the moments that are like, that are like really stand out.
All of you lawyers trying to get some sort of remuneration for these Sandy Hook families that we've badgered and horrifically fucked with for the past 10 years or whatever it is, those people.
That's a tough thing to admit to as a corporate representative that, like, ah, I recognized a couple hours into this deposition that I was so underwater that I needed to go on break and do the preparation that I should have done beforehand.
Sandy Hook has been in the news despite the fact that Alex have not mentioned it in years, and it keeps being put in the news as if Alex is the one who is the purveyor of the Sandy Hook news, the Sandy Hook, and him talking about the parents, yet it's the mainstream media who keeps mentioning the parents and tormenting the parents and the entire situation.
And then again, and answering this question, you speculated out of thin air that there was something going on around January 7th, 2015 that put this in the news.
We have Dan Badondi suggesting a guest and writing an email where there's an awareness that Alex is wanting to or planning to make a documentary about Sandy Hook in 2018.
But she's just trying to evade answering or recognizing that there was at least some kind of an internally discussed plan that Alex wanted to make a documentary about Sandy Hook in 2018 and that Dan Badandi was sending sources.
If Rob Dew was sending to you a source from Dan Badandi, the truth warrior, we can be fairly certain that that guest was going to support the idea that Sandy Hook was fake, right?
It would be one thing for Dan Badanti just to be suggesting a guest, but for him to send in a guest on the subject of Sandy Hook, referencing a documentary Alex is thinking of making, and then for Rob to forward that on to Dariet, that indicates that there was internal action being taken on Badanti's suggestion.
It wasn't just something that they ignored, like they want to pretend they always do with Dan Badanti.
The implication is clearly that there was an interest in interviewing guests who would support that the Sandy Hook was a hoax narrative after Alex got sued in the case.
And that's why Brad, the lawyer, is saying, don't answer that question.
If Rob Deere was sending to you a source from Dan Badandi, the truth warrior, would you be fairly certain that that guess was going to support the idea that Sandy Hook was fake, right?
I know Dan Badanti had questions and believed that there was a cover-up in the Sandy Hook case, which he did his hardest trying to investigate as a good reporter would.
So one of the questions in this case is regarding whether or not the Sandy Hook kind of materials were used strategically in terms of marketing or that kind of thing.
Has Infowars, when making its editorial discussions and decisions about the Sandy Hook coverage, has it ever attempted to use its Sandy Hook stories and videos in a strategic way to attract viewers?
The idea that we would make some video uploads about Sandy Hook as a strategic measure, that's not something that would be a would be a part of InfoWars editorial discussions.
All of a sudden, I'm starting to see the defensive end running straight towards my face, because this question is not a calm and happy question that is going to end with your answer being accepted as okay.
We can agree from this email that editor Darren and Louis S. were attempting to use a video about Sandy Hook being a hoax as a future strategic Facebook upload, correct?
So this article that you've brought is what you believe you is.
Let me ask you this.
Is that something that InfoWars had before you went and looked for it for your deposition, or is that something that you got for your deposition to help you acquaint yourself?
So files that I looked through that I searched for Halbig's bio, I could not find anything, as well as seems like he's been memory hold on the internet as well.
So that's the only article that I could actually find in an archive.
Yeah, I would have printed those documents if that's what I thought I needed for you, but to my satisfaction, I did the research, and to my satisfaction, this bio checks out.
So I'm going to skip a couple of clips here because they're long and they essentially achieve a very similar thing that you see in all of these, and that is this idea of like, if you'd known that Halbig was a bad source, would you have acted on it earlier?
Right, right.
And then, of course, Mark produces an email from March 2014 of somebody being like, this guy's credentials do not check out.
And so there's interaction with this person who's clearly bringing up long before they stopped having him on the show that he appears to be full of shit.
It feels like, and this is what is getting into my head.
It feels like neither Alex, nor, and let's face it, all of InfoWars does not understand that when they are in a deposition, the plaintiff is not asking them questions for fun?
Mr. Halbig writes, Michelle, how could you and your husband, as responsible parents, even allow your precious child, Josephine, to attend that filthy and deplorable-looking school on December 14th, 2012?
And listening to this all the way through, especially if you've heard Alex's deposition, you start to notice some really weird dynamics that only become clear if they're being asked about the same documents.
You know, it's really weird.
This document where Halbig is harassing this parent about how filthy the school was is read by Daria, and then she immediately responds that it sounds like a person who's concerned about the well-being of the child.
There's a couple things that I could think of that might explain these different responses.
The first is that they may have prepared for the depositions differently, so Alex might have been slightly more prepared.
The second is a possibility that Alex has at least a modicum of emotional intelligence and can tell that he's supposed to not make excuses for an email like that, whereas Daria is just in like cover your ass and deflect mode.
As I was thinking about this, or as I call it, researching in my mind, I think I came up with another possibility.
This feels like maybe it's connected to Daria's bizarre comments about it being a function of optimism to promote the idea that the children from Sandy Hook were still alive.
This is a fantasy reality where no one with a heart would want to believe that Wolfgang Halbig was an almost cartoon-level asshole who spent his free time harassing grieving parents.
Anyone with a heart would want to believe that he's just very concerned about the janitorial staff at the school.
