Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 14, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

03:05:20

Alex Jones Trial, Day 2 Live with Commentary - Viva Frei Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Yes.
	Going to see what happens if I go live 40 seconds early today.
	Good morning, everyone.
	So, I'm just going to open the doors, okay?
	Witness right now that you're looking at is the official representative of Free Speech Systems.
	I think everyone's been watching since this went live at 10 o 'clock, so official representative of the company, Free Speech Systems, Inc.
	Which owns Infowars.
	It's being called Infowars.
	I just mentioned the audience.
	I want to talk about that.
	When there's a pause, I'll go over some of the important stuff this morning.
	A little bright here.
	Mr. Jones' audience has grown exponentially.
	Is that fair to say?
	Since 2012, yes.
	So there has been an increase in the viewership.
	It's been, at least as Mr. Jones has described it, it's been exponential, correct?
	I think he's used those words, yes.
	Oh, he's on louder.
	That would explain the...
	As a result of that growth, Alex Jones and InfoWars have had billions upon billions of social media impressions, correct?
	Billions.
	I'm sure that there have been that many.
	I don't know the exact number, but I'm not going to disagree with you that there's...
	There's a big social media footprint.
	Not sure if Barnes will be joining today, but there will be less pausing.
	I'll try to talk in between pauses.
	But Barnes might be in today at some point.
	But we've got a sidebar tonight.
	What's up, Wiley?
	How goes the battle?
	Okay, now you've reviewed this document before, right?
	This rep is new to the company.
	Yes, I think I've seen this before.
	So, one of the things that we asked Infowars to give us were all of their social media numbers beginning in 2012, right?
	Yes.
	Now, they didn't give us all of their numbers, did they?
	I'm not sure what was produced.
	To be honest, and I know that there have been issues with locating material and finding out who has access to certain material and things like that.
	It's back to what I was asking you about earlier.
	You acknowledged that you have an independent duty, did you not, to determine things like Alex Jones' audience size, correct?
	And I did make attempts to do that, yes.
	Okay.
	And you...
	Because you knew he had asked for all of their social media audience numbers.
	You asked them to give it to you, correct?
	Yes, I asked for a lot of information regarding social media and audience size and financials, and I asked for a lot of material, yes.
	She was basically hired to represent free speech.
	So I don't think that there's, and no, I didn't receive anything to that effect, and there's a problem as to.
	Why that is.
	Well...
	Her demeanor doesn't look...
	There's a problem as to why that is.
	You agree with me that Alex Jones was under a legal obligation to produce that type of data for the years that we asked, correct?
	I understand that he is under the obligation to produce.
	And you asked for it, correct?
	I asked for a lot of things, yes.
	And in 2012...
	You weren't given any social media data.
	We are live on Rumble as well, people.
	I did not see any data for 2012, no.
	Because you weren't given it.
	I was not given any.
	You weren't given any for 2013, right?
	No.
	Okay.
	And you personally weren't given any, any social media audience figures, correct?
	I don't believe so, no.
	Bored or uncomfortable?
	So she's a new hire.
	Let's take a look at this.
	This is 2015.
	Let's just focus on the title there.
	You understand this to be a group report for the year 2015 for all of Alex Jones's social media accounts on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn, right?
	That's what it appears, yes.
	Okay, let's go to page two.
	She's got an interesting story.
	And we're just going to advance through this.
	These are the accounts that it covers, correct?
	Yes.
	All right.
	Let's go to page, the next page.
	By the way.
	And let's just pull up the top portion there.
	All right.
	As Barnes would say, they have all of this information.
	So this is for 2015, right?
	Alex Jones's and Infowars social media engagement.
	Impressions, numbers, engagements, links, links.
	Right, for those particular accounts.
	So in 2015 alone, there were 2.9 billion impressions, right?
	That's what it says, yes.
	That means that on social media, his stuff was viewed 2.9 billion times.
	That's not what an impression means, I don't think.
	Viewed, right, impressions and then the engagements are different.
	I think impression means it comes up on a feed.
	2.8 million engagements, right?
	Engagements, yes.
	And what that means is they liked it, right?
	Liked it, commented on it, retweeted it.
	Shared it.
	Shared it, right.
	And then there were 24 million link clicks.
	So if somebody sees in 2015, say for example, you're aware that in 2015, Alex Jones was repeatedly And if somebody saw that on social media...
	That would be the type of link we're talking about here.
	Jason, I'll talk about it during the pause.
	She's being called by the plaintiff's interview was in one of the social media posts and a link to the article or a link to the video and they clicked on that link.
	Correct.
	That's what that means.
	Okay.
	And that's just for 2015?
	Yes.
	All right.
	Let's go to exhibit 228.
	I believe this is in as well.
	We'll go over some of the preliminary stuff that they discussed today, but how she became the rep.
	I'm going to ask a few more questions about us, so let's just take that down for a second.
	And Free Speech Systems actually made social media engagement and audience growth a central pillar of its growth strategy from 2012 on, correct?
	I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.
	Did he do business on social media?
	Let's take the evening back a little further on that.
	You'd agree with me that very, very early on, Alex Jones realized the power of social media to spread his content, right?
	This is genius.
	Sure.
	That's why he has all those various accounts.
	Well, that's 2015, but he was on social media.
	2009, 2010.
	All of this.
	Right.
	And that's just when it was really kind of coming off.
	To hammer home that he made money.
	I had a Facebook in 2005.
	And to argue that he profited off of Sandy Hook.
	I had one in 2005.
	And Alex Jones had built a pretty significant social media audience in the early 2000s.
	Fair to say?
	Sure.
	A central strategy of free speech systems growth was to engage audience on social media, correct?
	Sure.
	And the way that they did that was every time Alex Jones would film the Alex Jones show, the show would be chopped up into clips, right?
	Yes.
	And Alex Jones was personally titled every clip.
	And he would republish them for exponential growth?
	I don't know if he personally titled all the clips.
	I think producers did have a hand in it as well.
	But I don't know if he personally titled every single clip from two, three-hour segments.
	They just want to show that he profited off the coverage of Sandy Hook, that he titled it, or that he's responsible for that, and therefore for the malice.
	I'm just asking his free speech system testimony that it doesn't know whether it was Alex Jones' practice to title every clip from his show.
	I don't recall, as I said here today, why he titled every single clip.
	I know he has done it.
	I'm sorry.
	He's going to say it over and over again.
	He's been deposed, yes.
	Nico Acosta was Alex Jones' longtime producer of The Alex Jones Show, correct?
	Yes.
	And he testified that it was, in fact, Alex Jones' practice to title every single clip from The Alex Jones Show, correct?
	I don't recall.
	I'm sorry.
	All right.
	Well, the jury will see that.
	Sure.
	In any event, every single clip was uploaded to Facebook, correct?
	Every single clip.
	I know a lot of clips were uploaded to Facebook.
	I don't know if every single clip was always uploaded to Facebook.
	I don't recall.
	Let's do it this way.
	Sure.
	The practice at Infowars was to upload every single clip.
	That Alex Jones would clip from his show to Facebook, right?
	Why would he clip it otherwise?
	To clip it not to upload onto social media?
	I don't recall whether it's every single clip.
	I know a lot of clips have been uploaded.
	But actually, that was the practice, wasn't it?
	To upload clips to Facebook?
	Yes.
	And it was the practice to upload clips from the Alex Jones show to Twitter, correct?
	Yes.
	It was the practice to upload them to YouTube, right?
	Yes.
	It was the practice to upload them to every online platform he had.
	Correct?
	Yes.
	If you go to band.video right now, you can see the full broadcast of the Alex Jones show, correct?
	Yeah.
	Yes.
	And you can see every clip he made of it, correct?
	Yeah.
	I believe so, yes.
	Okay, and the reason that he did that is because Alex Jones knew that video is the most engaged medium online, correct?
	I could have told you that 10 years ago.
	I don't know how to answer that.
	I don't know what he knows about the videos.
	I know that that's what he does.
	I can't say what he knows.
	I don't know.
	Well, aren't you responsible for knowing what he knows?
	Isn't that your duty?
	My responsibility here was to figure out what free speech systems knew at the time.
	So I wasn't in Alex Jones' head, so I can't say what he thought about videos.
	Did you ask him about his strategy for increasing his audience online?
