Today, Dan and Jordan discuss an early deposition in the Texas case against Alex Jones. This installment features a complicated and confusing appearance by Rob Jacobson, the Infowars resident documentary filmmaker who was mocked for warning against covering Sandy Hook. Tickets for our March 2 show in Milwaukee are on sale at 10 AM Central
Notably, he has alleged, and I certainly believe this is true, that Rob Dew and Owen Schroyer would refer to him as the resident Jew, and among other things that were made a hostile work environment.
And I think that there is a part of it that Rob feels a desire for some penance.
And I can understand that on some level, but I also...
Find it uncompelling in many ways.
So we're gonna go through this deposition, but it's challenging a little bit because of that dynamic that I do feel like he is probably, in many ways, sincerely guilty about what he was involved in.
My guinea pigs sing when Jordan laughs, but they no longer run from Alex Jones' voice, so your show is one for two in fostering healthy rodent behaviors.
And the reason for that is there is chaos at the beginning of this deposition.
Mark Bankston is taking the deposition, and he begins trying to just say, please introduce yourself.
Good luck.
And then Alex's lawyer, Enoch, he comes in and gets out of line.
It's very hard to present this in small chunks, so I have about a five-minute clip here, and I think it needs to be presented as a whole thing in order to really get the feeling of this and how...
Well, he can be there to object, and the drama and the chaos here at the beginning largely comes down to the fact that Rob Jacobson signed an NDA when he worked at InfoWars.
And so, on behalf of Free Speech Systems and Alex Jones, Enoch can say things like, I don't think you should answer that based on the NDA or something like that.
He can exist in that space, but then it's kind of an open question and a little bit unclear.
Well, at least Mark believes one thing and Enoch believes the other in terms of whether or not Alex's lawyer has the ability to question the witness.
Mr. Jacobson, did you receive a letter from me in December or so advising of my client's insistence that you maintain confidentiality under your agreements that you reached with Alex Jones and with Free Speech?
Mr. Jacobson, are you familiar with the requirements and the documents that you signed that you maintain confidentiality unless you are subpoenaed or ordered by a court?
I'm familiar with the action that was forced upon me after being employed by him with language in that NDA which includes things like the known universe and stuff.
It's garbage.
No, no, I am not aware of any...
I know that it was forced upon me.
I was employed by Alex for over eight years, and they forced it upon me.
I was a...
So, I don't know where it is, I don't know what the language is, and I don't recall anything.
I've had extraordinary patience with allowing you to ask the questions of the witness to ascertain whether he knows there's a confidentiality agreement.
I will also be asking him about that same confidentiality agreement.
Now that that's been done, you have no reason to be questioning.
The only reason you're doing it is to influence this witness.
That's literally the only reason you're doing it.
I consider what you're doing highly improper, and I am asking you once again.
The first is that the NDA was forced upon him after years of working there and that's not appropriate.
And then the second thing that he brings up in this next clip that we're going to hear as the fight continues is that he has an understanding of the NDA that has to do with business secrets, business practices.
Well, Mr. Enoch, before I stopped my deposition and you said you were going to ask him one thing about one document and whether he had a signature and now you say you're done.
When I sent you a letter, said your letter's very unclear.
It could, in fact, cause this witness to think he's not supposed to testify today.
Wouldn't it be best if you disclosed to everybody what that agreement is?
You didn't do that.
You waited until we walked into this room to put it down on the table.
You say you have every right to inform this client of this person, of his obligations, and you are worried that he doesn't understand what those were.
I understand that, which is why you sent that letter, which I think is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
And if you wanted to call this witness, talk to him, or contact him, that's perfectly appropriate.
To ambush him at the moment of his testimony is not appropriate.
And it is not appropriate to start asking questions before I even ask questions.
If you intend to ask more questions today, let me know because we will suspend the deposition so that Mr. Jacobson can get counsel and so that we can take it up with the court to see if your actions today were proper.
Do you want to ask questions today or not, Mr. Enoch?
Mr. Bankston, I did not know until my first question to this witness that you had not served him with a subpoena, as I think you were obligated to do to obtain his...
His testimony.
