All Episodes
Nov. 25, 2024 - Knowledge Fight
01:19:20
#984: Formulaic Objections Part 16

In this installment, Dan and Jordan discuss a recent deposition that Owen Shroyer had to appear for after he misidentified the shooter in the 2023 Allen outlet mall shooting.  No gummi worms this time, but Owen is still a puppet. 

Participants
Main voices
d
dan friesen
37:43
j
jordan holmes
15:20
m
mark bankston
13:42
o
owen shroyer
08:09
Appearances
Clips
a
alex jones
00:06
p
pastor david manning
00:02
s
steve quayle
00:02
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
unidentified
I'm sick of them posing as if they're the good guys, saying we are the bad guys.
Knowledge fight.
Dan and George.
Knowledge fight.
I need, I need money.
Andy and Kansas.
alex jones
Andy and Kansas.
unidentified
Stop it.
alex jones
Andy and Kansas.
jordan holmes
Andy and Kansas.
It's time to pray.
unidentified
Andy and Kansas, you're on the air.
Thanks for holding us.
Hello, Alex.
I'm a first time caller.
I'm a huge fan.
jordan holmes
I love your room.
unidentified
Knowledge fight.
Knowledgefight.com.
dan friesen
Hey, everybody.
Welcome back to Knowledge Fight.
unidentified
I'm Dan.
jordan holmes
I'm Jordan.
dan friesen
We're a couple of dudes like to sit around, worship at the altar of Selene, and talk a little bit about...
Alex Jones.
jordan holmes
Oh, indeed we are.
unidentified
Dan.
dan friesen
Jordan.
jordan holmes
Dan.
dan friesen
Jordan.
jordan holmes
Quick question for you.
dan friesen
What's up?
jordan holmes
What's your bright spot today, buddy?
dan friesen
When do you go first?
jordan holmes
My bright spot is Sundial, an album by No Name.
Came out last year.
It's kind of old.
But I've been listening to it again for the past few days.
Fantastic.
Absolutely a great album.
dan friesen
Nice.
jordan holmes
And it's fun, because if you listen to it, she reads the same books I do.
dan friesen
Okay.
jordan holmes
So it's nice.
It's good stuff.
dan friesen
You can get some of these obscure references.
unidentified
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
dan friesen
Literary references.
jordan holmes
Yeah, and some revolution.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
It's good stuff.
dan friesen
Okay.
unidentified
Yep.
dan friesen
Stuff like about Bell's Doth Tolling.
jordan holmes
Something like that.
dan friesen
Stuff about what the crow said.
jordan holmes
Stuff where...
dan friesen
Some of these obscure references in literature.
jordan holmes
A little bit like that.
I mean, Audre Lorde is a poet.
I think she's definitely up there.
dan friesen
Sure.
jordan holmes
Absolutely.
dan friesen
Aren't we all poets?
jordan holmes
No.
dan friesen
Yeah, you're right.
I'm glad you're enjoying that album.
I don't know.
Actually, now I don't know if I've just talked about this or if I've already made it a bright spot, but I'm going to do it anyway.
And that is, I saw a commercial in Japan.
They have Super Mario World, where you just get to run around in Mario.
jordan holmes
In the actual Super Mario World?
dan friesen
Yes.
There's pipes you go through.
jordan holmes
Fantastic.
dan friesen
It's like a theme park, but it's like Mario.
They are now opening.
At the end of this year, a side world that is Donkey Kong Country.
jordan holmes
Get the fuck out of here.
dan friesen
So you can wander around, find Donkey Kong, go bang on some drums, and I have never felt more like I need to go somewhere.
jordan holmes
Yeah.
dan friesen
I have to go.
jordan holmes
I like that.
unidentified
Yeah.
jordan holmes
I'll go.
dan friesen
It seems like...
I just...
I can't explain it.
I've almost never felt the draw to be like, you must make an appearance at this thing.
You must be there.
jordan holmes
Interesting.
dan friesen
But to be in full life, life-sized Donkey Kong country, it just feels like it would be like, your childhood self would never forgive you for not going.
jordan holmes
Yeah.
dan friesen
There's like a mine cart roller coaster.
jordan holmes
That's crazy.
dan friesen
It's just perfect.
jordan holmes
That's amazing.
dan friesen
Probably go find all the animal friends around.
Of course.
Like Rambi's hanging out somewhere.
unidentified
Of course.
jordan holmes
Yeah.
100%.
I have no notes.
I would absolutely do that.
I agree with you.
dan friesen
All right, well, let's consider this for the future.
jordan holmes
I'm down.
I've always wanted to go to Japan.
My childhood best friend, he wound up moving to Japan.
I'm sure he's still alive, maybe.
dan friesen
Maybe reconnect.
jordan holmes
Yeah, why not?
dan friesen
At the Donkey Kong.
jordan holmes
That's where I would meet anybody.
dan friesen
Well, here's the thing.
Shigeru Miyamoto was doing the tour of Donkey Kong land.
jordan holmes
Wild.
dan friesen
And he was having the blast.
jordan holmes
Of course he was.
dan friesen
But one of the things that he showed off was there's a congo game that you need three people for.
jordan holmes
Fantastic.
dan friesen
You, me, your childhood friend.
jordan holmes
Nice.
dan friesen
Let's get on those congos.
jordan holmes
Let's do it.
dan friesen
Let's get on the drums.
jordan holmes
Done and done.
dan friesen
So anyway, that just brought a real tickle to my life.
jordan holmes
I'm in.
dan friesen
Okay, let's play on it.
jordan holmes
Okay.
dan friesen
So, Jordan, today we have an episode to go over.
We're going to be talking about...
So...
When we started this show, we needed some diversionary stuff.
We had Alex Jones, we had the Infowars world, but we needed something different.
So we had Wacky Wednesdays, we talked about Space Weirdos, and that was a lot of fun.
jordan holmes
That was great.
dan friesen
Until it wasn't.
jordan holmes
Until it very much wasn't.
dan friesen
And then we discovered something that...
You never thought that a side type of show could really be more popular than Space Weirdos.
jordan holmes
Yeah.
dan friesen
But then we started covering depositions.
jordan holmes
Which is weird.
dan friesen
And people lost their shit.
jordan holmes
I still don't understand it.
dan friesen
I don't either.
I really don't.
I'm glad that they enjoy it, because I enjoy it as well.
And I think that there's a lot to learn from it, and so, you know, that's great.
jordan holmes
Sure.
dan friesen
But, you know, it's a finite resource.
There's only so many depositions that exist in the world, and so we can't just...
You know, put them out all over the place.
jordan holmes
Yeah, there aren't a lot of public depositions that you would be, like, interested in.
dan friesen
Yeah.
jordan holmes
You know?
dan friesen
Intersecting with our worlds and some of the key players and what have you.
jordan holmes
Yeah.
dan friesen
And so today, we actually have a deposition that has fallen into our lap.
It is a deposition of Owen Troyer.
jordan holmes
Oh my god.
dan friesen
He has been sued over misidentifying the Allen, Texas shooter from May 6th, 2023.
And this is a little short deposition carried out by Mark Bankston.
jordan holmes
Hello, Mark.
dan friesen
And I think that what it lacks in length, it makes up in moments of very piercing through the bullshit.
jordan holmes
Okay, alright.
dan friesen
I think that there's a couple moments that are like, oh wow, this has been caught on tape.
jordan holmes
I do think that part of the joy of the deposition is, like, we have taken these people from an arena where they are the masters, you know, the masters of lies, the circus tent people, and we've put them in a cage where they can't spread their wings, you know?
dan friesen
Yeah, and they can still lie.
jordan holmes
Of course they can.
dan friesen
They're still able to do the same games that they...
You know, like to, but they just won't get the same stimulus back.
jordan holmes
Right.
dan friesen
The lawyers aren't going to be a camera staring back at them.
unidentified
Totally.
dan friesen
Or an adoring crowd at a Tucker Carlson show.
The lawyers are going to ask a follow-up question or pretty much know that they're not going to give them a sincere answer.
jordan holmes
Yeah.
Even if generally you are predisposed to like the person.
Uh, and not have anything, like, uh, over your head.
Doing a deposition is still not a pleasant experience.
dan friesen
Nah.
jordan holmes
No.
dan friesen
Owen's having a very unpleasant one.
jordan holmes
Yeah, I believe that.
dan friesen
And, uh, we'll get to business on that, but first, let's take a little moment to say hello to some new walks.
jordan holmes
Ooh, that's a great idea.
dan friesen
So first, I was listening to the show during a flight when we hit heavy turbulence, and for a fleeting moment, I thought the last thing I'd hear in the world would be Alex Jones arguing with Chad GPT.
Thank you very much.
You're now a policy walk.
unidentified
I'm a policy wonk.
jordan holmes
Thank you very much.
That would be surreal.
dan friesen
Yeah.
Next, we worship at the altar of Zazzle's DJ Lilo, Bailey, and Miggy.
Thank you so much.
You're now a policy wonk.
unidentified
I'm a policy wonk.
jordan holmes
Thank you very much!
dan friesen
Also, I'm sorry I didn't empathize enough with that horrifying moment of the turbulence, and I'm glad you made it.
jordan holmes
Glad you made it, of course.
dan friesen
Next, Hashhole, my name, LOL.
You think I'm going to vote for the party that can't control the weather?
Thank you so much.