	I don't recall us specifically talking about that.
	I did have a couple of conversations with him prior to my depositions in Texas, but I don't recall us specifically talking about that.
	Free speech systems is where that video as a medium is the most engaging medium online to grow audience, correct?
	I don't know.
	People are most likely to click on it, correct?
	I don't know.
	And Free Speech Systems knows that titling videos in a way that is designed to get attention is another way to get its audience to get it, correct?
	Oh, this guy's a social media guru.
	Mr. Jones' longtime producer testified about this, correct?
	Yes, I do recall that testimony.
	She talked about clickbait, right?
	Yes, she did.
	Clickbait.
	Clickbait is the way that you title a video.
	To provoke a response in the person seeing it.
	Not exactly, but...
	Yes, I believe that was her testimony.
	So, like, for example...
	Vampires.
	The vampire example.
	A headline like...
	Connecticut school massacre looks like false flag witnesses say.
	That's clickbait, right?
	That would not be clickbait technically.
	It's clickbait in the sense that it would grab somebody's attention.
	Yes.
	And it's clickbait in the sense that it wasn't true, correct?
	I'm sorry, repeat the question, what wasn't true, that title?
	Correct.
	That witnesses say, can you repeat the title?
	Yeah.
	Connecticut School Massacre looks like false flag, witnesses say.
	One of the reasons it was clickbait is because it's attention-grabbing.
	The other reason is because it's false, correct?
	Is the reason why it was titled that way and it's clickbait because it's false?
	I don't know how to answer that question.
	Clickbait technically is an inaccurate title for the video.
	That's what clickbait means.
	I don't think that we disagree that there were false statements made.
	In connection with the Sandy Hook litigation, or not litigation, I'm sorry, but in connection with Sandy Hook.
	She's a representative.
	And one of the things that Free Speech Systems doesn't disagree with, that it acknowledges, is that the title of the video, Connecticut School Massacre Looks Like False Flag, witnesses say, is false.
	That statement can be false, but the title is not clickbait.
	I don't disagree with that, no.
	Clickbait title.
	Free Speech Systems doesn't disagree with it.
	Correct.
	Because in that video, there was a single witness who said, That'll look like a false flag, correct?
	The video for that particular clip that you're referencing?
	I don't recall the specific clip.
	Would you like us to look at it?
	Yeah, I don't recall the specific clip as I said here.
	And one of the reasons you don't recall it, and this goes back to your preparation, the only way that you were able to become informed What's the study?
	About InfoWars was based on information that Alex Jones provided to you, correct?
	Well, Alex didn't provide it to me specifically.
	I received it from the attorneys.
	So Alex didn't give me copies of material.
	I received it from counsel.
	Okay, so which lawyer sent you material?
	So the material that I reviewed was in a Dropbox.
	That Dropbox was shared with me by, I believe, our Free Speech Systems attorney at the time was Attorney Blott.
	So I was shared the material in the Dropbox from her.
	Okay.
	This is a five-week trial on damages.
	Attorney Blott represented Alex Jones in Free Speech Systems.
	In Texas.
	In Texas.
	Correct.
	In fact, he has a number of lawyers, right?
	Quite a few.
	And Dino Renal is one of his lawyers, right?
	Most recently, yes.
	Okay, have you talked to him?
	No.
	Okay.
	Mark Randazza is one of his lawyers, correct?
	Yes.
	You've met with him, right?
	No, I don't believe I met with Mark.
	Oh, I saw something in your time records that you had a meeting with Mark and Zach.
	Who is Zach?
	Zach is Attorney Ryland.
	He's sitting right there.
	I know Zach.
	And Mark Schwartz.
	Okay, Mark Schwartz.
	Yes.
	Alex Jones has been represented by...
	Well, this is the problem, Eric, with this witness.
	And Attorney Patterson, his partner.
	Yes.
	But it was Ms. Blatt who sent you the material.
	Yes.
	She had access to the dropbox.
	And it would only have been Alex Jones who had the authority to decide what to send you, correct?
	Objection calls for speculation, Judge.
	No, I was provided with everything that they had in their production, so I don't think anything was withheld from me, if that was your question.
	That is what I'm getting at, because the video, Connecticut School Master Looks Like False Flag, was not provided to you, was it?
	I don't.
	I don't recall.
	All right.
	Let's...
	I had a handy-dandy note.
	As you recall, I had a...
	100 pages of notes on the videos that I watched, and I don't have that in front of me.
	So I just don't recall, as I said here, which videos I watched.
	I'm going to show you that testimony.
	Sure.
	But let me ask this.
	It would have been very relevant to you to have seen the first things that Alex Jones said about the Sandy Hook shooting, correct?
	Of course.
	And the first things he said about the Sandy Hook shooting are on that video.
	Connecticut school master looks like false flag witnesses said, correct?
	I don't know.
	I just don't know what video we're talking about.
	Show her the video.
	I don't have my notes.
	Let's see what's going on here.
	Do I have a moment to talk?
	Okay.
	So, she's the corporate rep.
	Let's hear something.
	I am moving on.
	She's the corporate rep.
	She was hired specifically to represent ACT as the spokesperson, the representative of free speech in the trial.
	The interesting thing about this, we'll get into it in further detail, she was recommended by Attorney Pattis, who employed her as a lawyer for five years a little while back, I think, or employed her for a lawyer a while back.
	She got paid to do this, and she's new to the company, new to representing the company, like...
	Very recently.
	Knew nothing of Alex Jones.
	Never watched any of this stuff prior to.
	And so she had to bone up on all of the litigation, the company itself, to answer these questions, to represent the company.
	Just for the witness, please.
	Is it 10 from the deposition?
	This has been marked for ID, Your Honor.
	And I'll hear you.
	Is it on the list, sir?
	Yes, it is.
	I'll get you to the new one.
	Okay.
	So apparently she got paid $30,000 not to represent but for her services to prepare for these trials and act as corporate representative.
	We'll get into the nuances of this after.
	So, Ms. Potts, as you sit here today, you don't know at the moment whether you were provided with the very first video that Alex Jones aired on.
	Oh, we can take that down.
	I just wanted to do it.
	Do you recall at your deposition there was a situation about videos?
	Oh, yes.
	There was, yes.
	I'm going to pull up 245 just for you.
	Sure.
	Just for you.
	I'm going to pull up just for the witness.
	There's nothing there yet.
	Yes, I see it.
	Can we do it just for the witness's screen, please?
	Not for every screen.
	Do you know how to do that?
	I did not know that he was on Stephen Crowder right now.
	Go down to Exhibit A, please, to this deposition.
	Someone's got to help me.
	Do you still have it?
	The lawyer's voice.
	Yes, I do, but...
	Can you just go down to Exhibit A?
	Sounds like a famous actor.
	Exhibit A, you will recall Ms. Paz.
	is a list of videos that you are providing, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Yes.
	And the video, Connecticut School Massacre Looks Like False Flag Witnesses Say, was not provided to you, correct?
	It's not on this list.
	Where it could be clickbait is if the video had nothing to do with that title.
	That's what clickbait means.
	A phony title that has nothing to do with the video that gets people to watch the video and then they watch the video like what the hell that title had nothing to do with the video.
	I've been told I'm wandering a little bit.
	He's only trying to get back on track.
	Happens.
	Wandering or lost are two different things.
	He's trying to show that Alex Jones made money off of his business and then to say by extension specifically the cover.
	Have you looked at that video though?
	That reminds you that The title of that video was...
	Well, as you said, it wasn't on the list of videos that I reviewed, so...
	Right.
	But we talked about it in your deposition.
	We did, yes.
	And Free Speech Systems acknowledges that in that video, not a single witness said that San Diego was a false flag.
	In that video?
	I don't believe so.
	Right, right.
	Correct.
	All right.
	Oh, yeah.
	Hopefully I'm smarter than Geraldo.
	He's smart.
	So let's go.
	Okay, so if the video...
	This is 228.
	This is going back to our discussion about apologies.
	Okay.
	And the reason we got on that video is because I was...
	I'm reminding myself now that...
	The reason we got on that video is because I was talking to you about the different ways that Alex Jones tries to engage his audience, right?
	And that's how we got on Clicker, right?
	When the lawyer forgets where he's going.