Therefore, I wanted to make sure he was aware of Exhibit 1 that does not allow his voluntary participation in your discovery without a court order or subpoena.
Now, with respect to questions of this witness, I can't answer that now because I haven't heard your questions.
I think I'm entitled to ask questions under the rules.
You think I'm not.
So go ahead and ask your questions.
Let's see if I have questions.
If I do, the rules allow me to make my record.
You can object as you wish, and then we can take it up with the judge.
But if you look at the totality of their coverage of things over that time, I mean, think about all the stuff that went on.
You had the Boston bombing.
You had Anders Breivik.
You had other school shootings, certainly, that Alex denied.
You had the Aurora massacre.
So many things that went on during that time, and he was employed through all of that.
And I think it's important to keep an eye on that and remember that.
And then secondarily, it is important to recognize that he was directly and intimately involved in the creation of the Obama deception and Endgame, along with a bunch of Alex's other bullshit films.
So, like, it's one thing.
To work somewhere.
It's another to work somewhere for 13 years and be engaged in constant horseshit.
So, I mean, just keep that in the back of your mind.
Yeah, I mean, it does feel like what we have seen from even the most contrite info warrior types is selective responsibility for things that they've perhaps already received consequences for or are regularly pointed out.
Here's what I'm getting is like in terms of the whole, you know, like...
When they talk about their faults or responsibility for Sandy Hook, they're really talking about the symptoms of what happened there, as opposed to realizing that Sandy Hook, what they did to Sandy Hook, was unique only insofar as the way that it has ended up, as opposed to it being any different from how they would have covered any other story like that, you know?
And if you are somebody who believes the stuff that Alex believes, there's no reason why you wouldn't believe the stuff about Sandy Hook.
Totally.
It's...
If you believe all the narratives about the globalists and how they do false flags all the time in order to achieve their goals, the stuff Alex was saying about Sandy Hook falls in line with that.
It's not as outrageous as it sounds to people who aren't in that way of thinking, in that headspace.
And that's something that I don't really feel like I see any kind of grappling with in this deposition, at least.
Apparently I wanted to show you something I wanted to mark as Exhibit 1, but I believe Mr. Enoch has already hijacked that exhibit, so I am going to mark this as Exhibit 2. Someone hit this man!
To my understanding of the nondisclosure is not to reveal any company secrets.
I don't think abuse or abusive behavior inside the company constitutes company secrets.
I don't think misbehavior inside the company by an adult who runs the business constitutes company secrets.
In fact, I'm here to try to bring light to the truth of abusive and behavior inside the walls of InfoWars.
And I don't think anything that I say today violates the NDA, which would be constituting of company secrets, their formulas and how they produce the news.
Nothing like that is going to be revealed today.
What will be revealed is abusive behavior and the behavior of Mr. Jones and his staff.
Like, if Rob were to be giving out business secrets or whatever...
I think that might be inappropriate, but I don't feel that anything that's done within the context of this deposition comes close to something that should be covered by an NDA.
Well, based on the way the other people have talked about him in their depositions, everybody seems like they've kept him at arm's length for one reason or another.
And I wanted to be a documentary filmmaker, so in that aspect, yes, that does, I believe, fall under a broader umbrella of journalism, so when it comes to documentary films, I was on board.
You know, he's very much into the filmmaking and the documentary stuff and wants to do good journalism vis-a-vis that avenue.
One of the issues that I have, and I don't understand exactly what happened or what was done, but, like, Alex didn't put out a documentary for, like, ten years at this point now.
So, like, what was Rob doing after, like, 2012?
Like, Strategic Relocation, I think, was the last documentary Alex put out, and that's basically just him talking to Joel Skousen about places he could bug out to.
Like, I don't know what documentary work was being done.
I don't know if he was involved in field pieces or, you know, like...
Reporting of facts, somebody who can, or if the journalist can remove his emotion and theory as much as possible from reporting what he sees or she sees with their own eyes and ears,
empirical evidence reported to the public with very little bias.
I think good journalism, if you're going to have a corroboration of facts, I believe the more witnesses and points of view of the same action or activity that is being reported on, the better.
For example, just theoretically thinking one person can't see both sides of the cup at once.