You're now a policy wonk.
owen shroyer
I'm a policy wonk.
jordan holmes
Thank you very much!
dan friesen
And we've got a technocrat in the mix, Jordan, so thank you so much to Moo Bear.
You are now a technocrat.
owen shroyer
I'm a policy wonk.
unidentified
Four stars.
Go home to your mother and tell her you're brilliant.
pastor david manning
Someone sodomite sent me a bucket of poop.
owen shroyer
Daddy Shark.
unidentified
Bomp, bomp, bomp, bomp, bomp.
alex jones
Jar Jar Binks has a Caribbean black accent.
unidentified
He's a loser little titty baby.
I don't want to hate black people.
owen shroyer
I renounce Jesus Christ.
dan friesen
Thank you so much.
jordan holmes
Thank you very much.
dan friesen
Shooting, mass shooting that happened in 2023.
Probably, it's a big deal, but maybe less regularly present in our minds in the scale of mass shootings.
A lot of the depositions that we've done have been about the Sandy Hook case.
jordan holmes
Of course.
dan friesen
And so this one, I'll give you a little bit of a refresher on what happened.
On May 6th, 2023, there was a mass shooting at a mall in Allen, Texas, leading to the deaths of eight people plus the shooter.
In the time immediately after the shooting, information started to come out about the identity of the shooter, namely that he was someone who had an online footprint full of Nazi tattoos and racist right-wing writing.
There were indications that he had reposted content from Tim Pool and libs of TikTok and endorsed Nick Fuentes and V-Dare.
This posed an optics problem for these people, since carrying out a racially motivated mass shooting is kind of the logical conclusion of a lot of their content.
It's not good for business when someone carries out the domestic terrorism you're trying to incite, so when this happens, Alex and the people in his orbit will always call it a false flag.
So that's what they did.
As pictures started to circulate of the shooter's online history and Nazi tattoos, it became important to undermine that narrative so it didn't take hold.
Nazis aren't supposed to be a real thing or problem, according to Nazi apologists.
So a guy with, like, SS tattoos killing eight people in a racially motivated attack, that's not good for business.
That can't exist.
The angle that many of these right-wing media figures decided to take was to Google the alleged shooter's name, at which point they found another person with the same name who didn't have Nazi tattoos.
The story started to become that this second person they'd found was the real shooter, and that the guy with Nazi tattoos was just another guy, and that the media was trying to say that he was the shooter so they could make the story about a Nazi to make Trump people look bad.
It was important to invalidate the story that this guy was a Nazi extremist because he has the risk of making normal people associate Nazi extremist murderers with their content model.
And once the larger population starts taking that seriously, the money train might end up slowing down or stopping.
And that leads us to the next day on Owen's show where he showed the pictures of the wrong person, identifying them as the Alan Maul shooter in order to deflect from stories that the actual shooter was a Nazi dude who liked Tim Pool.
And so that's where Owen gets on air on that Sunday and misidentifies this person.
It's pretty, you know, honestly in terms of like what happened, it's a pretty clear cut.
You misidentified this person.
So he has a difficult position to begin from.
jordan holmes
Right.
It's almost like sometimes it feels like things should just happen.
In response.
You know, like, oh, you did the thing and then the mousetrap lands.
Instead of like, oh, now we gotta figure stuff out.
You know what I mean?
dan friesen
And this one also seems like a situation where Owen would stand very...
He stands to lose very little by just being an adult and being like, look, there's some...
made some mistake here.
jordan holmes
Yeah.
dan friesen
You know?
I mean, I think he doesn't because he understands how much it implicates how everything he does is a mistake.
Right.
But...
That pride doesn't seem all that important to maintain here.
jordan holmes
Yeah, it does feel like sometimes you can just say, I chunked it, and everybody will scratch it and move on.
Even if you're worried that people are going to hold your feet to the fire, I think they're not.
At least that's the experience we've had so far.
So just be like, I chunked it, moving on.
You know?
It seems easier than they're making it.
dan friesen
Yep, I think so.
jordan holmes
Yeah.
dan friesen
So we start, and I feel like I've begun to notice that most of these depositions, they begin with a question of, what did you do to prepare for this?
jordan holmes
Oh, God.
dan friesen
Which I always find interesting, because everybody minimizes it.
They don't want to be like, I have read everything.
jordan holmes
Right, right, right, right.
dan friesen
Because then they have to take responsibility for knowing all of that stuff.
jordan holmes
That's no good.
dan friesen
So it basically did nothing.
mark bankston
Mr. Schroyer, when were you first told you were given a deposition in this case?
unidentified
Boy, I don't know the exact date.
owen shroyer
Do you recall when it would have been?
mark bankston
Unfortunately, she's not able to help you out here.
owen shroyer
No, I don't know the exact date.
mark bankston
Okay.
I'm guessing sometime in the past couple weeks there?
owen shroyer
I would say maybe a month.
unidentified
Okay.
owen shroyer
I've known.
mark bankston
Who have you spoken to about this deposition?
owen shroyer
My attorney, and I believe that's it.
mark bankston
Okay.
Did you review any documents for the deposition?
owen shroyer
Yes.
mark bankston
Can you describe what documents you reviewed?
owen shroyer
An affidavit that I signed for this case and then two videos that are relevant to this case.
mark bankston
Okay.
I would take it those would be the May 7th and May 8th episodes of your show?
owen shroyer
It is the episode pertaining to the original documents you sent me and then the retraction video.
dan friesen
Okay.
unidentified
So right off the bat, you kind of get a combative tone from Owen.
dan friesen
He doesn't want to be there, and I think that as we go through this, the reason is super clear.
He has run out of excuses for his actions, and he kind of knows that Mark doesn't really have any super meaningful questions for him.
Like, on some level, they've done this deposition already the last time when Bill big-dogged him with the gummy worms.
unidentified
Yep.
dan friesen
It's impossible to enter this without recognizing that it's like, ah, You made the same error here.
You made the same mistake.
We're doing another one of these.
jordan holmes
Run it back.
dan friesen
Yeah.
You've already had this conversation with the same lawyers.
jordan holmes
Yeah.
It is interesting because when you listen to it now as compared to the last one that we listened to, I feel like Owen has learned some of the language better.
Of the deposition language kind of thing.
But not in a way of understanding the language, more like in a way of, if I make the same sounds back at them, then they'll think that I'm, you know what I mean?
You know, it's not like he doesn't understand the meaning of the word pertains, or that kind of thing.
But he knows that this is the type of word you use here.
dan friesen
I think he maybe has a bit more confidence, too, because I think maybe he's on the other side of going to the prison.
jordan holmes
Yeah, that's a good point.
dan friesen
He's done time, so he's a new man.
jordan holmes
I did my nickel!
dan friesen
Right.
So the question comes up of, hey man, are you a journalist?
jordan holmes
Right.
mark bankston
As far as your background, you are a journalist who provides news coverage.
owen shroyer
I'm a broadcaster, yes.
mark bankston
Okay.
What I'm referring to is, did you see in your legal papers in this case where it was claimed you were a journalist who provides news coverage?
owen shroyer
I don't recall what.
Identities I was given in any legal papers.
mark bankston
You record an internet video show called The War Room?
owen shroyer
I'm the host of the show, yes.
mark bankston
Okay.
You have one boss, and that's Alex Jones.
owen shroyer
You could say that.
mark bankston
But Alex Jones doesn't personally oversee your show or pre-approve what you say, right?
owen shroyer
Not necessarily.
mark bankston
And was on the day that we're talking about in this case...
The video that you reviewed for May 7, 2023, did Alex Jones personally oversee or tell you what to say?
owen shroyer
No.
mark bankston
You're allowed to say what you want on your show?
owen shroyer
Yes.
mark bankston
You have people working under you on your show that you can give instructions to?
owen shroyer
Yes.
dan friesen
So, just in the opening minutes of this thing, we have Owen refusing to accept the risk of calling himself a journalist, even though his documents identify him as one, and saying that...
Everything he puts on his show is under his control.
Alex doesn't tell him what to say.
He directs his own ship.
And so he is a man who is presumably responsible for the content that he puts out.
jordan holmes
Yeah.
Yeah, it is.
It's always fun.
It's always fun, like, moving into this arena and listening to them try and not say what everybody already knows, obviously.
Like, just deny.
I don't know if the sun is yellow.
dan friesen
I don't know if I'd say Alex is my boss.
jordan holmes
Yeah, I mean, you know, you could say that.
Anybody could say anything, really.
And you're like, just, let's go.
Come on, man.
dan friesen
Just own something.
jordan holmes
This could take five minutes if you'd just be like, ah, we'll do it.
dan friesen
Yeah.
So the general strategy that Owen is going to deploy to justify his actions and everything is that they showed a picture of the shooter.
But it was just on a piece of paper that was on the desk.
Right.
And he has no control over that.
jordan holmes
Sure.
dan friesen
It's just there.
Right?
jordan holmes
Okay.
dan friesen
Yeah.
jordan holmes
Okay.
Anybody could have put it there.
dan friesen
Right.
jordan holmes
Yeah.
I mean, it's like a planted piece of evidence.
dan friesen
Yeah.
He gets to work and there's all these papers on the desk and that's not his fault.
jordan holmes
It could have been anybody.
dan friesen
Right.
jordan holmes
Yeah.
dan friesen
And so I think he thinks that this is going to be a good defense.