	What I really want to talk to you about is the audience.
	And so this exhibit 228, you're familiar with Google Analytics, the term?
	Yes, and I've seen this exhibit before.
	This is a program that InfoWars uses to track its web performance, right?
	Well, I know that there's an issue as to whether we actively use this, but it is available to free speech to track this type of information as far as internet traffic.
	Let's just pull it down for a second.
	So, I'm not asking that.
	You're free speech systems.
	Yes.
	He'll say it over and over again.
	It's so annoying.
	We're about to look at an exhibit from InfoWars showing Google Analytics data, correct?
	You don't know what you're saying now.
	Does free speech systems use Google Analytics to track its website performance?
	At the current time?
	So we talked about this a lot in our depositions as far as whether we...
	Yes.
	I don't want to know what we talked about in our depositions.
	Well, what if that's the answer?
	I just want to know yes or no.
	As free speech systems sitting here right now, does it use Google Analytics to track its website performance?
	Now or then?
	It is available according to my investigation.
	It does not actively use this information.
	Is that a yes or no?
	No.
	No, I'm confused, Judge.
	I don't mean to be rude.
	It was no to you or no to the question?
	I assume it was no to the question.
	Sorry, it was no to the question.
	Sorry.
	So Free Speech System says that it does not use Google Analytics to track its website performance, correct?
	Correct.
	that's based on my various investigation and discussion with the employees and my review of the material.
	That is a full exhibit, Your Honor.
	All right.
	Now this is an email from Chris Andrews, right?
	Yes.
	InfoWars employee, correct?
	Yes.
	Sent June 20th, 2014, right?
	Can I read this?
	Hold on.
	To Tim Fruget, right?
	Yes.
	Tim Fruget is Mr. Jones' longtime director of his online...
	This is all four of our websites on Google Analytics.
	I mean, I don't know if I'd say a long time, but he's come and gone quite a few times.
	But he, at that time, was, yes.
	He's only come and gone once, right?
	He was hired back in 2009, right?
	He was hired back and then he left again.
	Just stick with me now.
	He was hired in 2009.
	He worked for InfoWars.
	All the way through 2019, right?
	I don't know the exact date, but yes, he left in 2019.
	He came back briefly in 2021, I want to say.
	Correct.
	Because he was opposed in this case in 2019.
	Yes, he was.
	So he is being sent this email by Chris Andrews, right?
	That's what it says, yes.
	Yes.
	This is all four of our websites from Google Analytics.
	These are the updated versions of the others also, right?
	That's what it says, yes.
	Okay.
	And attached are four Excel spreadsheets for different websites owned by Free Speech Systems, right?
	That's what it says, yes.
	One is Infowarsshop.com?
	Yes.
	At the time, that was Mr. Jones's online store, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	He then added Infowarsstore.com a couple years later, right?
	Yes.
	There's another one for Infowars.com.
	That's the website?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Prismplanet.com.
	It's another website, right?
	Right.
	And what Mr. Andrews is doing is sending Alex Jones's business director all of the numbers for those websites, of how those websites were performing, correct?
	On this particular date, yes.
	Right.
	And if we scroll down...
	What's the point of this?
	Oh, they're going to try to prove that they had access to Google Analytics and then refused to provide it.
	We talked about this in opening.
	Can we put up both pages?
	Would you mind?
	So this is...
	They're going to try to hammer home...
	Yeah.
	So the jury saw these numbers in opening.
	This is basically Infowars.com's website performance for the whole year, right?
	That's what it is, yes.
	208 million page views being sent to the business director.
	I don't know if that was his title at the time, but it was emailed to him, yes.
	Do you want to revise your testimony about whether that you just...
	Gave to the judge that Infowars doesn't use Google Analytics?
	They don't have to use it to have used it.
	No, if I could expound on that, I would be happy to.
	Yeah, but they've used it.
	They check it from time to time.
	What does that mean?
	Does that mean they use it?
	And what relevance is this?
	The only reason why this...
	Why don't you tell me who gave you the information that Infowars doesn't use Google Analytics?
	She already answered that.
	I did review...
	Obviously, the various depositions, but I also spoke to Blake Roddy, who is currently employed there, and I did review with him.
	There's a couple of emails to that effect about requests to pull Google Analytics.
	Whether it's done with any regularity or whether it is used actively in the marketing strategy by free speech systems as far as me trying to familiarize myself with the marketing and what information is used because that was a topic.
	Sure.
	Because I think what I asked you is, who told you that they didn't use it?
	Did Blake Roddy tell you that?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Blake Roddy told you that they didn't use it.
	His position to me was that they only usually pulled it or would pull it at the request for litigation purposes and sporadically at the request of various people, but it wasn't actively used in the marketing strategy.
	He got her to say yes, he repeated the same question, and then she attenuated the answer to make it less beneficial for the plaintiff.
	That's why he asked the same question a second time and she elaborated on it and clarified.
	So they used it, yes.
	He told you they used it, yes.
	And that's why.
	And now the answer makes a little more sense and is a little less beneficial for the purposes of the point.
	And we went through this in open history as well.
	You see the total numbers for 2012, right?
	Yes, I do see it, yes.
	Okay.
	286 million page views, right?
	That's what it says, yes.
	Okay, and then you see the numbers for December.
	10.6 million sessions, 4.6 million users, 24.9 million page views, right?
	That's what it says, yes.
	You've reviewed this exhibit before?
	Can you zoom out on it?
	I'm sorry.
	Can you just go to the first page?
	Sure.
	No, it's not the first page.
	Right, no, I mean the first page of the Google Analytics.
	I reviewed the files that looked like they had the charts on them.
	So I don't recall whether I saw this specifically.
	But I have reviewed various Google Analytics documents.
	Do you know whether they gave this to you?
	I'm sorry?
	Do you know whether they gave this to you?
	I don't recall.
	I do recall seeing various Google Analytics.
	Documents.
	So I don't recall this particular document.
	And the reason I'm asking if they gave you this one is because...
	Let's go back to 2012.
	And let's...
	Probably I'm not going to go as long as I did yesterday.
	2012 and 2013.
	We'll get the essence of what's going on today.
	The reason I'm asking you, folks who gave you this one, is because...
	They want to determine that free speech had them.
	Between December 2012 and January 2013...
	You know the Sandy Hook shooting happened December 14, 2012, right?
	Yes, I know the date.
	By the way, Free Speech Systems acknowledges now, in this courtroom, that 26 people were murdered at Sandy Hook, correct?
	Yes.
	As Alex Jones repeatedly knows.
	Adam Orhansa is the person who went into the school that day and the only person, correct, and committed that atrocity, correct?
	Pretty sure, and this is not to just state facts, Alex Jones said this repeatedly, apologized for what it's worth.
	It goes up to 14.6 in January, doesn't it?
	That's what it appears, yes.
	It appears or it is.
	That's what the document says, yes.
	I'll get back to this also.
	Free speech systems produce this, yes.
	It goes from 49 million users to 6.3 million users, correct?
	That's what it says, yes.
	It goes from 24.9 million Page use to 35.7 million pages, right?
	That's what it says, yes.
	And you know that from December 14, 2012, all the way through the end of January, Alex Jones and Free Speech Systems were repeatedly publishing claims that the shooting was staged, correct?
	Repeatedly staged?
	It's different than...
	I believe so, yes.
	It's funny, I mean, I wonder if Alex is going to take the stand and clarify, or at least testify.
	And you know, from Timothy 3J's deposition, the business director, That Alex Jones asks him for sales numbers every day, right?
	Yes, he does ask him for numbers regarding, you know, how much is in stock, if there's an overstock of particular items so that he...
	I didn't have to overstock, I just said sales.
	Right, he does get sales numbers, yes.
	Right.
	And you heard Timothy Fruget's deposition that Alex Jones knows what he's talking about on the air.
	When they have a good sales day, right?
	I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?
	Alex Jones knows what he's talking about on the air when they have a good sales day, right?
	You mean if he has a good sales day, it's related to what he's talking about on the air?
	Is that your question?
	I'd be surprised if that's true.
	I want to make sure I understand your question.
	My question is, you recall Timothy Fruget's deposition, correct?
	I know he testified, yes, and I reviewed it.
	He testified that Alex Jones knows what he's talking about when he has a good sales day, correct?