So when two people are observing it at the same time, you get a better description of the object in question.
And so the more witnesses that have viewed it, the more impressions we can get after the fact of what has actually happened in the object that we're observing.
If you really wanted to do the kind of work that you're describing, then your documentary would have had people who were like, this is a load of bullshit.
So maybe what he's more thinking is his style of journalism is one person can't see both sides of the cup.
But one person can tell you that the cup is actually a goat, and if you have a thousand people behind that one person convincing you that that cup is a goat, then you're probably going to believe that cup is a goat.
And if you present things with enough quote-unquote experts, people who appear to be experts, like dumbass Big Jim Tucker and Daniel Estelan, then you give the appearance of something that can hold water.
Yep.
Yeah, I think if that's the perspective that you have in like 2018, 2019 about the work that was done on Endgame, then you're missing the forest for the fucking trees.
I don't want to denigrate STEM education because I do think it's very, very important.
But a lot of the times I feel like maybe one of the larger problems that we have is just the inability to translate words into concepts and have them make sense.
Well, I mean, you have to stop and say, okay, well, what are the problems that you had with this, specifically, and in what way do those not apply to literally everything you've ever done there?
Mr. Jacobson, in terms of InfoWars'consistency or process for corroborating facts, in your mind had that changed between the start of your employment and the end of your employment?
I feel that from the beginning, when I first started working there, the fact collection was mostly Alex and...
Mostly himself was the researcher.
By the end, Alex did let a lot of others do research for him, and I don't know if these people were specifically qualified or experienced enough to do that kind of work.
So I will say that one of the things I do appreciate, and you can't really take away, is that Rob does own up to and clearly feels bad about being involved in whatever capacity he was with the coverage of Sandy Hook.
I felt I was part of something just being in that building when all this was going down.
I felt terrible what happened.
Even though I myself...
No, I wasn't directly...
I'm involved in putting this out there directly.
Just being in the building, I feel complicit.
I feel I have to right a wrong that I was involved in.
And even though I was part of that wrong, I want to at least stack a couple of correct decisions up with some of the mistakes that I've made in the past.
I attempted to make it as clear as possible to the writers that there is something called journalist ethics and how what they were doing was in a direct violation of that.
Anytime I caught wind of the Sandy Hook story on Infowars, now mind you, I would like to add that it's not something I was thinking about all the time considering I had other things to do.
I'd be working on other projects, but when it would come on the screen, I would make it my business to go into the writers and explain to them as clearly as possible that there is journalist ethics.
And I tried to demonstrate what those ethics are and why they are violating them and what the damage could possibly be.
In fact, I remember...
I must have been in that room four to five times at least.
I don't understand what the journalist ethics he's talking about here is, because if it's like taking a small cross-section of information, that's all Infowars does.
The principle behind whatever he's describing is exactly the same as 90% of the work that he does.
Now, if this is the case, and he's working on these other projects, and whenever he catches wind that Sandy Hook is being covered, there's some offense that he takes at that.
I don't understand how you...
Let's say you're barely ever watching the show, and sometimes you catch it, and they're talking about Sandy Hook, and you're like, this is fucked up.
It's easy to understand when you fucked up if you received negative consequences or if people make it aware to you that you fucked up.
It's really hard to understand you fucked up if people give you positive consequences for it or encourage you to keep doing it.
So to me, it does make sense in a certain way for him to think that he's done a good job on some stuff because people gave him positive reinforcement for it.
And it's easy for him to understand that this is bad because people have been negative about it.
Whenever this subject came up, I would immediately clarify to the writers that there is a journalistic ethics that they're violating.
And what I've pointed out to Adan specifically...
Is that you're taking the word of one witness primarily and a couple of speculative other facts and calling it the truth without actually going down and investigating it ourselves or actually going with our own reporters and corroborating what these people are saying.
I made it aware to Adan that Wolfgang Halbig could have a lot of issues that we're not considering.
That by taking the word of this one man So heavily, with such a great accusation that he's accusing people of, was so irresponsible, so damaging.
I asked him, consider the size of the audience.
And Adan Salazar responded with, and I'm going to quote him, because he said it to me many times, I want to print up a t-shirt that says, Hal Big was right.