But he's immediately countered with the implications of what he's doing.
jordan holmes
Yeah, obviously.
mark bankston
Part of your show involves reviewing news articles and social media posts that have been printed out on paper.
Correct?
owen shroyer
Is that a question?
mark bankston
It is.
owen shroyer
Yeah, that's part of the show.
mark bankston
Part of your show involves displaying materials printed out from the internet.
That you have never seen, and then commenting on them live.
owen shroyer
That's happened before.
That's not an integral part of the show.
mark bankston
That's what happened in this episode, correct?
owen shroyer
Not exactly, but generally speaking, that's kind of what happened.
mark bankston
From what I understand of your affidavit, you reviewed materials on this show relating to my client that you had never seen before.
owen shroyer
Reviewed what materials?
mark bankston
Well, for instance, the photo of my client that we're here about today, you had never seen that before going on air?
owen shroyer
No.
mark bankston
You had never reviewed any of those materials?
owen shroyer
No, it was just sitting on the desk.
mark bankston
And you knew that there would be materials sitting on the desk?
owen shroyer
Yeah, there are materials sitting on the desk.
mark bankston
And you may not have seen them or checked them before?
owen shroyer
No.
mark bankston
So in terms of whether you might end up defaming someone on your show, it's pretty much a Russian roulette situation as far as you're concerned?
owen shroyer
No.
mark bankston
Well, I don't understand.
If you have materials on your desk that you haven't checked, how would you know what's in them?
owen shroyer
They're not my materials.
I'm not referencing those materials.
I never touched those materials.
unidentified
I never told anybody to put those materials on the air on video.
mark bankston
Well, you know they're going to be there.
owen shroyer
No, I don't know what's going to be there.
mark bankston
No, you know exactly.
You know that stuff is going to be on your desk and you don't know what it is.
unidentified
Right?
Is that right?
owen shroyer
Yeah, I don't go through the thousands of papers on the desk when I sit down for the Sunday show.
I don't have time to.
dan friesen
So this is a tough spot for Owen to be in this early.
He obviously can't answer in either direction here without taking on really shitty conclusions.
If he claims that he reviews all the material that's on the desk, which is the fodder for the show he does, then he would need to own that he bears some responsibility for not fact-checking the picture that was reported on identifying the wrong shooter.
In this scenario, he's able to maintain the facade that he's doing a real show that's not just ranting about social media posts he's skimmed, but he also has to accept that he made a mistake here.
Conversely, if he claims that he doesn't look at all the prop paper on the desk and has no idea what any of it is then maybe he feels like he can get away with reporting on this incorrect image but it comes at the expense of admitting that his show is really just ranting about social media posts that he barely knows what they are.
Take yourself seriously and admit you fucked up or take no responsibility by essentially admitting that your whole game is a fraud.
It's quite a pickle that he's accidentally landed himself in and I don't think...
When he was saying, I don't know this material, it's just in front of me, I can't have any responsibility for it, I don't think he was expecting Mark to reply with, so it's Russian roulette if you defame somebody, based on what is just randomly in front of you.
jordan holmes
So it could just be...
It could just be crystals today.
Oh, they put a bunch of rocks on my desk today.
I suppose I'm going to talk about rocks.
dan friesen
Fuck, that kind of does follow from the premises that we've established.
unidentified
Shit.
dan friesen
Ah, damn it.
jordan holmes
Okay, so they put a bunch of Greek pots on and I have to try and interpret what the pictures mean in the story format.
It's a weird day today, I guess, guys.
dan friesen
But that's because we do all the research and we study and we know this stuff backwards and forwards.
jordan holmes
I love the...
I never touched it.
Are we into drug sting?
Is that what we're doing?
dan friesen
I mean, obviously, there was no securing of the scene or anything.
unidentified
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
dan friesen
But if you dusted those papers for fingerprints, this would be shown to be a lie.
unidentified
You touched those papers.
jordan holmes
Obviously.
unidentified
Yeah.
dan friesen
So this turns into a situation where Mark is asking, so when you have stuff that you don't know if it's true or not in front of you, That's not an ideal source, right?
jordan holmes
Yeah, that's the trouble.
dan friesen
That's not good.
owen shroyer
Yeah, I don't go through the thousands of papers on the desk when I sit down for the Sunday show.
I don't have time to.
mark bankston
Right, so when you have a show and part of the basis of your show is to review live materials printed out from the internet that you've never seen, that ain't a great idea.
Do you agree with that?
unidentified
Objection form.
owen shroyer
It's not exactly an ideal situation.
But that's the situation I'm in on Sundays.
I don't have time to clear the desk.
I have basically two minutes to sit down and put a mic on, and that's all I can do on Sunday.
So I had nothing to do with those documents.
mark bankston
What instructions do you give about the printed-out materials that are going to be used on your show?
owen shroyer
Are you talking about for this show in question?
mark bankston
No, just generally.
owen shroyer
Well, it's kind of important that there's a distinction being made.
On that show, I literally just sit down at the desk.
It's the exact same desk where somebody's on air before me.
I don't have any time to clear the desk.
I don't have any time to review what's on the desk.
I don't have any time to put new stuff on the desk.
I just have to sit down and go on air.
So on a normal circumstance, I have control over the desk.
I have control of what's on the desk.
In this circumstance, I have none.
dan friesen
So on my show, a normal show, I can prepare fake papers.
But at this, I have papers on the desk and there's nothing you can do about it on Sundays.
I have no time.
jordan holmes
I love the dynamic that we have always with all of these depositions, which is you ask a question, and then they have some sort of response that's like, obviously I can't do that, idiot!
And then it's like, no, you have to.
That's your job.
dan friesen
Right.
You're taking over this shift.
You can't...
Take paper off the desk?
How long does that take?
One swoop with your hand across the desk?
You don't have time for that?
jordan holmes
I mean, what?
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Are you saying that, like, other people do that?
Yes!
dan friesen
Are you saying that there should be a recycling bin underneath the desk that all this paper can be thrown in?
jordan holmes
There's just no way to remove things from the desk.
dan friesen
No.
jordan holmes
We laminate it all.
dan friesen
Well, maybe this speaks to, like, a bureaucracy that's in place, that they need to go through three different offices and get Signatures to take anything on or off the desk.
Maybe they're so opposed to government red tape because they have this insane Byzantine system they have to go through.
jordan holmes
They just always have this element of like, okay, I am not in a civil trial deposition.
I am in a movie courtroom where, like, I can get off on a technicality where it's like, oh, there's some plausible deniability here.
You can't guarantee that I put it on the desk.
Boom, I'm out.
dan friesen
Right, but it's also funny because it's like, that's not even what's at issue here.
jordan holmes
That's not what we're talking about, man.
dan friesen
And also, your explanation that it seems like it's supposed to be such common sense that, like, I have no idea what papers are going to be on the desk when I get...
It opens up like, uh, it's not a satisfying excuse.
It makes you sound insane.
jordan holmes
Yeah, no, you realize that what you're doing is insane, right?
And they're like, no, what?
No, you're dumb.
Oh.
unidentified
Woo.
dan friesen
So I thought at this point it might be good to actually hear some of the episode that got Owen in trouble because it helps to put into context why he did the things that he did.
Understood as it actually happened, Owen was part of a media ecosystem that was desperate to deny that the Alan shooter was a guy with Nazi tattoos who was motivated by the same ideology that underlies their worldview.
One of the headlines, particularly on social media after the shooting, was that the guy had Nazi tattoos and Owen felt self-conscious about this.
The right-wing dipshit media reacted in lockstep with each other, desperately pushing other explanations for the shooting that didn't touch on the possibility that white supremacy is a real thing.
Here was the rant that Owen was in the middle of when he misidentified the shooter, which we'll hear in this clip.
owen shroyer
But I guess that's the mentality now of a...
The mentality now of a left winger.
I guess that's the mentality now of a liberal democrat.
If you don't like the statistic, then it must be racist.
If you see something you don't like, it doesn't matter if it's real or not.
It's racist.
And that's just how you discount it and hide from it.
Like you're afraid of a monster under the bed or there's a monster in your closet, so you hide under the blankets.
You can't see it.
The monster can't touch me.
Yeah, here's your actual interracial violent crime statistics.
Here's your actual demographic crime statistics.
No!
No!
Racist!
I can't!
But then they're the ones that call a Hispanic man a white supremacist and a neo-Nazi.
His name was Mauricio Garcia.
Your neo-Nazi.
White supremacist.
But we know now, this is the leftist logic, we now know that it actually has nothing to do with skin color, it has everything to do with politics.
So, don't you know, that's why Enrique Tarrio is a white supremacist, you know, the black leader of the Proud Boys, he's a white supremacist.
And so is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, he's a white supremacist too.
Yes, of course, he's a black man and the first black member of the Supreme Court, and that's why he's a white supremacist, don't you know?
Because his politics, his ideology does not perfectly align with the left-wing cult.
dan friesen
So as Owen is discussing the shooter, they go to an overhead shot of the papers on the desk showing a prominently displayed mugshot of the plaintiff in this lawsuit who was not the shooter.
Owen's defense here seems to be that he can't control what papers are in front of him, and this is a random coincidence, but previously on this show, he could clearly be seen looking through the papers on the desk and weaving their content into his monologue.