	He knows what he's talking about, translates into sales, yes.
	And you remember David Jones' deposition.
	David Jones, I know you say you don't know whether he's ever an employee, right?
	Right, I don't recall the deposition testimony.
	David Jones is Alex's dad.
	I don't recall Dr. Jones' deposition testimony regarding the employment.
	Okay, right, right.
	You recall David Jones' testimony.
	That when Alex Jones has a good sales day, they try and replicate what he was talking about so that they can replicate those sales.
	I do recall that testimony.
	I do recall that testimony.
	Now, did they correlate any spike in daily sales to specific Sandy Hook coverage?
	I wonder.
	Do you mind me when our point break is?
	We can have it any time between now and the next segment.
	All right, so we will take our morning process.
	At this point, you'll remember all the rules.
	Oh, yeah.
	They'll remember the rules.
	Ron will collect your notebooks, and we will see you in 15 minutes.
	We'll take a recess.
	All right.
	All right.
	Well, it has accomplished nothing except one thing.
	So maybe it's accomplished one thing.
	Let me just pull this out.
	Remove, and I'm going to leave the headphones.
	Yeah, I'll leave them on.
	Good morning, people.
	How goes the battle, as we say in the industry?
	Let me get this out of here.
	Someone said without the default judgment, they had no case, and then the default judgment is Alex's responsibility.
	He screwed up.
	Well, in this path for me, there's an argument to that.
	I don't think a default verdict.
	Was ever the appropriate remedy in this case, and that's not for any affiliation.
	I have no affiliation with Alex Jones.
	That's not for any bias.
	I don't think anybody should be deprived of their fundamental right to present a defense.
	He screwed up.
	Let's just presume, for the sake of argument, that Alex Jones is guilty of the discovery noncompliance that is alleged of him, didn't provide a list of certain videos.
	Didn't provide Google Analytics.
	None of that, I would say, even prejudices, but certainly not fatally compromises the plaintiff's ability to make their case.
	Not showing evidence of profits, even if that could be tangentially or incidentally related to the malice question of defamation, is irrelevant to the defamation.
	How much he profited off allegedly defamatory statements.
	Is he relevant to the defamatory statements?
	It could add other aggravating factors.
	But to say that he didn't provide the lists of the videos, and he had an argument for why he couldn't, but let's just say he didn't.
	He said, piss off, I don't have them, I'm not finding them.
	You go and find the videos that you say were allegedly defamatory.
	And let's just say he burnt his Google Analytics.
	I'm not showing you any of the profit I made.
	You draw a negative inference in law from that.
	You don't render a verdict by default.
	For that, in my humble opinion.
	So I don't, you know, he screwed up, maybe.
	I don't know that there was ever a path for him not to screw up such that the court would not have gone this way.
	So whether or not it's Alex's fault...
	Okay, that's the argument.
	What was I gonna...
	I missed the super chat here.
	So by the way, we're streaming simultaneously on Rumble, and we'll move it over to Rumble for some exclusivity in a bit.
	This lawyer...
	Would have been the kid in class who would ask stupid questions in class and cut into recess time.
	Or Bueller.
	First of all, it's Aaron Eckhart.
	Without a doubt, it's Aaron Eckhart.
	And the way I can find that and confirm it...
	Oh, we got a live chat going on on Rumble.
	I forgot about that.
	Join chat.
	Let's see what's going on in the chat.
	So we got live on YouTube, live on Rumble, and we've got a live chat going on currently in Locals.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	So that was a pointless hour and a half.
	The day started off, an hour and 18 minutes.
	The day started off with some preliminary matters.
	I think they were by and large irrelevant.
	I was a little late, but they were arguing, or not arguing, but rather they were housecleaning, talking about admitting certain exhibits.
	So certain exhibits have been admitted by consent of the parties, and I think they're referencing those exhibits as this examination goes along.
	This examination is of the representative of Free Speech Systems Info The corporate rep is the person who is duly authorized by the corporation to answer for and on behalf of the corporation.
	The corporation is a legal person, but a corporation is an ink on a paper or an LLP or whatever, 501c, whatever.
	It's a corporate entity that doesn't have a physical mouth, so they've got to attribute...
	A physical mouth to the corporation, and the corporation decides who is the corporate representative for the purposes of litigation.
	I'm not sure, but I suspect...
	Actually, that's a good question under U.S. law.
	I'm fairly certain that you could summon an executive, a director, the president, and they're deemed to be a corporate representative.
	I don't want to venture out of my...
	Area of expertise.
	But under Quebec law, and I think it's the same under Canadian law, the corporate officers are deemed representatives of the corporation.
	So when you sue a corporation, you could subpoena any one of the official representatives of the corporation, vice president, president, director.
	They have people who are appointed to the board of directors specifically to be the representatives of the corporation for service, for lawsuits, etc.
	I don't know if they could have done that under U.S. law and if they could, why they didn't.
	Summon Alex Jones as corporate representative.
	So she was specifically selected by the corporation to represent them, and only recently.
	They've gone through a number of corporate representatives.
	This was one of the points the lawyer was trying to hammer home, illustrate, you know, score some points off of.
	You're not the first, you know, corporate representative to represent Infowars free speech.
	You're the third or the fourth, right?
	Yep.
	Why is that?
	What happened to the other ones?
	I don't know.
	But they went through the one that we saw in Texas.
	I forget her name.
	Karpov?
	I think her name was Karpov.
	They went through a few.
	I don't know why.
	But she was hired recently.
	Specifically hired for the purposes, I guess, of this litigation.
	Because she knew nothing of Alex Jones.
	She knew nothing of Infowars.
	She hadn't watched any of it.
	From what I see in the chat, apparently she's a lefty lawyer based on social media posts.
	I don't know that.
	For a fact, myself.
	Her past is interesting.
	This was brought up by the lawyer in the preliminary questioning.
	She's getting paid for this.
	$30,000, plus she's owed another $7,500.
	She negotiated how much she would get paid two weeks before sitting down for a deposition to represent the company.
	To throw some shade is maybe the word the kids use.
	To raise some questions as to why.
	The company would not offer the most knowledgeable person of the affairs of the company, that being Alex Jones, why they would get another representative and have to pay her, hire her for the job.
	She knows nothing of the company.
	She's new to the company.
	Why would she be able to answer for the last seven years, six years of free speech systems corporate conduct?
	It's peculiar.
	When I first heard the line of questioning, I was thinking, oh, they're going to...
	It's strategery by Alex Jones and free speech.
	Hire someone who knows nothing so that she can then say, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know.
	And then they can, you know, basically stonewall them in deposition.
	The reason why that theory might have been juvenile and sort of superficial is that by the time they mandate this person, the I don't knows, I don't knows, I don't knows wouldn't stonewall anybody because as we are seeing now, they had all the information pretty much that they needed.
	So if anything, having someone stand up there and say, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, when the plaintiff's counsel has more information than the rep themselves is offering would make Alex Jones and free speech systems look stupid.
	So early on, and this is typically the way it works in litigation, early on, when a plaintiff says, plaintiff sues a company, and they say, I want to hire, I want to depose.
	The president of the company.
	And the president of the company happens to be, for whatever corporate reasons, the mother of the actual mind behind the company.
	Sometimes people do that specifically so that if there's a lawsuit, the person who is the figurehead spokesperson of the company officially knows nothing and it frustrates a plaintiff's ability to make headway in a lawsuit.
	Sometimes what happens is the plaintiff says, I want to depose this person as representative of the company.
	And the company comes back and says, you can pick that person.
	It's your choice.
	But they know nothing.
	You want to examine this person who will be able to best answer the questions.
	In Quebec at the time, I don't think the rules have changed.
	You get your choice and you choose wrong.
	Too bad, so sad.
	Especially if the defendant says, don't pick that person.
	They know nothing.
	For tax reasons, that's the principal owner's father, mother, whatever.
	They know nothing.
	Pick this person.
	And if the person says, no, I want to stick with my original pick for whatever reason.
	Too bad, so sad.
	So they picked her.
	They brought up the fact that she's being paid.
	She's new.
	She knew nothing of the company.
	But they also brought up the fact that she used to work as a lawyer for Pattis.
	What's his first name?
	Nathan.