I want bumper stickers that say Hal Big was right to a laughing room.
Or what about this is different than, like, he's saying relying on Wolfgang Hal Big, maybe he has other problems.
Like, what about thinking about Endgame and relying on Jim Tucker, who works for a Holocaust-denying publication, or maybe has severe alcoholism, even as demonstrated in the fucking film?
As they go through the questions about this stuff that is relevant to Sandy Hook, he doesn't know that much.
The only thing that you could really concretely take away from this, perhaps, is that he's an AV guy, and he can speak with some credibility about the idea of Anderson Cooper's nose on a blue screen.
So there is that that he can offer as my expert...
Witness-ness, but there's other people you could get to do that.
I don't know.
I appreciate on some level that he feels bad about him being connected to this, but I don't know.
It feels like he's asking for forgiveness or penitence for the wrong thing.
Yeah, the behavior that's the problem is being a part of creating, like, foundational texts within the Infowars canon that are relied on to lend credibility to things like the coverage of Sandy Hook.
It's somebody who helped build a church, who helped build this entire church, and then is like, oh man, I'm really sorry for those guys who put that steeple on there.
It's, I don't know, it doesn't make a lot of sense.
So anyway, Rob explains a problem that he has with InfoWars coverage, and I would say, if you have a problem with this, you gotta go back to page one, baby.
When you were at InfoWars, In general, if a person did something in public that was agitating, was that good for their career at InfoWars or bad for their career at InfoWars?
Miss Millie Weaver, last year or the year before that, I'm not sure when, but it was in the last perhaps 12 months, I believe, because it was after I left.
She showed up at a Hillary Clinton book signing event that was at Book People.
These people were not there to protest.
These people were not there to...
Hillary, this is far after the election.
Nobody was campaigning.
But Miss Millie Weaver decided to show up with a lot of Trump gear, which obviously is going to be, as we follow the news, we know is agitating towards...
In a very political way, you know, so in my opinion, just by looking at that, I noticed that reporters don't show up sponsoring politicians.
So for her to go there and say, and in fact, the name of this video on YouTube is called Journalists Harassed or something.
She identifies herself as a journalist while she shows up wearing political gear directly aiming at the opposite end of the spectrum.
Asking abrasive questions about Hillary Clinton.
Now, that's not journalism.
That's agitation.
And that is a clear-cut case example of them swapping out the words agitation for journalism and vice versa.
I would love to see a larger understanding or reflection on the way that the things that he's complaining about are actually essential pieces of InfoWars.
It seems like if you didn't know that Paul took great issue with this, and you also took great issue with this, that seems to me that everybody is disconnected, and Paul is clearly on the inside, and maybe Rob is over here.
Actually, let me ask you a question on that, okay?
Your opinion about whether or not it could be fairly asserted that this is clearly blue screen, informing your opinion on whether that could be asserted, can you tell me about any of the things you see in this video or any of your experience that would inform that opinion?
I think that based on what we see on that screen, that could be that Error in the nose could have been caused by a number of different reasons.
And none of them are clear from what we see there without knowing what happened behind the scenes with the operating room controllers and so on and so forth.
That could have been a natural glitch that happens all the time on YouTube.
The only thing I could tell you about that is the only way that that is possibly green screen is if Anderson Cooper is not standing next to that woman.
I really became aware of it sometime afterwards when I saw, actually, I think a PBS special on what was going on, and it really hit home at that point.
I'm not saying it would be the simplest thing ever, but it is a possibility in a way that a lot of other people probably think I'm completely unemployable anywhere else because of this being on my resume.
Maybe not as much for Rob.
I don't think that it's always the simplest thing when people work in places that, you know, like, you have some misgivings about the ethical nature of what you're doing.
The fact that he was saying to people while the Sandy Hook coverage was going on that this is bad, that makes it more difficult for me to understand his non-quitting.
I mean, I guess now we're kind of getting into a more deeper conversation about the diffusion of responsibility, you know, to, like, at what point do you say, well, I can't work on an oil derrick?
I get what you're saying, and I think the difference is abstraction.
Yeah, I agree.