In the context of the show that's being presented, these aren't just random papers, they're his sources, and the incorrect mugshot is placed directly where the overhead cam is because Owen shuffled the papers around and put it there in order for the camera to pick it up.
He can dodge responsibility in a lot of ways and try to maintain his pretend credibility, but there's just no way around it if you watch the video.
He engaged with the papers on the desk, treating them as prepared news even though they were just printed off tweets, and he presented the mugshot by putting it in front of the overhead camera.
In terms of his organization of what would be in view of the camera...
Owen arguably was operating as a producer, putting the prop into the place it needed to be in order to be in the shot.
So he's actually, I think he's getting off easy based on what he's being accused of here.
jordan holmes
Right, right, right.
dan friesen
Also, Thurgood Marshall was the first black member of the Supreme Court who Clarence Thomas actually replaced, but I wouldn't expect someone like Owen, who has such a great grasp on all these issues, to know that.
jordan holmes
I was like, oh man, don't remind me that one of the great crimes of this fucking universe is replacing Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas.
Like, truly a travesty of destruction to one of the greatest men that ever lived.
dan friesen
If you think that, you know, that's a travesty, then the good news is that Owen has decided to just ignore it.
jordan holmes
Ignore Thurgood Marshall entirely.
dan friesen
Yeah, it never happened.
jordan holmes
Hey, you know what?
That's one way to do it.
dan friesen
So, Owen, we get back to the deposition setting.
And he is talking more about how he doesn't know anything about these papers that are in front of him.
jordan holmes
Never seen them before in my life.
mark bankston
You certainly have control of the words coming out of your mouth while you're talking on air.
jordan holmes
Do I?
mark bankston
And those, in this case, I think what you're telling me is none of that is pre-planned.
You don't have a script.
owen shroyer
No.
mark bankston
So you know that you're going to be encountering materials you've never seen before and reacting to them live, correct?
owen shroyer
No.
mark bankston
You know there's going to be materials on that.
owen shroyer
Yes.
mark bankston
In this specific case, you knew you had never seen them before.
owen shroyer
Okay.
unidentified
Right?
owen shroyer
Okay.
mark bankston
And then you knew you'd be reacting to them live.
owen shroyer
No.
No.
mark bankston
Explain to me why that's not right.
owen shroyer
Because I don't have to react to anything on the desk.
mark bankston
I'm not understanding what you're saying.
Your show, from what I understand how it operates, is you have a stack of materials on your desk that are about the news stories of the day.
Correct?
owen shroyer
Yes.
mark bankston
And those are that...
Dictates kind of what you're going to be talking about on your show or those news stories, right?
unidentified
No.
mark bankston
Okay.
Can you see the materials on your desk while you're on the show?
owen shroyer
Yeah, there's a bunch of stacks in front of me.
You can see it on the video.
mark bankston
That's what I wanted to make sure.
dan friesen
Okay, yeah, we can see them.
So this is an interesting deflection that Owen is trying to make because on some level, I think he feels like he just pulled like a logic judo move.
Mark has established that Owen knows that there will be material on the desk that he's possibly never seen before, and has also established that Owen has control over what he says on the ship.
The natural conclusion for this is that he has control over the response that he gives to random, unverified information, which is to say that he made a choice and it led to this defamatory content being broadcast.
Owen thinks he can get out of this corner by saying that he's under no obligation to respond to the random papers on his desk as a general rule.
He could ignore them entirely and not get into any trouble with Alex or the bosses.
What he's trying to do is retain some measure of dignity by creating the impression that some days his show is fully prepared by him before the show and has nothing to do with the litter that Alex just left on the desk.
But the problem is in this specific case that they're talking about, Owen did rely on those papers.
The idea that he has the freedom to ignore them only makes him more responsible for his actions.
This is the kind of thing you see when someone is sort of trained to argue.
He knows what it looks like and feels like to make a point, but he doesn't really know how to assess if the point that he's making is good.
He just knows that he's now said something that kind of feels like it covers the bases, but more importantly, it puts the ball back in the other person's court.
Nine times out of ten, when Owen is arguing with random people on the street, this level of explanation will fly, but in a deposition, you can...
See how flailing around he is.
Yeah.
unidentified
Like, this is, makes no sense.
dan friesen
Yeah.
unidentified
It does not get to the heart of the matter in the conversation that we're actually having here.
dan friesen
It just seems...
jordan holmes
Yeah, it's just a fundamental misunderstanding of where they are and what is happening.
Because right now, it's feeling like an interrogation kind of situation where Owen feels like he is being interrogated by the cops.
Where he's like, well, I know the cops lie.
I know the cops don't have all the information and they want me to incriminate myself.
And that's why we have the whole amendment thing.
And it's like...
But in this scenario, they already know the answers to the questions they are asking.
Because there is no other possible answer.
For you to then say a different answer just makes everybody spend their whole day here.
dan friesen
Well, Ed, it's so weird because, like, I don't think that anybody would not accept an apology and a recognition of, like, you did wrong here.
Like, I feel like...
This is the easiest bind for Owen to get out of by just saying, we fucked up, made a mistake.
The fact that they have to go through these, like, I had nothing to do with the papers, and all this, is only because of the inability to admit wrongdoing.
unidentified
Totally.
dan friesen
And that's what's weird about it.
That's the part that's very surreal and turns it into an interrogation.
It's Owen's refusal to just accept a baseline of responsibility.
jordan holmes
Yeah!
Yeah, it is funny in a sense of Owen is more fine with consequences being going to jail than he is with just being like, yeah, I fucked up.
Like, that's the consequence.
dan friesen
Well, I think that the going to jail inflates and plays into his pride, ego, and character.
Totally.
Look, we've fucked up, we got the wrong picture, and, you know, we're trying to do better in the future.
I think that works against his ego and pride and character.
jordan holmes
Of course!
dan friesen
So, it's pretty much that simple.
jordan holmes
Right!
It's fascinating, just in a sense of, like, how warped people's brains can truly become.
And also, what's the point of jail?
It's crazy.
Yeah.
dan friesen
So, Owen's like, hey man, I've never met those papers.
I don't know them.
jordan holmes
Yeah, I mean, I've never seen that guy before in my life.
dan friesen
We've never spoke.
jordan holmes
Totally.
mark bankston
Can you see the materials on your desk while you're on the show?
owen shroyer
Yeah, there's a bunch of stacks in front of me.
You can see it on the video.
mark bankston
That's what I wanted to make sure.
When we go to the InfoWars document camera, right, that's above the desk, that's a view directly in front of you.
Those papers aren't on some other desk.
That's the desk right in front of you.
owen shroyer
Yes.
unidentified
Okay.
Who...
mark bankston
Well, first of all, do you know who you had select materials for that show?
owen shroyer
Nobody, probably.
But no, I don't know.
mark bankston
You don't know how they got to your desk?
owen shroyer
My guess is the show before prints out all this stuff and puts it on the desk for the host before me.
That's how they got on the desk.
mark bankston
Who's the host before you?
owen shroyer
Alex Jones.
mark bankston
Okay.
So you don't have any idea who printed out those materials for his show?
owen shroyer
No, I'm not there.
I get there after he's done.
mark bankston
So the materials that are there on your desk...
Are not even checked by any member of your staff?
owen shroyer
No, I don't have a staff for that show.
I just inherit the staff that's already there.
mark bankston
Gotcha.
So before going on air, you don't do anything yourself to ensure that any of the materials on your desk are accurate or appropriate for the show?
unidentified
Objection form.
owen shroyer
I don't really reference them.
I don't touch them.
I don't pick them up.
They're just there.
dan friesen
So this seems like it would be a good dodge, but it relies on the person talking to Owen, not knowing anything and having not prepared.
If you watch the show that this suit is based on prior to this point, Owen has literally been handling the papers on the desk, reorganizing them, looking through them for things to talk.
I think what he wants to say is that this show isn't...
Just him randomly riffing off paper that Alex left on the desk.
And that's fine if he wants to say that to preserve his ego.
But the problem is, in this specific case in question, there's video of him using the papers on the desk for the basis of his show.
In this instance, him trying to use this as a defense just looks silly.
It makes it too obvious that the reason he's being defensive about this is because if he doesn't, he'd kind of have to admit that there really isn't anything more behind his show.
The illusion of the show is predicated on needing to pretend that they're taking this seriously.
It would be a lot harder to sell the audience on the idea that you're fighting the literal devil if they knew that all you're really doing is a racist meme recap show.
And I think that protecting that kayfabe is more important to Owen than not looking like...
jordan holmes
It's so strange to me.
Because to me, even if you are going to do this waste of everybody's time and not just be like, eh, fucked up, then you pin it on Alex.
dan friesen
Sure.
jordan holmes
He already owes a billion dollars.
Oh, it's a drop in the bucket.
Oh, it's Alex's fault.
Like, yeah.
I just don't understand why you don't just...
Because it's ego.
It's just his ego.
And it's Alex's ego.
Alex is like, hey, don't pin this on me.
Why not?
dan friesen
Alex might barbecue him.
jordan holmes
Exactly!
unidentified
That's the issue.
dan friesen
Alex might murder him.
jordan holmes
Why can't we be smart for five seconds today, guys?
dan friesen
I don't know, but I think that the people that Owen is probably used to talking to, he could say, I never touched those papers, and they would be like, I guess if he said he never touched the papers, maybe he didn't.