	What's the lawyer's first name, everybody?
	Nathan Pattis?
	Well, she used to work for Alex Jones's current attorney.
	Okay.
	Nepotism, conspiracy, I don't know.
	People can draw whatever conclusions they want from that.
	To me, you know, if I want to play both sides, I can say, yeah, that looks a little suspicious.
	This is like a little incestuous.
	Why is the corporate representative a new hire who used to work for the current council?
	It looks fishy, even if there's nothing to it.
	Flip side, you want to get someone trustworthy to represent the company.
	There's nothing more trustworthy than knowing someone is honest and good from having worked with them.
	Okay.
	They also brought up the fact that she was let go from her previous jobs.
	She said, you know, yeah, they called me a week after I went out on my own to start my own law firm.
	And then the lawyer says, no, you didn't go out on your own.
	You were let go, right?
	It's like, yeah, I was let go, but it was my intention to go out and start my own practice.
	And he says, yeah, but you didn't do it voluntarily.
	You didn't leave.
	You were let go.
	She says, yes.
	So we've got a corporate rep of the company who's new to the company, the nth, the fourth, the fifth, whatever, corporate rep, being paid to represent the company, although that would have been the case anyhow because she'd be an employee, still technically be paid by the company and representing the company, who worked with the current counsel five years ago or however many years ago for however long, and that's the rep.
	So that's it.
	Make what you will of it.
	That's where we're at.
	We saw how she answered the questions.
	One thing that's abundantly clear from the questions, they have all of the information that they faulted, maybe not exactly all of it.
	They have, if not at the very least, more than enough to make their claim.
	They have virtually all the information that they're claiming was hidden from them for whatever the reasons for however long.
	They have all the information.
	They could have easily and preserved justice in so doing, gone to a trial on the merits.
	Because what we're seeing right now is we're seeing evidence, and it's only on the damages aspect of this.
	It's only on the damages aspect after a default verdict.
	We're seeing enough evidence right now that I think even someone who doesn't like Alex Jones would say, was this opinion?
	Was this stupid opinion?
	Was this, I don't know, careless opinion?
	And we're only on evidence to prove quantum after a default verdict.
	I think anyone with a reasonably open mind can say, Cripe, this is fishy on its own, and we're not even at the evidence on the merits.
	We're at evidence for damages.
	But I don't know what points they think they scored this morning.
	Good.
	Yeah, he's running a business.
	He's trying to use snippets of longer videos to grow the base, to grow the platform, to grow affiliate, not affiliate marketing, but to grow the marketing side, to grow sales.
	Oh, okay.
	And what the heck is brought to you by Pfizer?
	What the heck is brought to you by Pfizer on every MSM-sponsored event?
	Brought to you by Modena, a tennis event.
	What are they doing?
	They're trying to make money off their tennis event?
	By selling pharmaceuticals?
	My goodness.
	The horror.
	The horror is the sheer double standard here.
	But, yeah, that's it.
	Okay, let's go see what we got about these superchats.
	What is the punchline about Google Analytics?
	That was not a superchat.
	This is a comment I flagged.
	What's the punchline?
	One of two things.
	He made money off of his lies.
	He made money off of his misrepresentation.
	He made money off of his hyperbolic, insensitive comments about...
	Sandy Hook.
	That's one punchline.
	From what Robert Barnes says, that's typically not even relevant to defamation, but I don't know.
	In theory, you can use that to argue for punitive damages, enhanced punitive damages.
	It wasn't just that he knowingly said false statements, even if he subsequently apologized for them, in fact, corrected them, and more often than not...
	Attested to the accuracy of what actually happened, but he's not allowed making that evidence now because he's already been found guilty by default.
	He made money off of his intentional affliction of emotional distress.
	Okay, well, that's one of the punchlines.
	And they're trying to show that...
	I don't know that they actually have the evidence to substantiate the suggestion, but that when there were spikes on daily sales, it corresponded with Sandy Hook coverage.
	I don't know that.
	They've alluded to it.
	I don't know if there's evidence to prove it, and I don't know if evidence has been shown to prove it, and I don't know if evidence doesn't exist, but they're just making the suggestion.
	But they're suggesting that there were daily spikes in sales.
	Alex knew what he was talking about when they had those daily spikes and exploited the content matter for the purposes of enhancing the sales, and I presume by extension there was such a spike in sales when he covered Sandy Hook, and thus he was motivated.
	To make false statements about Sandy Hook so that he could increase sales of his products.
	That's punchline number one.
	Punchline number two, that they used Google Analytics and that their excuse of not being able to provide them, which was one of the reasons for the default verdict, alleged noncompliance with discovery, was a lie.
	That's the second punchline, I think, and I think we're going to get there.
	Look at this.
	In 2019, you have an email saying...
	These are the Google Analytics for your four shows.
	But you told us you didn't have access to your Google Analytics.
	That's why you didn't communicate them.
	So you lied under oath.
	You defaulted on your discovery obligations.
	And that's the evidence.
	That's the second punchline.
	If there's a third one, people, let me know what you think.
	We got this one.
	And I think we should keep an eye on these lawyers' careers as they will probably get a promotion for slaying the scary monster hunter Alex Jones.
	Well, one thing...
	It's...
	I forgot the guy's name now.
	I forgot the guy's name.
	There's no question.
	They'll become paid...
	What are they called?
	Professionals.
	Consultants.
	Commentators.
	What are they called?
	Analysts.
	Paid analysts for CNN.
	Have a nice day, everyone.
	Point curation.
	Good to see you again.
	And I'm going to go to Rumble and see if we have anything.
	Have a coffee on me.
	I think he was trying to specifically attack Alex Jones' credibility with their choice on questioning.
	That's why he dug that she was new in a line.
	Yeah, yeah, there's no question.
	They want to throw someone out who knows nothing so they can claim she knows nothing.
	Something is going to get caught on a hot mic.
	There's no question.
	Contributors.
	Someone's going to get caught on a hot mic, and I want to hear it.
	I'm such an idiot.
	Every time I hear the hot mic, I go to my mic, but it's in my headphones.
	I don't have to move.
	Let me see if I missed any Rumble rants.
	I love the fact that we're at 2,900.
	Almost 3,000 on Rumble.
	2,500 on YouTube.
	For a while it was neck and neck and then Rumble just took off.
	Something funny happened yesterday.
	He's driving in the office.
	He's driving in the office.
	Puncher in Rumble says 90% of vloggers use analytics.
	I can tell you one thing.
	I've never used analytics.
	I'm probably not as efficient as I could be.
	But I use clips, for sure, because not everybody has three hours to watch a three-hour show.
	But I started off on the vlog.
	In the car.
	My, how the world has changed.
	The judge is making my comments.
	Please be seated.
	I'm with jury members.
	She wants me personally.
	My mental count of 10 to make sure you're all here.
	Counsel, let's typically get the panelists present.
	Will do, yes, Your Honor.
	All right.
	She's got it.
	Okay.
	Thank you, Mr. Foro.
	Do I want to have a Red Bull, cold brew, or Perrier carbonated yerba matcha?
	Judge, may I speak to Mr. Farah before we begin?
	Certainly.
	I love Pattis.
	Not because of who he's representing.
	No, but Pattis is like the old cranky lawyer that just doesn't give a blank.
	Thank you.
	I was just thinking, I made you this easy one.
	I was thinking about the best place to put it so that everybody can see.
	I suppose it would probably be over here so that the defense counsel can see it.
	It's pretty far for the jury.
	Well, that's the argument, Walker.
	I guess I could put it up there.
	And I don't even know what the context of that email was, but I'll figure it out.
	Bottom line, they could have gotten the Google Analytics from Google.
	All right.
	They wanted to default Alex.
	Exhibit 2,000 and...
	Exhibit 2,000 and something.
	I got a little nervous.
	Maybe it's...
	That's a full exhibit?
	Yes, sir.
	Now, let's pause.
	This is the same report for the year prior, 2014, right?
	Right.
	That's what it looks like.
	All right.
	And do you have the same response as you did to the earlier one that you don't know if this was provided to you?
	I don't.
	Yeah, I don't recall.
	I'm sorry.
	All right.
	No problem.
	The judge lost it yesterday, so I think she's aware that she's on camera now.