The abstractness of the harm that you're causing by working on an oil derrick or something is different than the very clearly traceable line from the dissemination and promotion of Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists and the harm you're seeing brought home in very vivid light in this PBS special.
There is a very clear line.
When the line started, you were aware of how bad it could be.
And when the line ended, you saw, oh, I was right about how bad it could be.
And these are people whose lives are clearly severely negatively impacted by the work that we do at my job.
If you are somebody who works at an oil rig, and you have an understanding of harm that's being done to the world and stuff, there is not all that much...
That you can do to remedy that harm in the broad sense outside of, like, quit, stay.
It's another thing to have somebody come in, and I'm not aware if I was the one and only person or not, but I know I was doing it.
To come in and say, hey, this is wrong, you're making a mistake.
It's one thing, you know, to actually have a mistake and something else to have it pointed out to you, not just once, but over and over and over again.
And to not only hear...
The damage that you're doing to people outside of your zone, but to actually laugh about it, I thought that's a 10. If it's a 10, what are you doing?
Well, I would argue that it's possible to make the argument that a seven is not what you'd call good journalism, but maybe it's something sustainable and like...
You could get along with.
Like a publicity stunt might be a seven.
Like a semi-tasteless publicity stunt.
Like yelling Bill Clinton as a rapist and paying people to do that.
Maybe that's a seven out of ten on the outrageousness scale.
And I could see you staying employed and being like, whatever.
Maybe I'm not a huge fan of that, but we'll do our work.
It's an abusive relationship, and we can't really judge him for not being able to exit that relationship the way that he wanted.
You know, if you experience that much abuse, and you think that's where you belong or deserve to be placed, perhaps his penance really was enduring the continued abuse.
Fuck if I know the psychology of this man is beyond me.
He was opposed to this, made it clear to Alex, got Alex's cousin, who was a manager at Infowars, Who agreed with him looped in on the same thing and didn't do shit.
There was not anything that could have been done because this is what Alex wanted.
That's true.
This is how things were going to go no matter what.
So, yes, the only thing I think maybe he should feel guilt about, maybe not the only thing, but the primary thing here is that he didn't quit.
I can understand the feeling because if you do believe that this is something of an anomaly...
Right.
I can understand the feeling of someone just being like, oh, well, there's more I could have done.
You know, if one of my friends gets into a car accident and we were supposed to do something and they quit or whatever, maybe I would feel like, oh, I could have done more to keep them from getting in that car.
Like, I can recognize that kind of guilt there.
I can't recognize the feeling of like, well, this is my fault.
And I hope he finds whatever he needs, and I wish him the best.
I don't want to sit around and shit on him or anything, because I think that certainly the ability to feel guilt, even if misplaced, is a drastic improvement from the other people that we see.
I'm doing this because Alex is disgracing himself so badly.
And the way he has made the parents suffer, as well as myself, he's still on the air to this day saying things that are arguably true or arguably false.
not true, we don't know.
But we do know that he affects his audience in a way that angers them and mobilizes them And it's unclear if anything he's saying is fact or fiction, opinion or speculation.
But what he does do is mobilize a large amount of people in irrational thinking, because there's no way to tell with whether what Alex is saying on the air is news or not, true or false, speculation or opinion, jokes or not, but he advertises it all as news.
Granted, I agree with him to the extent of if I'm going to try and make this better, I would say that Alex has gotten more outrageous, more unhinged, but not...
Knowing whether he's saying things that are opinion or fact.
Constantly, when we go back to 2003 and we're listening to these episodes, he's like, this has been proven!
He's saying all this complete bullshit, and he's inciting people.
He's making them angry about this existential threat to their life.
This has been his MO the entire time.
It's not a recent thing.
I don't know.
I feel like if there was a sincere belief that this is the problem, then it would always be a problem.
Maybe you're not aware of it earlier on.
Maybe you become aware of it.
But then these complaints should be much more holistic.
I need to put this on the record, because we are now in our third deposition of this case.
And in the first deposition of Mr. Jones, which Mr. Enoch was not defending, but was merely an observer, his name appeared in all caps, where he's speaking and interjecting into the record 28 times.
During the testimony of Mr. Jones, and that's taking out the times that it appeared for housekeeping matters, like getting the witness water, or talking about the PO at the end of the deposition.