But if you're dealing with lawyers who are suing you over this, they watched your episode.
jordan holmes
Yeah.
dan friesen
They know you're lying.
unidentified
Yeah.
dan friesen
You know you're lying.
Yeah.
jordan holmes
It's not the cops picking you up off of a regular-ass sweep, just being like, hey, do you know who did this?
It's not that.
They know you.
dan friesen
And I think at some point, Owen has to recognize, based on how little confrontation is coming, that this is kind of not an information-gathering exercise, and more a, like, aren't-your-answers-embarrassing kind of, like, exercise.
jordan holmes
We've been here before.
dan friesen
Yeah.
jordan holmes
Right?
dan friesen
It feels...
There's an element of scoldiness to it.
jordan holmes
Yeah.
Absolutely.
Of course.
dan friesen
So, a policy that Kit Daniels put out about how they need to...
Whenever they're going to put out news that accuses someone of a crime, they need to have backup.
jordan holmes
Okay.
dan friesen
Double-check that stuff.
jordan holmes
Good call, Kit.
dan friesen
So that comes up, and we get Owen's thoughts on it.
unidentified
Okay.
mark bankston
All right, Mr. Sean, I can interview what has been marked as Exhibit 1. This is an email of Kit Daniels.
We were talking about he's a co-worker of yours.
owen shroyer
Was.
mark bankston
Was a co-worker of yours.
Was he a co-worker of yours last summer in 2023?
owen shroyer
I don't think I've seen Kit Daniels in maybe over a year.
mark bankston
The subject of this email is new editorial policy for all reporters, journalists, and writers.
Do you see that at the top?
owen shroyer
Mm-hmm.
mark bankston
Okay.
It was sent on June 7, 2018.
You see that?
owen shroyer
Mm-hmm.
mark bankston
At that time, you were hosting a show as a journalist?
owen shroyer
I was a host.
I don't know about the term journalist applying here.
mark bankston
When it says it applies to reporters, journalists, and writers, do you think this policy applies to you?
owen shroyer
I don't know.
This could have been meant for the writers.
I do not know.
mark bankston
Well, it was sent to you, wasn't it?
owen shroyer
Kid Daniels was never my managing editor.
mark bankston
Well, I'm asking who it was sent to.
owen shroyer
It was sent to InfoWars staff.
mark bankston
And that goes to you, right?
owen shroyer
I think so.
mark bankston
The policy says any news story published or promoted by InfoWars that deals with the possibility of a crime being committed or criminal accusations in general must be checked by multiple editors before publication, whether it be a video report or a written article.
This also includes headlines as well as the content of the report.
This policy will help ensure that reports are free of inaccurate and misleading statements that invite legal problems for the company.
You agree that this policy existed before the show that we're here to talk about today?
Yes.
Has anyone ever said to you since 2018, Mr. Schroyer, this policy is no longer in effect?
Criminal allegations that you make on your show don't need to be checked by multiple editors?
owen shroyer
No.
mark bankston
Do you remember what happened to cause the creation of this policy?
owen shroyer
No.
jordan holmes
Oh, you don't?
mark bankston
Do you remember that shortly before this email, your co-worker Kit Daniels published an innocent person's photo as the Parkland shooter?
owen shroyer
No.
mark bankston
Are you familiar with the lawsuit that resulted from those events?
owen shroyer
Not off the top of my head.
mark bankston
Have you heard the name Marcel Fontaine?
owen shroyer
Sounds familiar.
dan friesen
See, this is a bad situation for Owen to be in, because obviously he remembers this stuff, and he's answering no, because if he answers yes, then he's going to be asked, what happened there?
And Owen doesn't want to have to say it himself.
So he thinks he's avoiding something by being like, I...
No, I don't remember.
Vaguely, I don't know, rings a bell or whatever.
jordan holmes
Yeah.
dan friesen
Except, like, this is something that might work in a social situation.
unidentified
Yeah.
dan friesen
But when you're in a deposition, if you answer no, you're going to be reminded.
jordan holmes
Yep.
dan friesen
This is because this policy got put in place because you guys misidentified a shooter.
unidentified
Yep.
dan friesen
And it got you in trouble, got you sued.
jordan holmes
Like this situation right here that we are in.
dan friesen
Yeah, or that other time you did that.
jordan holmes
Oh, yeah?
mark bankston
Do you remember in May 2022, a year before this episode we're talking about, that you published the photo of an innocent woman saying that she was the Uvalde Elementary School shooter?
owen shroyer
No.
mark bankston
Okay.
unidentified
I want to see if we can refresh your memory on that.
Yes, go ahead and give that to Mr. Schreier.
mark bankston
Mr. Schreier, I've handed you what's been marked as Exhibit 2. This is a CNN article that was published on KTVZ Oregon.
The title of this article is False Right Conspiracists Claim the Uvalde Shooter Was a Trans Woman, and I'd like to direct your attention to the highlighted portion on page two.
Do you see that?
owen shroyer
Yeah.
mark bankston
Okay, I'm going to read that portion really quick, and you can read along with me.
It says, Jones told the caller he had a photo of Ramos wearing a skirt.
Later in the episode, he shared a tweet from Andy Ngo that asked people to stop claiming that the images of people in skirts being circulated are Ramos.
Because none of those images had been confirmed to be the shooter.
Jones co-host Owen Schroyer said, I just want to be clear, the images we've been talking about are not the ones that we've been sharing.
We've been sharing the images that are on his Instagram account that is claimed to be his.
The Instagram account that Schroyer mentioned was a spoof account that has since been taken down.
Does this refresh your memory that in 2022 you spread the false image of a mass shooter?
owen shroyer
Vaguely.
But I don't know.
I mean, claiming I spread a false image, this is just a quote.
It doesn't show any images.
It doesn't give any context.
So I'm not admitting to that.
mark bankston
Right.
That's what I'm asking, though.
Does it refresh your memory that you did spread the photo of this innocent woman as you've already shared?
unidentified
Objection form.
owen shroyer
I remember the general incident.
mark bankston
Did you learn anything from that?
owen shroyer
No.
unidentified
Nope.
dan friesen
Certainly not.
jordan holmes
Objection.
unidentified
Mean.
dan friesen
So we've, I don't know, illustrated a pattern of you personally and you Infowars as a company doing this pretty regularly to the detriment of people's lives.
Did you learn anything?
Nope.
Definitely not.
jordan holmes
Yeah, you know, there's something about that where it reminds me of a...
Sarah Jewett, who is a writer from Maine in the late 19th, early 20th century.
And she's writing about school at the time, which is a teenage girl and five young boys.
And it makes me think, I know that school punishment is bad.
But man, if he had been hit like they were in the time, maybe we wouldn't be here.
unidentified
I don't know.
jordan holmes
You know what I'm saying?
Like, I don't know.
dan friesen
I don't know if corporal punishment is the answer.
jordan holmes
I don't think it's the answer.
I'm just saying we wouldn't be here.
dan friesen
I think that there's something very illuminating and illustrative about this.
Like, all right, here is this exact parallel situation to what we are here to talk about that you did previously.
unidentified
Yep.
dan friesen
And, like, the way that Owen is unable to engage, but also completely unable to deny the reality of, like, he can't just say, I didn't do any of that.
He has to be like, I vaguely remember and I will not confess to this.
jordan holmes
One of our oldest...
dan friesen
Such a coward.
jordan holmes
One of our oldest parenting idioms is the idea of if you let the kid touch the fire, he will learn not to touch the fire.
You are somehow incapable of learning not to touch the fire.
How is this possible, sir?
dan friesen
I think because they have not felt the consequences of the fire.
jordan holmes
I mean, there's really no other way to put it, right?
unidentified
Yeah.
dan friesen
So, Owen, at this point, has been confronted with this past record of behaving in this exact way.
He's tried to excuse his behavior as like, I've never met paper before.
Right.
And I think he now realizes he needs to switch his approach.
mark bankston
Let's talk about your coverage of the Allen, Texas mass shooting in the summer of 2023.
I saw that it was claimed in your legal papers that you claimed that you published a widely reported and disseminated mugshot.
Is that accurate?
owen shroyer
That is the image that you are referring to.
mark bankston
Other than you, where was it reported prior to your show on May 7th?
owen shroyer
Well, it is obviously on...
The Twitter account that is sitting on the desk that I've noticed is not mentioned in the lawsuit.
And then, obviously, all the other defendants who are here probably disseminated the same image and, I'm sure, plenty of other people.
mark bankston
Do you know if any of them did it before or after you?
owen shroyer
No.
mark bankston
Okay, so you've read the lawsuit, I take it, because you just commented on it, right?
owen shroyer
Yes.
mark bankston
Okay, so you would know from that lawsuit that none of your co-defendants published it before you, right?
owen shroyer
I don't know.
Okay.
mark bankston
And then we have this Twitter account.
owen shroyer
Mm-hmm.
unidentified
Right?
mark bankston
King Koa the Great.
dan friesen
So this excuse doesn't make a lot of sense based on Owen's previous excuse.
He shouldn't need to claim that this was a widely reported mugshot if he didn't engage with the random paper that's on his desk.
He didn't use the mugshot, so who cares how widely reported it was?
jordan holmes
Yeah.
dan friesen
Owen is acting like this because the legal strategy is basically to just be really defensive and see if anything sticks.
The I-have-no-idea-where-the-paper-comes-from defense clearly isn't enough, and so now he's just trying to justify his actions by saying, all the cool kids were reporting on this, so it wasn't just me.