	This 2014 report shows all of Infowars' social media performance for the year 2014 on those four social media platforms.
	Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram.
	Right.
	Okay.
	Let's go to page two.
	And these are the accounts listed here.
	I'll count them up.
	Someone's phone just read directions.
	I'll count them up at some point for the jury.
	Sure.
	There's a lot, right?
	There are quite a few.
	All right.
	And let's go to...
	By the way, YouTube is not here.
	Do you know why?
	I don't know why.
	Well, free speech was de-platformed in 2018, but this is 2014, so I don't know why.
	Objection.
	Did you strike your honor?
	I don't know.
	They're not allowed talking about how Alex Jones was...
	Thank you.
	Was deplatformed.
	In 2014, obviously, InfoWars was uploading videos to YouTube every day, correct?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	But it didn't produce any data to us concerning its YouTube page performance, correct?
	He was deplatformed.
	Did we?
	No.
	Okay.
	Let's go to the next page.
	All right.
	And let's pull up.
	You know what?
	Let's pull up not just the top.
	Box, but like the whole area where there's text, okay?
	Yeah, there you go.
	Good.
	Okay.
	Oh, yeah.
	Enhance.
	Now, you recall that in 2015, and I should have started with this one.
	I'm sorry.
	But in 2015, the total number of impressions was 2.9 billion, right?
	I'll take your representation on that.
	I don't recall.
	I'll accept that representation.
	Here it's...
	I'll show it to you again.
	Here it's 2.2 billion impressions, right?
	Yes, that's what it says.
	And this is where...
	At the advice of my co-counsel, I'm going to use this easel.
	Alright?
	Because I want...
	Sometimes people feel better about paper versus screens.
	So, here we are.
	So, we're talking about...
	Can you see, counsel?
	Yes.
	Yes, depending on how big the numbers are.
	Now, there are other screens, so you don't have to.
	We'll get this if you want to, but let's talk about 2014.
	Okay?
	You got 2.2 billion impressions, right?
	That's what this does, yes.
	I mean, this is literally the meme of the guy drawing lines, connecting things.
	7.7 million engagements, right?
	Sure, you can round that up to 7.8.
	Thank you, 7.8.
	10.3 million link clicks, right?
	Yes.
	Now, 2014, this was the year that Alex Jones first had Wolfgang Halbert on the show, right?
	They're going to try to argue that...
	2014, yes, that's correct.
	InfoWars' growth was only because of Sandy Halbert coverage.
	Wolfgang Halbert on the Alex Jones show called the city of shooting an illusion, right?
	Did Wolfgang Halbert do that?
	Yes, he did.
	And Alex Jones agreed with him.
	Yes.
	He said that the parents should get an Oscar for their acting performance.
	Right?
	I believe he did, yes.
	Alex agreed with him.
	I believe so, yes.
	He said that it had been scripted two plus years in advance, the shooting that is, right?
	Did Mr. Halbert say that?
	Right.
	Yes.
	And Alex Jones agreed.
	Yes.
	And by the way, it wasn't just Mr. Haller.
	I mean, Alex Jones during 2014 was calling it a fake and a total publicist, correct?
	Yes.
	I wish she wouldn't answer the question that categorically, but during this year, you know that all of those shows and all of those articles lying about Sandy Hook went up on InfoWars social media channels, correct?
	Yes, they did.
	Do you recall Louis Certuti's deposition testimony?
	I don't think I do.
	I'm sorry.
	I don't.
	Who's that?
	I'm terrible with names.
	Do you remember the guy's deposition with the long hair testified about free speech system social media operations?
	I don't recall.
	I'm sorry.
	Did you watch the deposition of Infowars social media management?
	I know I read the deposition of Mr. Roddy and Mr. Zimmerman.
	Aside from that, the other ones, I don't recall.
	All right.
	Alright.
	Alright.
	Let me just try one more time to answer, too, Pete.
	I take the thing that you don't have a recollection of his testimony that all...
	Infowars articles and videos went up on all of their social media platforms, including all of their San Diego content.
	I don't recall the testimony.
	Is that in fact true?
	Even following himself here.
	That all of the videos go up on all of the social media platforms?
	Clips of them do, yes.
	And all of YouTube, correct?
	Yes.
	Now, in this year where Alex Jones And we're doing these things.
	They generated a total fans of 1.7 million.
	I don't know.
	Do you know what that means?
	I'm sorry.
	The clipboard is in my eye.
	Okay, go ahead.
	Do you not have it there?
	I do have it there.
	Which one are you referring to?
	You're a total fans 1.7 million.
	Oh, yes.
	I see it.
	And you see that the total followers since the previous date range went up 41%.
	Yeah.
	That's what it says, yes.
	All right.
	Let's go down to the next page.
	What's amazing is just like, you just have to appreciate, in all of this, we're already past a default verdict, which found to me guilty of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	This is about message volume, right?
	Yes.
	Message volume means messages that InfoWars fans are sending into their social media accounts, right?
	Yes.
	It's one way that InfoWars engages its audience, right?
	One of the ways.
	We're going to hear Alex Jones say, send us your tips, right?
	Sure.
	Okay.
	And you're aware that one of the things that Infowars did on Facebook in particular was give its audience missions.
	You know what that means?
	I recall seeing it saying missions.
	So yes, I know what you're talking about.
	They say to your audience, here's your mission, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And it's another way of engaging their audience, right?
	Right.
	The verbiage is used to take in the audience.
	That's correct.
	Right.
	And one of the ways that Alex Jones did that was by giving his audience a mission to investigate Sandy Hook, right?
	Was that one of the missions?
	Yes.
	I don't recall if it was specifically one of the missions, but, I mean, it was...
	He did give out missions.
	I do recall seeing social media posts to that effect.
	Right.
	And one of the missions, in fact, not just one, that he gave out was to investigate Sandy Hook.
	That's an answer, Judge.
	You already said you didn't recall.
	I don't recall specific posts.
	You do recall, though, Alex Jones looking directly at the camera on his show and telling his audience that, let's look into Sandy Hook, right?
	I do believe I recall seeing him saying something to that effect.
	Right.
	He said that right after he said to his audience, and I think I can get the exact word.
	Can you tell me tomorrow?
	Right after he said to his audience.
	So my heart goes out to the people I see on the news who say they're parents.
	The only difference is I've seen soap operas before.
	And I know the difference between when I'm watching a movie and when I'm watching something.
	Can we see the clip in context?
	Can we see?
	Do you remember that mission?
	I don't know if he termed it a mission, but I recall him using words to that effect.
	And in this year, the messages that they were receiving from their fans went up 557%.
	Yeah.
	On social media.
	Yes.
	They got emails too.
	Many, many emails.
	Let's go to the next page.
	He read a portion of what Alex Jones said.
	Can we just see the clip?
	They've got thousands of hours of video.
	Can we see the clip?
	We're getting into the breakdown of the impressions.
	You see Facebook had 1.2 billion and Twitter you're at 1 billion, right?
	That's what this says, yes.
	That's what this says.
	Up 300%, 307%.
	That's what this says.
	From the year before, right?
	That's what it says, yes.
	Okay.
	Yeah, let's pull up the next two pages side by side.
	It went up more?
	That's what it says.
	Did I read that correctly?
	You read that very well.
	What's up, legal-minded friend, Karen Cole?
	While we're working on that, I'm going to show you the engagement.
	Engagement is also up 100%.
	He grew his platform off, allegedly.
	And that's what we were talking about earlier.
	Every time an audience member likes something, shares it, Reposts it.
	Right.
	Right?
	Comments on it.
	Right.
	And that type of engagement is what InfoWars was going for, correct?
	Sure.
	All right.
	And it increased 100% in 2014, right?
	That's what that says.
	The year they were having Ali on.
	Actually, the first year they had Ali on.
	Right.
	They started to have him on that year.
	Right.
	Okay.
	So what I want to do now is go to the page where all the accounts are listed, if you can.
	Are you going to use that chart?
	I am for the next one for 2015, but is it in the way?
	No, it's just all alternatives, right?
	That's all right.
	I hate the courtroom politeness.
	I hate the courtroom politeness.
	I know you have to do it, and I'm bad.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	You know what?
	Did NBC growth platform?
	Probably not.
	The different accounts here, right?