Yet another option I considered is that it's really difficult as an emotional thing to confront, you know, to see the actions in the real world of a person who you were an active participant in promoting.
When you see that he was harassing and stalking these parents and you know that your network and all your co-workers were whitewashing his reputation, raising money for him, and effectively enabling his behavior, that's got to be a bit of a gut punch.
And I can kind of see why you might want to pretend it's not real.
So whether or not you're a true psychopath or whatever it is you want to say, at the very least, you have to have the emotional ability to evoke emotion.
I mean, when I think about it, the more I think about people like, you know, listening to Daria's deposition, I think about fucking Tucker Carlson.
You know, like, Tucker Carlson can go on his show, and if he didn't have editorial people stopping him, he could easily, easily do all the same Alex shit.
He's just got a bigger network with people reining him in.
So now we get her response to the email about the stalking, where Halbig showed up at these people's house and was talking about talking to their neighbors.
That's the type of psychopathic response that CEOs give to fucking Congress, where you're like, oh, you guys just are willing to watch humanity explode.
So again, Daria is steadfastly refusing to see these negative things in what Halbig did.
The other email was concerned about the cleanliness of the school.
And this one's a passionate investigator.
That's how they rationalize this.
I think that probably feels like good spin at the moment, but this is a huge mistake.
Because in a deposition setting, you need to be considering that your words are going to be played for a jury.
And you should account for them having basic human emotions.
Anyone in the jury who reads or hears that email is going to be disgusted by Halbig's actions because it's clearly a man stalking grieving families.
And when they see you making excuses for it or characterizing it as just a passionate investigator, that's going to look really bad for you.
Because it gives the strong impression that you're either lying to cover something up, or maybe you actually don't think that Halbig stalking these families was that bad a thing for him to have done.
So I have some suspicion that Alex is smart enough to realize that dynamic, which could help explain why he had the responses to those emails that's congruent with how you would want the jury to see you and how you know the jury is going to respond to them.
And I don't even necessarily know where that's a conscious decision, but it might just be like Alex gets that.
It's rank disrespect to not even take this seriously enough to know, like, even if you don't want to know their names as people, you maybe be aware of the names of the cases.
It's easy to laugh at how terrible they are in these depositions.
You know, it's very easy because they're garbage and they're just dumb on an astronomical scale.
But when you do hear that, it just reminds me all over again.
Like, that's why it's fine for them.
That's why they don't care is because they never cared.
That's why they will always go find another Sandy Hook because they don't care what the names are of the people who are going to bankrupt their fucking business.
That was actually a question that came up during Alex's deposition.
His dad is no longer HR.
And it turns out that it might not be that crazy that he was HR to begin with because he did some human resources for the dental company that he was a part of prior to this.
So this last clip is not where the actual deposition ends, but I would say it's where it kind of spiritually ends.
Okay.
And that is in an exchange where, so I got to give a little bit of a context, I guess, to this.
In the Connecticut cases, there's a guy named Corey Slenka, Sklanka, who's basically a partner of Wolfgang Halbig's, an associate in some of the nonsense that he was into.
And so part of the request for production of documents in these cases in Texas involved anything involving Corey Slenka.
It has to do with the documents produced in response to our discovery request and our discovery request for Corey Sklenka, which you would know if you ever answered them.
This is the most disrespectful deposition I've ever been in.
We've been in two depositions where you presented the same company's presented opponent who didn't know anything about what was being on these topics.
And now for you to come in and object to topics about I'm asking about documents produced to my discovery request and you tell me Corey Sklenka isn't responsible for this case.
Both of you all need to get up to speed on what this case is.
First of all, I am objecting on the basis of you asking about the Connecticut litigation.
I'm not saying you have any, I'm not objecting to you asking any questions about your discovery requests.
Second of all, no one is trying to be disrespectful here.
She's doing her best job, and I don't care whether you think she isn't or not.
I don't really care what your personal opinions are on her or not.
If you have a problem with it, which I'm sure you obviously do, you're going to try to do something about it.
I know I'm going to, Brad.
And I want you to maintain for the record that everyone here has been working as hard as they can to actually get you answers that you want.
And I'm sorry that out of the hundreds of thousands of pages of documents that you're asking about specific ones that she doesn't have the exact answer to.
So I think one of the unfortunate things about this is that obviously there is, you know, the Alex deposition is like three hours long and the Daria one's like five hours long.
And, you know, there are things that we just obviously couldn't cover everything.
It's, you know, that, okay, it's like that psychopath test thing, you know?
Sorry to bring up John twice, but it is like that story of, you know, like, oh, this psychopath goes to a funeral, meets somebody cool, and they're like, how do you meet him again?
And the psychopath thinks, oh, you kill somebody, that you only meet them at funerals.
That is exactly what I felt whenever Daria heard the email about Wolfgang fucking stalking people.
And she was like, oh, it's nice to know somebody cares about you.
And the relationship between the times that like when these emails are getting sent, when the harassment's being done, when there's pretty strong indications of negligence and just ignoring what they're doing and who they're promoting.
So, hey, I guess that brings us to the end of this, but I think we may have another episode that's sort of deposition-ish next because of Alex going to the James.