This is a great moment that illustrates a dynamic of InfoWars that really cuts through their facade.
They're supposed to be the tip of the spear, the only ones who truly see through the media manipulation.
They're the independent thinkers, and their analysis is better than everyone else because they're inspired by God.
This is their kayfabe persona.
But when they do something wrong and want to get out of trouble, all of a sudden they're just part of the crowd.
All these other places were spreading this fake information, so why are we the ones who are getting in trouble for it?
And this really demonstrates an underlying immaturity that these folks operate with.
There's not much difference, honestly, between Owen and a high school bully other than that Owen wears a suit.
jordan holmes
100%.
dan friesen
This is all childish refusal to accept responsibility.
And it's really interesting to see.
Because I think Owen embodies it so strongly.
jordan holmes
I mean, it might as well just be like, oh, it's fun to play cops and robbers, but I don't want to be in trouble for robbing stuff.
That's not cool.
It feels good to pretend to be one of those pioneering fight-fight journalists, but I'm a tiny little loser on the inside.
dan friesen
Yeah, it's fun to yell at people and be the cuck destroyer.
It's not so fun to...
I have to, you know, be talked about how you misidentify mass shooters.
jordan holmes
Yeah, yeah.
No, it is a lot in this arena.
There is a consistent underlying feeling of like, hey, man, why are you making me feel bad?
Right?
Like, don't make me feel bad.
Don't pierce the illusion.
I like the illusion.
dan friesen
Yeah, don't make me feel bad.
Alex left those papers on the desk.
Don't care.
Don't make me feel bad.
Other people said it too.
jordan holmes
We all know I'm full of shit.
dan friesen
Yeah.
jordan holmes
But we don't have to say it all the time.
dan friesen
Yeah.
There is a very strong defensiveness that just runs through this.
And so the idea of using anonymous tweets as a source came up in that last clip.
unidentified
Yep.
dan friesen
And that's explored a little more.
unidentified
All right.
mark bankston
I've shown you what's been marked as Exhibit 3. This is a screenshot from the video of your May 7th show.
This is the tweet that you were talking about that was sitting on your desk?
unidentified
Mm-hmm.
mark bankston
Okay.
This King Koa the Great account on Twitter.
You know that person's identity?
owen shroyer
No.
mark bankston
That person's completely anonymous to you?
owen shroyer
Yes.
mark bankston
That's, as a source, that's not ideal.
owen shroyer
Not my source.
unidentified
As a source, that's not ideal.
owen shroyer
Okay.
mark bankston
Correct?
owen shroyer
Okay.
mark bankston
I'm not asking you to say okay.
owen shroyer
You're not asking me a question.
I am.
unidentified
I'm asking you.
mark bankston
As a source, an anonymous account that you don't know the identity of is not ideal.
owen shroyer
Not ideal.
mark bankston
It shows a picture here and you'll notice that it says booked in Dallas County, Texas for unknown.
Do you see that?
Okay, so first of all, at this time, on May 7th, you knew the shooter wasn't booked for the shooting.
You knew that, right?
owen shroyer
I don't recall what I knew or didn't know at the time.
dan friesen
So one of the reasons that this is coming up is that the shooter was killed on the scene.
Right.
And so this booking photo of the...
There's reasons why anybody...
They should never have made it through people's filters.
unidentified
Right.
dan friesen
To ever get on air in the first place.
Right.
And so that's what Mark is getting at there, is like, you would know that this person was there.
I don't know what I knew.
So Owen has to get defensive about being asked about using anonymous tweets as a source because on some level, he knows that there isn't much more to his show than that.
This person, Kenkoa the Great, is a QAnon weirdo who interacts with Elon Musk a bunch, which raised their profile in the dipshit media space.
So, Owen...
Covers them a bit.
Yeah.
Owen already used a different printed out tweet from this same account earlier in the show, which was just a racist meme about crime statistics.
unidentified
Cool.
dan friesen
Which we heard a little bit of.
jordan holmes
We heard a little bit of that.
dan friesen
That was another Cancola the Great tweet.
unidentified
Great.
jordan holmes
Love it.
dan friesen
Yeah.
Owen knows that pulling at the thread of using random tweets as sources would end up leading to the sweater unraveling entirely.
Also, Owen absolutely knew that the Allen shooter was dead when he was on air that day.
unidentified
Yeah.
dan friesen
Here is a clip from the show.
owen shroyer
So the American media, that's the problem we're having, love to foment the racial divide.
They love to cause tension.
And then they hate white people so much.
There is the mass shooter that is a Hispanic individual.
That's really all we know at this point.
We could make assumptions because of the tattoos that we've seen on the body.
And it does appear to be a prison gang.
Tattoo.
A cartel gang tattoo on his hand.
dan friesen
So the B-roll that's playing while Owen discusses the tattoo on the shooter's hand is of the shooter dead on the ground.
Owen knows the shooter was killed when he's on air.
He just knows that if he admits that, it makes it all the more egregious that he didn't realize the mugshot he was presenting was the wrong person.
He didn't care that it was the wrong person because he was just trying to find a counter-narrative to the idea that the actual shooter was a racist Nazi because that's critical to their business model staying respectable.
Understood in the larger context, Owen thinks that he's giving defensive, evasive answers to these questions, but it seems like he doesn't realize how much more damning what he's saying is than just, I made a big mistake and I'm really sorry about how careless we were that day.
That would be so much more acceptable than what he's trying to...
Pass off here.
jordan holmes
It's absurd.
dan friesen
Yeah.
jordan holmes
You ever see this guy before?
unidentified
No.
jordan holmes
Never.
Here's a picture of you standing next to him after catching a fish.
But we never talked.
Here's a recorded conversation of the two of you talking about catching said fish.
I mean, you can't prove that was us.
This is a video of you having this recorded conversation about the goddamn fish!
dan friesen
You plotting against the fish.
Yep.
So this next clip is grim.
jordan holmes
I believe that.
dan friesen
I think that it's one of the sadder kind of moments that I think...
I don't know if I believe...
I kind of do, though.
jordan holmes
Okay.
dan friesen
And that's what makes me sad.
jordan holmes
Now I'm excited.
mark bankston
You see, it shows a watermark for a website, right?
It says recentlybooked.com.
owen shroyer
Yeah, I see that.
unidentified
OK.
Let's work that.
mark bankston
I've found you what's been marked as Exhibit 4, and I want you to take a look at the listing on recentlybooked.com.
Did you ever visit this webpage?
owen shroyer
Nope.
mark bankston
Did you ever ask anyone to do that?
owen shroyer
Nope.
mark bankston
Do you see where it says age 35?
owen shroyer
Yep.
mark bankston
Seeing that would have caused doubt that this was an image of a 33-year-old shooter, right?
owen shroyer
Sure.
mark bankston
You would agree that before you discuss a photo on your show, allegedly showing a mass murderer, You need to ensure that reasonable steps were taken to verify its accuracy.
owen shroyer
I was not discussing this photo.
I had nothing to do with the printing of this photo.
I had nothing to do with this photo ending up on my desk.
I had nothing to do with anything being highlighted in this photo.
I had nothing to do with this.
I never asked it to be put on the screen.
As I said in my affidavit.
mark bankston
And you shouldn't have let that happen, should you?
owen shroyer
There's nothing I can do.
I don't have control over it.
mark bankston
I'm not understanding.
owen shroyer
No, you are understanding.
mark bankston
No, I am.
I asked you earlier.
You have people who work under you.
You can give instructions to me.
owen shroyer
And did I tell anybody to put that image on the screen?
mark bankston
Don't you think you should have instructed people not to put anonymous images on your desk?
unidentified
Objection form.
owen shroyer
My boss puts it on the desk or somebody puts it on the desk for him?
What am I supposed to do?
There's nothing I can do.
mark bankston
I'm not sure where you're getting that your boss put it on your desk.
Don't you tell me that you had no idea who put it on your desk?
owen shroyer
So, okay, so I don't know who put it on my desk.
It wasn't me.
mark bankston
You walked into a studio.
Got onto a show, to a large audience, and started talking about materials you'd never seen.
owen shroyer
You wasn't talking about that material.
mark bankston
Aren't you sure?
We have a video of you talking about it.
owen shroyer
You have a video of me talking about a mass shooting, which was a story that happens to be the same name as this guy.
jordan holmes
Oh my god.
mark bankston
Right, you understand when you're looking at this image right here.
That this is a screenshot of your show.
You understand your viewers saw this, right?
owen shroyer
I'm the host of a show on Free Speech Systems by Infowars.
I had nothing to do with that image being on the desk or on the screen.
mark bankston
Right, and you have the ability, if you want, to give instructions to the members of your staff about what materials should be on your desk, don't you?
owen shroyer
Well, actually, I am supposed to leave the materials on the desk because the host, whose desk it is, likes his stuff to stay on the desk.
So no, I can't just clear out all the material.
mark bankston
So in other words, whether you might, you know you're getting on a show to talk to a bunch of people, and whether you might end up saying something proper or improper is dependent on the materials that were left on the desk by Alex Jones.
dan friesen
I don't like it when you put it that way.
jordan holmes
I mean, yes, that is exactly what I said, just word it in a way that, you know, sometimes you use words in a way that makes me feel bad.
dan friesen
There's something so...