	So if you went to one of the pages, you'd see, you know, the InfoWars report, et cetera, right?
	That's Twitter.
	Now, further, you've got the Alex Jones page, right?
	Yes.
	Right.
	And obviously, like, the Alex Jones page is dwarfed the other ones in terms of their popularity size, correct?
	According to this, you mean?
	Yeah.
	Oh, yes, because this is ranked.
	So the others are ranked higher.
	So, yes.
	Well, this is where Facebook starts.
	So like on this side, right?
	That's Twitter above.
	Right.
	Here's Facebook, obviously.
	You know, he's way above everybody else, yeah?
	Yes.
	Alright, let's go to 2015.
	The next one, 2013.
	This is 220, your honor.
	This is the one we were looking at earlier.
	It's amazing how much evidence they have, considering Alex Jones is defaulting on discovery operations.
	And let's go to the second page.
	I'm going to go through all of these.
	Here's the accounts, right?
	Let's go to the third page.
	Okay.
	And here we are again.
	And here we have the 2.9 billion impressions, right?
	The times and stuff is new.
	Yep?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And...
	Look at those numbers.
	Let's go down and see the growth numbers.
	So here, fans are up 21% this year in 2015, correct?
	That's what it says.
	You read that very well.
	I was watching the Johnny Depp trial.
	Here we are again.
	They're up 144%.
	Increasing engagement in terms of messages coming in.
	Up 129% since the previous date range in terms of, so the first number, 129% are post-send and that's messages that InfoWars was sending out.
	Those are those missions we were talking about, right?
	Among other things, but yes.
	And the messages they were receiving also up 144%, right?
	That's what it says, yes.
	Let's go to the next page.
	I'm going to go check out my YouTube stats and see how many impressions I've got.
	Impressions up 30% over the 2.2 billion, up to 2.9, yeah?
	That's what it says, yes.
	Now, let's get out of this.
	Yeah, please, please, move on.
	Far away.
	Okay, here's the link.
	Let's pull up the Facebook group report for 20, I'm sorry, not a group report, the Facebook report for 2016.
	This is an evidence drawn.
	If he does not directly correlate this to 222.
	To specific Sandy Hook coverage.
	This is just Facebook, right?
	I don't think 222 is in yet, but I don't object.
	It is a volatility.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	The following year.
	The following year.
	This doesn't include Twitter.
	This is just Facebook.
	That's what it looks like to me.
	We didn't get Twitter numbers for 2016, correct?
	I don't believe so.
	My understanding is that they were not in time to file, but they got past that.
	Let's go down to the second page.
	These are the accounts included in the report.
	This isn't all the reports, this is just the accounts that were included in this report, correct?
	It's all the Facebook accounts.
	Well, we'll compare it.
	But anyway, let's go down.
	Okay.
	So, in 2016...
	Now we're getting there.
	How many compressions were there?
	4.1 or 4.2.
	Billion.
	I just spat on my computer.
	Billion, right?
	Billion.
	So, Facebook alone in 2016...
	4.1 billion, yeah?
	That's what it says.
	That's what it says.
	All right.
	43 million engagements, 29 million.
	So what we're seeing here, Ms. Paz, is during these three years for which we have data, this is the explanation that you're talking about, right?
	Using Mr. Jones's words, yes.
	Yeah, right.
	And it would be fair to say, wouldn't it, that Alex Jones had no competitors when it came to Social media, online engagement.
	That's an objection.
	I'm sorry, what do you mean competitors?
	Yeah.
	In terms of people who were lying about Sandy Hook during this time, right?
	Nobody teaches Alex Jones in terms of why it's fair to say.
	Objection, Judge.
	Speculative?
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	I don't know how to answer that.
	I didn't prepare any information comparing other broadcasts.
	I can only speak for free speech.
	Great.
	Well, then let me ask you this.
	Four weeks on damages for Alex Jones, two weeks for Ghislaine Maxwell.
	And they ended early.
	...media personality during this time who was publishing information that Sandy Hook was a hoax that even comes remotely close to his audience's.
	Like I said, I can't answer that.
	I don't know anything about any other companies.
	He was big.
	He's popular.
	He made money.
	Free speech systems is not a lyric, correct?
	The answer is I don't know.
	Free speech systems doesn't know.
	That's correct.
	You're here for free speech systems.
	All right.
	Now.
	No, it's not true.
	I'm not running with Justin.
	Correct me if I'm wrong.
	Correct me if I'm wrong.
	I love these questions.
	During this three-year period.
	Just impressions.
	And just on some of the social media platforms, there were 9.2 billion impressions.
	Correct me if I'm wrong.
	I've just added numbers.
	Right.
	Right.
	What's an impression, lawyer?
	I'll trust your math on that.
	Okay.
	What's an impression?
	I mean, I would have asked, if I'm the witness, I'd say like, yeah, yeah.
	Look at that.
	He's so happy about that.
	Nine billion impressions.
	You know how much that's worth?
	Nothing.
	I still don't understand the importance of impressions.
	I think they mean absolutely nothing.
	Now, click-throughs?
	That I know.
	Click-to-links?
	For sure.
	Conversions?
	Yes.
	I don't know what the correlation is between impressions, which means it comes across your feed.
	And, oh, unless impressions...
	Now, what we don't have...
	I'm going to look this up.
	Social media numbers.
	Thumbs up, thumbs down, or reactions?
	For those earlier years.
	We did the Google Analytics, correct?
	For which years?
	We saw them for, I showed them to you for 2011, 2012.
	Yes.
	And then into 2013.
	Yes.
	And those Google Analytics numbers weren't social media, they were just InfoWars.com.
	I believe so, yes.
	Yes.
	But...
	Enter the person's screen.
	That's all that an impression is on Facebook.
	Produce things called media kits, right?
	Media kits.
	What do you mean by media kits?
	Well, I'll show you.
	This is Exhibit 212, which is in this folder, Your Honor.
	This is an email.
	Let's pull up the email header.
	Okay.
	Now, this is a message from Derek.
	At InfoWars.com.
	Do you know who Derek is?
	I know that we had an employee named Derek that I don't believe works there anymore.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	You don't know his last name?
	I don't.
	I'm sorry.
	He was an employee in 2013?
	Yes.
	Do you know what he did?
	Updated media kit.
	I don't.
	Okay.
	What about the people who sent this to?
	Will at InfoWars and Max at InfoWars.
	Do you know who those guys are?
	I'm sorry.
	No.
	Okay.
	And you'll see here that there are attachments to this email, media again.
	That's what it says.
	Okay, so what's a media again?
	I don't know.
	Okay, do you know what free speech systems use?
	I don't know what it is.
	I've never seen this before.
	This wasn't given to you?
	I don't believe I've seen this.
	Okay.
	Well, let's take a look at it.
	Let's pull up the attachments.
	Now, what you'll see...
	Ms. Paz, there's a date here, 2013, right?
	That's what it says.
	And it says Free Speech Systems, LLC.
	Yes.
	I'm on 720 HD.
	And it gives you the topics that this document is covering, right?
	Yes.
	Now we'll go through the document, but let's...
	If you're looking at this cover page, does this give you a sense that what this is is the type of information that Alex Jones would give?
	To potential advertisers who would pay to place ads on Infowars.com?
	That's what it looks like.
	Okay.
	And so let's go down.
	And you see there the first line.
	The house that Truth built.
	I see it.
	And you know that Alex Jones is selling himself to advertisers, but also selling himself to his audience.
	Tells them that they can count on him for the truth, right?
	I have seen him say that, yes.
	Right.
	You've seen videos where he said, somebody's got to tell you the truth, folks, right?
	Somebody's got to do it.
	I've seen him say words to that effect.
	Yes.
	He actually said that.
	But he never told the truth.
	Right after he told his audience that Sandy Hook was staged.
	The evidence is overwhelming.
	I've seen him say that, yes.
	He said that in April of 2013, right?
	I don't recall the date, but I know that he said something to that effect, yes.
	You don't recall that it was on the day of the Boston Marathon bombing?
	I don't recall the date.
	I'm sorry.
	All right.
	So let's go down here.
	And what I'd like to do is go down to the second page.
	All right.
	Now, let's pull up kings of their domains and just pull up the...
	Yeah, okay, that's okay.