And I don't want to be tag-teamed, and it was ridiculous and improper, but I normally wouldn't call it out on the record.
But I've reviewed the transcript, and I've done this to confirm this, that there were questions on the floor about what a certain building was, and whether it was the school or not.
And as part of his interruption, Mr. Enoch blurted out to the witness that it's the firehouse in the video, a word that had not previously appeared in the deposition.
So, of course, right after that, Mr. Jones says, quote, and I later corrected, you know, that was one of the things that had been said that wasn't true, was that they were at the firehouse.
There was other footage from the school.
At best, this was highly improper conduct, and it's exactly why we don't allow speaking objections in Texas.
At worst, it was an attempt to communicate an idea to the witness, conduct which is absolutely repellent to the idea of justice.
Yet on the following day, the problems continued.
I only have a video, not a transcript, but once again, Mr. Enoch repeatedly interrupted a deposition he was not defending, at which he was simply an observer.
And again, I've watched the video to confirm, and so has my co-counsel to confirm both of ours' memories, that Mr. Dew, the corporate representative, Visibly reacted to a gesture from Mr. Enoch during a difficult question, and Mr. Ogden had to call him out on it.
And you can see Mr. Dew's reaction and where his eyes are in the deposition.
During both depositions, Mr. Enoch was repeatedly asked to leave the deposition.
If he refused to stay quiet, he stayed but continued to interrupt.
I am putting this all on the record right now because this deposition began rather contentiously, and my reaction to it was one of significant disturbance.
So also, Mark needs to put onto the record the discomfort surrounding what's happening because he is not in a position to defend Rob Jacobson's rights.
I do not feel I am equipped to defend this witness's rights.
I don't represent him.
What is happening is totally inconsistent with the court's order.
We have attempted to contact the court because I believe the court would be wanting to have some sort of input.
On when an order like this only gives me the right to question whether Mr. Enoch should be allowed to question this witness who does not currently have counsel.
I'm very disturbed by this turn of events.
I want this all on the record in case these matters need to be brought to the court in any kind of connection with sanctions.
Right now, I'm going to finish, and I am going to ask Mr. Jacobson to return to the room.
I'm going to tell Mr. Jacobson that I have concluded with my deposition, the deposition that was ordered in the court's order.
And that I have no further need of him to be here.
I do not know what Mr. Enoch's going to do at that point.
I do not know if Mr. Enoch's going to attempt to try to keep the witness here.
I don't know what's going to happen.
I do know that I am extremely concerned about a lawyer who has already exhibited an incredible pattern of astonishing bad conduct in deposition to now take this very unorthodox turn.
That being said, those are my comments on the record.
I will allow Mr. Jacobson to return to the room and allow him to make the decision in his own best interest.
But that is a pretty valid concern that Mark has about if he's going to be grilled and questioned by his clearly antagonistic former employer's lawyer, Mark can't act as his lawyer.
Like I told you on the last one that we did that there was a couple that we had that are conflicting.
They're a little bit strange.
And this is a little bit strange to me because I think that the only thing that he has to be...
I mean, obviously, I think he should own up to how shitty his entire career's work has been at InfoWars, but that's a matter for maybe a different venue.
But the only thing he really has to apologize for is not doing more, which is pointless.
It wouldn't have done anything.
And he did something to his credit while he was there, and then the only other thing he has to feel guilt for is not quitting, and that is something he has to deal with on his own.
It is consistent, though, with Topsy-Turvy World insofar as the one thing that Rob Jacobson should feel like he did commendably, which is try and intervene in this situation, is the one situation he feels guilt for.
But I would wish that the diagnosis was more comprehensive.
Yeah.
Because I think that he could conceivably have a wealth of information about how these same problems that he has about the Sandy Hook stuff and about Millie Weaver and all this applies to the...
Fundamental business model in the way Infowars operates.
I mean, I don't really know quite how to react to somebody who is clearly contrite or at least giving off every appearance of such and experiencing remorse for that.
But it's not an incident.
It's not a thing that they did.
It is their entire career.
So how exactly do you say that, oh, well, we're on a redemption arc or anything along those lines when it's like...