Depressing about the sentence and back and forth of, like, Owen has exhausted all of his, like, okay, how can I explain this?
unidentified
Yep.
dan friesen
Oh, wait, maybe I don't have the power to remove paper from the desk.
Maybe Alex doesn't let me remove paper from the desk.
jordan holmes
Yeah, we've started at, you have control over what you're saying, and we've ended at, I can't remove paper from the desk.
dan friesen
Because Alex will be upset.
unidentified
Yep.
dan friesen
He likes his papers to stay on the desk.
For other people's shows.
jordan holmes
You know, and it is the same thing as with an interrogation.
Because they're turning it into an interrogation, they only wind up revealing information that you don't have to reveal.
dan friesen
Yeah, and it's such a crapshoot for me in terms of believing if that's true.
jordan holmes
Totally.
dan friesen
It seems like a very strange thing to be able to make up on the spot.
jordan holmes
Yeah.
dan friesen
But it also seems such a bizarre social work environment.
If that is something that Alex, like, you know, don't take the papers off the desk.
Alex will be mad.
jordan holmes
Yeah.
It's a testament to how things are.
That it's like, I would at least put that at 60-40 true.
You know?
dan friesen
Nah.
jordan holmes
Whether or not it is true, don't know.
But we are living in a space where that is more likely to be true than not true.
dan friesen
Yeah.
And it also seems like if you're somebody who respects himself and works in media, you should quit.
If that's the work environment you're in, that's an unacceptable work environment.
jordan holmes
I can't move papers from my desk is not something I would say at any job without going, and now I'm going to leave.
dan friesen
Yeah, this is indicative of a much larger problem.
jordan holmes
Yeah, there's no way that this gets better than, you can't move papers!
dan friesen
Yeah, it's a symptom.
So, uh, this next clip I think is, uh, fantastic.
And, uh, it's Owen, uh, trying to lash out a little bit.
unidentified
Good.
dan friesen
And then running straight into a wall.
unidentified
Ooh.
mark bankston
I want to make sure that we're clear that you did nothing to ensure that photographs used during your broadcast were accurate.
jordan holmes
Objection form.
owen shroyer
I had nothing to do with that photo on the desk or on the screen.
mark bankston
During a breaking news event, you should only discuss to your audience and publish to your audience the image of an alleged mass murder if the image was confirmed using a primary source.
Would you agree with that?
owen shroyer
I had nothing to do with the publishing of that image.
mark bankston
Not what I asked you, Mr. Shaw.
You want me to ask it again?
owen shroyer
Yeah, go ahead.
mark bankston
Okay.
During a breaking news event, you should only discuss or publish an image of a mass alleged shooter If the image was confirmed using a primary source, do you agree with that?
owen shroyer
Yes.
mark bankston
I want to talk about your use of anonymous materials, how you approach that, okay?
And certainly you recall the time on your show when you used an anonymous blog about a Sandy Hook parent named Neil Heslin.
Do you remember that?
owen shroyer
It's funny, because these anonymous accounts that you always bring up as the basis for my lawsuits never end up...
In a lawsuit with you.
mark bankston
That is interesting, right?
owen shroyer
Yeah, it is.
mark bankston
Yeah, it is interesting how the professional commercial journalist has a duty that's different than a random person on Twitter.
Would you agree with that?
owen shroyer
Well, I don't know.
That's all about interpretation, I suppose.
mark bankston
No, I'm asking you.
You're in the industry.
I'm asking you about the standard of care in your industry.
Do you think your standard of care, talking to your audience, is any different than a random, anonymous person on Twitter who's not a commercial media person?
Do you believe that?
owen shroyer
I'm not sure.
dan friesen
Ooh, there's the wall.
So this is another great moment that you could really dissect for hours.
Like, Alex talks about these moments that he has that are like, I could teach a class on this.
And I feel like I could teach a class on that.
jordan holmes
I agree.
dan friesen
It contains something that I think is quintessential about people like Owen.
and if you can see it, you can never really look at them as a respectable person again.
He's very clearly being led down a path where he has no choice but to admit that he put in no effort into verifying this mugshot, and in the process, the plaintiff was misidentified as a mass murderer to Owen's audience.
And at this point in the deposition, Mark has identified at least one other incident where Owen did the exact same thing, in the case of Uvalde, and another incident where using unverified stories on air led to him defaming Sandy Hook patriarchs.
This is a very clear and well-illustrated pattern of behavior connecting Owen's actions to their effects.
Owen can understand words, so he knows that he's in a real bind here, which leads to him Yeah.
Owen thinks this is a dunk and it's going to lead to him gaining the upper hand in the conversation.
But he seems to have no idea that this only leads to a more damning follow-up question.
Owen has no conception that saying these random Twitter accounts don't get sued could possibly lead to, do you think you have more journalistic duties than a random Twitter account?
Owen thought he was going to evade this line of questioning entirely and point the finger at someone else, but instead, he ended up tripping over his own feet, and now he has to answer a yes or no question.
About whether he's more legitimate than a random Twitter account.
If he says yes, he's accepting the premise that he fucked up with this mugshot.
If he says no, then he's accepting that his work is meaningless and you shouldn't take anything more from it than a tweet.
That's how serious this is or real any other shit is.
It's a fucking fake pictured Twitter account.
It's a tough spot he's landed in.
And you can tell that he doesn't want to accept either of these positions.
And so he does the only thing that could be worse.
He doesn't know if he, as a journalist and major talk show host working for God's chosen soldier fighting the literal devil, he doesn't know if he has a higher standard of credibility to maintain than a random person on Twitter.
That's absurd, and there's no way he doesn't feel like that's an awful way to answer that question.
I like that there wasn't a follow-up to ask more there, too, because by just letting Owen's answer of, I don't know, sit there, it makes him look that much more stupid.
It's crazy, that moment.
unidentified
Yep.
jordan holmes
I mean, if I'm...
Okay, let me try and put it this way.
I have never been in a deposition.
I have only listened to clips of these depositions.
I feel as though I have learned more about depositions than all of the Infowars people.
Who have been in them, as well as their lawyers.
Because I feel like if I'm preparing Owen for a deposition, the first thing I say is, have you listened to some of your old depositions?
Let's kind of look through those and see where we made mistakes.
dan friesen
Check out some of the game tape.
jordan holmes
Absolutely!
How do you not do that?
dan friesen
I don't know.
jordan holmes
And then you just say, oh, so when he asks you those questions where you're like, I've got an answer, you don't.
Just say no.
Right.
dan friesen
Or you think there's a moment where you're going to flip the script?
You're not.
jordan holmes
You're not going to win an arm wrestle.
This is not an arm wrestling competition.
dan friesen
Right.
And I think the issue is that Owen is used to existing in spaces where he's just yelling at somebody at a protest in front of an iPhone or whatever.
And oftentimes you can catch them off guard and sort of overwhelm them and badger them with stuff like, hey, why do I get in trouble but this Twitter user doesn't?
And maybe they'll be flustered by this.
jordan holmes
Yeah.
dan friesen
Or if you're on your show.
And there is nobody to respond to you.
And you're just saying that it feels good.
And there's no pushback.
But when you're in a situation like this and you try those same tactics, they're just not going to work.
And you're going to end up in deeper water than you were in originally.
Because now you don't know if you take yourself more seriously than a random person on Twitter.
And that is an unacceptable thing to imagine that you believe about yourself.
jordan holmes
Yeah.
dan friesen
I just, I love it.
jordan holmes
Yeah, just like in a simple, hey, buddy, let's take a look at your quiver of arrows, alright?
You think you have more than one.
I don't think you have one.
dan friesen
No.
jordan holmes
So just throw the bow down, say yes or no, and we'll go to lunch!
dan friesen
Yeah, and it's gonna be, it's like, answer yes or no, and it's gonna be worse for you if you try to get fancy.
Just because...
I'm just going to ask you a follow-up question to that that makes you sound worse.
jordan holmes
I mean, and we exist, and they know we exist, and it affects their deposition tape stuff.
Like, I mean, I just don't understand.
I would honestly be stoked to be deposed at this point because it would be the most boring deposition ever.
No one's doing an episode about my deposition.
I'm just going to go like, eh, no.
Yes.
All right.
We done here?
That's it?
Why?
dan friesen
Probably.
It wouldn't go like this, that's for sure.
jordan holmes
No, no, no, no.
dan friesen
So we have heard a lot of these depositions, and we've heard the one with Owen before.
Yeah.
In the Sandy Hook case.
And one of the things that I thought, you know, stuck out about that was that Owen seemed to understand What he had done wrong.
jordan holmes
Yes.
dan friesen
Maybe it was because of Bill's aggressive gummy bear act.
unidentified
Sure, I'm a puppet.
dan friesen
Yeah.
jordan holmes
I guess I am a puppet.
dan friesen
Yeah, and he did seem to recognize this is the error that was made, and we can do better than this in the future.
jordan holmes
Yes.
dan friesen
And so, Mark brings that up in this deposition.
jordan holmes
Have we unlearned that lesson?
unidentified
Exactly.
mark bankston
Going back to the use of that anonymous blog about Sandy Hook parent Neil Hustler.
You acknowledge that was a serious error on your part, right?
owen shroyer
Yes, and you're well aware of what led to those circumstances because, you know, a very similar thing happened where somebody brought that to me.
mark bankston
And you acknowledge that that was a serious error on your part.
owen shroyer
Yes, I wish I wouldn't have done that.
mark bankston
You called it the worst moment of your journalism career.
owen shroyer
Yeah, you're still bringing it up to this day.
mark bankston
And this, what we're talking about today, is the same kind of error.
jordan holmes
Objection.
owen shroyer
No, definitely not the same kind of error, except that you pounced on it to bring me here.
dan friesen
Not the same kind of error.
It's exactly the same thing.
jordan holmes
It is so the same kind of error, it is comical to all of us.
dan friesen
Yeah.
And that refusal to understand or accept that is probably a survival adaptation.
jordan holmes
It has to be, right?
We're in full-on baboon-level territory of he's making screeching sounds.
And showing his red ass.
Like, we're not in a, this is a thinking being situation.
dan friesen
I can't imagine actually being able to contain the thought that this is, like, meaningfully different than these other times that you've relied on bad information to defame somebody.
jordan holmes
Absolutely.
dan friesen
And last time you pretended that you'd learned your lesson and you clearly haven't.
Yeah.
And so...
jordan holmes
I feel like the words, I'll throw myself out, should be involved here.
Like, the moment he says that, he'll just be like, you know what?
I'll throw myself out.
I got this one, guys.
dan friesen
Instead, what they do is Mark decides to read from the past deposition.
Read Owen's words back to him.
jordan holmes
Why you gotta read my words, man?
mark bankston
Come on!
All right, Mr. Shore, you see there right in front of you is a cover page for the deposition testimony you gave in 2021.
Do you see that?
owen shroyer
Yep.
mark bankston
Okay.
Can you...
And you'll see that there are...
It's condensed.
There are four pages per page.
If you can flip into that to me to page 116.
owen shroyer
Okay.
mark bankston
Alright, and do you see a highlighted part up at the top of that page?
unidentified
Yep.
mark bankston
Okay, I'm going to read that question and answer to you.
owen shroyer
Okay.
mark bankston
But sitting here today...
When you go back to InfoWars, are you going to just be on live, get handed a story with clips from someone you don't remember who it is, and run it?
Or are you going to make sure it was fact-checked?
And your answer was, well, I would say, after this experience, I am highly less likely to be handed a story or a video clip and air it without checking it myself.
Do you see that?
owen shroyer
Yes.
mark bankston
But that wasn't true because you've been doing that most days on your show ever since, right?
unidentified
Nope.
mark bankston
And that's what you did in this case, right?
unidentified
Nope.
owen shroyer
Not at all.
mark bankston
Not the same thing to you?
owen shroyer
Not even close.
dan friesen
Great.
So, yeah, I think you have...
I don't think that this is the most, like, fact-finding of depositions.
unidentified
Right.
dan friesen
There's an element of this that is almost, like, shaming.
jordan holmes
I do feel like at a certain point, Mark could have gone, none of us need to be here.
You know that, and I know that.
But there's also a part of Mark that's like, I can just whip you all day if I want to.
You can't leave.
dan friesen
Oh, and I think that there's a value to it beyond just sort of a shaming and rubbing your nose in it.
Sure.
The last time that there was a case that Owen was sued in, they had what appeared to be a promise to behave differently in the future based on what was the...
Like, he got away with not getting super severe punishments in the Sandy Hook case.
And largely some of that might have been predicated on the appearance of learning a lesson and the appearance of slight cooperation and a promise to do better.
So him being forced to acknowledge and deal with someone saying, hey, you didn't do better.
That's why we're here again.
I think that that's not just scoldy.
There is a point to it.
jordan holmes
Yeah, no, the dunce cap didn't work last time.
You're still a little boy.
I don't know what to do next, but I guess tie you to a post and whip you.
dan friesen
Yeah, there's nothing more really to gain out of this exchange, but we've had this moment, and now you can reflect on it, but you're not going to, so whatever.
jordan holmes
What are we doing?
dan friesen
But now that there's been the shaming, just wrap up.
jordan holmes
Yep, yeah.
mark bankston
So you see after your answer, Mr. Ogden says, justice system is working.
Not all the way, but that's a big step forward for us.
unidentified
Not...
mark bankston
I'm not, and I'm not saying that sarcastically.
Genuinely, for both you and I and my clients, we appreciate that position.
Mr. Ogden was being a bit naive there, wouldn't you agree?
dan friesen
I don't know.
mark bankston
Let me ask you again today.
I'm wondering today, now after this experience, sitting here today, when you go back to InfoWars, are you ever going to be on just live and run with a story and discuss things that are on your desk that you've never seen before?
Or are you going to make sure it was fact-checked?
owen shroyer
Uh, nope.
unidentified
Huh?
There you go.
mark bankston
Thank you, Mr. Shore.
That's all I need from you today.
We'll call it a deposition.
dan friesen
Yeah, so that's, uh, you know, I feel like the, you know, the reading of Bill's, uh, you know, I'm not being sarcastic.
This is, this is an outcome that is positive.
jordan holmes
Yep.
dan friesen
I think it's kind of a reminder or almost like a, this is, we keep trying.
To offer you an ability to recognize or an opportunity to recognize what this is about.
And you refuse to recognize that.
jordan holmes
It is maybe extremely funny that Mark is reading a sincere note sarcastically.
In the sincere note, it's like, I'm not being sarcastic.
And Mark is like, now we are being sarcastic.
That is what is happening now.
dan friesen
Yeah, there's layers of sarcasm and sincerity to it.
jordan holmes
Yeah, fascinating.
dan friesen
That is like, this offer is still available to you.
jordan holmes
Sure.
dan friesen
To recognize...
What the problem with these behaviors are.
You know, the problems with the behaviors aren't like that you love guns or that you think that Joe Biden's evil or whatever.
The problem with your behavior is that you're so reckless with this information that you end up defaming private citizens.
jordan holmes
Yeah.
dan friesen
And the ability or the offer of recognize what's wrong with this and change.
jordan holmes
Yeah.
dan friesen
It is fascinating to inject so much...
jordan holmes
Contradictory meaning into a small number of words.
Insofar as how is it possible to say Bill was being naive?
And yet be naive yourself.
How is it possible to say Bill wasn't being sarcastic sarcastically?
It's fascinating.
dan friesen
Yeah, it's a naivete, but it's a decreased naivete.
It's a sincerity, but with a little heightened sarcasm that just comes from, I think, that dynamic of we're doing this again.
unidentified
Yeah.
dan friesen
You know, it's a, you know...
When you treat a first, second, and third warning a little bit differently, you know, when it's the same behavior.
jordan holmes
Yeah, I mean, I'm worried that at this point we're borderline saying, like, hey, man, six or seven thousand more examples and we're really going to come down hard on you.
Six or seven thousand.
Maybe eight.
Maybe eight.
But ten is our max!
Ten thousand more examples and you're in trouble, sir!
dan friesen
Well, the issue, I think, is that I don't know what authority you have to call down a punishment.
unidentified
Totally.
dan friesen
And, you know, it's more a, okay, we have six thousand examples here.
Can you please change your behavior?
Can you please operate in, like, a modicum of good faith and just please recognize why, like, X, Oh, you did X again.
Oh, you did X again.
And in hope that there is not a punishment that's necessary, there's a reflection and a changing.
jordan holmes
Yep.
dan friesen
And maybe the naivete is believing that this is likely to happen.
jordan holmes
Yeah!
dan friesen
But the...
jordan holmes
I guess the reflection and the change should probably come on the side of people who can reflect and can change.
dan friesen
And it is.
jordan holmes
Yeah.
dan friesen
And it does.
jordan holmes
Yeah.
dan friesen
I think.
And that's reflected in not taking it as seriously that Owen could possibly learn his lesson from this.
That is the heightened sarcasm and the lowered naivete is a reflection of that change.
jordan holmes
Totally.
dan friesen
It appears.
But yeah, I think this was an interesting cross-section.
It's a short deposition, but I think that there's a couple of those moments that are really, really, they show you something.
unidentified
Yeah.
dan friesen
And so I'm glad we could go over it.
jordan holmes
I mean, you know, it is so weird to put these people in a place that should be boring.
You know?
They just, they're like insects in a jar.
They can't just be chill.
You know?
They just gotta fly around and hit all the goddamn walls, and it's like, you're not going anywhere!
dan friesen
Yeah.
I think some of that is because they're so used to everything is performance.
unidentified
Yeah.
dan friesen
And, you know, like, the show is performance.
They go out on the streets with their camera and their iPhones and yell at people.
It's performance.
And so for that, this is kind of doing a show.
jordan holmes
Yeah.
dan friesen
You know?
And it's a bummer.
jordan holmes
Yeah.
dan friesen
Anyway, we'll be back with another episode.
But until then, we have a website.
jordan holmes
Indeed we do.
It's knowledgefight.com.
unidentified
Yep.
dan friesen
We'll be back.
But until then, I'm Neo.
I'm Leo.
I'm DZX Clark.
I am the Mysterious Professor.
jordan holmes
Woo!
unidentified
Yeah!
dan friesen
Woo!
unidentified
Yeah!
Woo!
steve quayle
And now here comes the sex robots.
dan friesen
Andy in Kansas.
unidentified
You're on the air.
Thanks for holding.
Hello, Alex.
jordan holmes
I'm a first-time caller.
unidentified
I'm a huge fan.
I love your work.
Export Selection