	Here he is saying, in terms of web popularity, Infowars.com and PrisonPlanet.com are on top of their class, right?
	That's what it says, yes.
	And this is 2013, correct?
	I think that's the date that was on the document, yes.
	Okay, and it gives the number of visitors to the websites per month, the number of unique visitors per month, the number of...
	30 million page views per month, right?
	Yes, that's what it says.
	Okay.
	Isn't this free speech systems using Google Analytics?
	I don't know how they got those numbers.
	Well, we've seen the Google Analytics where these numbers are presented, correct?
	We've seen Google Analytics numbers, yes.
	Where else would they have gotten them?
	I don't know.
	I don't know where...
	But you know that they didn't use them.
	That's what you told the judge.
	I told the court what information was relayed to me, that they did not regularly use the Google Analytics in terms of their marketing.
	What you told the judge was, because the judge asked you, is that a yes or a no?
	In response to the question, does free speech systems use Google Analytics?
	She said, is that a yes or no?
	And you said, that's a no.
	Right?
	Right.
	And the reason you think it's a no is because that's what Infowars and Alex Jones told you, correct?
	I don't believe Alex told me that, but I think I said Blake Roddy told me that.
	And it's not true, is it?
	I can only convey to you what I've discussed with the employees and what I've reviewed.
	So that's based on my review.
	Because Infowars doesn't want this jury to know.
	Just how closely it was tracking his audience growth as Alex Jones was saying that Sandy Hook was alive.
	This is everything he's been working up to for the last hour.
	Let's go down to the next page here.
	You don't think that's accurate because somebody told you that?
	Do I think I want the jury not to know?
	Not you.
	Not you.
	Alex Jones.
	Whoever claimed to you they don't use Google Analytics wanted you to say that to this jury.
	Objection.
	Just speculating.
	Contents of another mind.
	Hydra, what are you talking about, man?
	I've been cutting every stream on YouTube and going to Rumble exclusively.
	Thank you for the reminder.
	Twelve more minutes and we're going over to Rumble.
	I don't think that was the reason why he told me that, no.
	Whatever the case is, when Mr. Roddy told you that they don't use Google Analytics, he knew that that's what you were going to come and tell this jury, right?
	Objection, judge.
	Sustained.
	All right.
	Let's go.
	Let's see here.
	Your Honor, just one moment.
	Also, Hydra, you should read the press release.
	But we're going over exclusively to Rumble in 11 minutes, people.
	So get it in.
	The link is...
	Wait a minute.
	Where is the link?
	We were talking about Blake Roddy.
	Okay.
	Blake Roddy.
	Now, Blake used to work for Tim Fruget, right?
	Yes.
	So I do believe he worked underneath Tim for a while, and then he took over at a certain point, probably after Tim left.
	So just to make sure the jury knows, because there's a lot of names being thrown around.
	Tim Frugier.
	Okay, yeah, fine.
	I can only bring up comments from YouTube on StreamYard.
	That's a problem.
	InfoWars Online Commerce Director.
	I don't know if he had a title, but he handled the website.
	So, yes.
	And the e-commerce side of the website.
	So, yes.
	So, he ran...
	He ran the online store.
	Do it.
	He tracked the sales.
	Thumbs up before going to rumble.
	He ran the warehouse.
	The whole, you know.
	This is tedious.
	He could have gotten this in five minutes.
	Tim Fruget.
	I'm bored.
	Supervised.
	And we're watching this together.
	The jury must be asleep.
	And Blake Roddy was his subordinate.
	Tim Fruget supervised Blake Roddy.
	Yes.
	Tim Fruget leaves in 2019.
	Blake Roddy gets promoted.
	Right.
	So those are the guys we're talking about, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	And what we see here on the top left is what InfoWars is telling its advertisers they're going to charge, right?
	Yes, that's what that looks like.
	Okay.
	Two dollars.
	What's CPM mean?
	Cost per mil.
	Cost per...
	You know what?
	I'm blanking on what the M is.
	Cost per mil.
	Okay.
	Two dollars is...
	I don't recall.
	Not very much by today's advertising standards.
	Basically, they're saying that for every thousand impressions your ad gets, is that what you understand it to be?
	You get paid us two bucks?
	Right.
	And you pay us, every time somebody clicks on an ad, you pay us $50,000.
	Right.
	So there's a difference between impressions and the actual engagement and the costs, right?
	Now, the reality is that InfoWars didn't advertise other people's products very much, right?
	Objection.
	When, Judge?
	2013, let's say.
	I guess I don't know how to answer that.
	You mean if we were advertising, if we were taking money for advertisements, were we actually advertising the products on the floor?
	What I'm saying is, really, almost every product that Infowars advertises on its platforms are its own products.
	In 2013?
	2013.
	Right.
	And that remains true, yeah?
	Sure.
	Okay.
	Let's go to the 2000 and.
	The 2014 media kit, this is $2.16.
	He's going to say the CPM is now going to be at $3.
	Thank you.
	They're capitalizing on the ads that they sell.
	So you see here, this is the media kit they put out for 2014.
	How much is the CPM going to be?
	Next year, they're telling their potential advertisers, come advertise with us.
	$3.50 CPM.
	Yes.
	And the main pitch they make to potential advertisers is just how big and engaged their audience is, right?
	Well, right.
	The purpose of it is to make people want to advertise with the company.
	And the way you do that is by telling the people just how many eyeballs are going to fall on their ads if they advertise within Forbes, right?
	Right.
	All right.
	Let's go to the next page.
	CPM, $3.50.
	Now...
	The house of the truth built.
	Okay, we got Alex Jones again.
	I'm going to be honest with you, Ms. Paz.
	I'm just going to ask you.
	Again, this is the house that Truth built, right?
	Is that what it says?
	You know, if we go to the text...
	It's not really a house, is it?
	Yeah, it's not words.
	Yeah, it's called ipsilon.
	Or maybe Latin words.
	No, it's not Latin.
	It's blank text.
	Were they advertising internationally?
	Do you know?
	No.
	What's it called?
	They don't know.
	What's the word for that called, people?
	It's the generic text that occupies templates.
	Let's go to the topping of the charts.
	So this means that they didn't even use it that year.
	Oh yeah, Lorem Ipsil.
	That's what it's called.
	Okay.
	So on the top there, you have the, again, they're telling their audience just how many million visitors per month, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	This suggests they never used it in 2014.
	And they're telling their audience their rankings, right?
	Their website rankings.
	They're not telling anybody anything.
	They don't send that with Lorem Ipsil on it.
	I'm sorry, where are you looking?
	Topping the charts, holding our own against the mainstream media.
	Okay, I see.
	It's the comparison.
	It's the comparison.
	So you see the six different websites listed there, right?
	Yes.
	And what they're saying is, hey, we're bigger than Glenn Beck, we're bigger than Rush Limbaugh, we're bigger than Newsmax, and we're bigger than WND.com, whatever that is, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	They're the biggest, right?
	Geez, Louisiana, man, argue it later.
	They say they're big.
	They say they're big.
	We got it.
	I guess my question is, I don't know what those numbers mean.
	Maybe zoom out a little bit.
	Well, you know what?
	Yes, go ahead and zoom out.
	But you know that Alex Jones consulted a program called Alexa, right?
	Oh, everyone's Alexa is going crazy now.
	Okay.
	All right, I see what it is.
	Yeah.
	Yes.
	And this isn't the Alexa you have in your kitchen when you ask what the weather's going to be today, right?
	No.
	This is a website ranking program, right?
	Right, right.
	I hate, I hate.
	And what Alex Jones, and you know that Alex Jones regularly consulted Alexa to see where Infowars.com was in the world rankings, right?
	I believe he did.
	Yeah.
	And here, as of 2014, in the United States, Infowars.com.
	Was the 301st most popular website.
	That's pretty damn good.
	That's what it says, yes.
	Of all the millions of websites in the United States, right?
	Right.
	That's what it says here.
	Okay.
	And in the world, all the websites in the world, InfoWars was 1,222.
	Yes.
	Let's get out of this.
	All right.
	No, no, no.
	Yeah, yeah.
	He did not need the witness for any of this.
	I'm sorry.
	Go to the next page, please.
	And he's wasting time.
	I think it's just more.
	And he's...
	I don't know.
	He's not coming off as...
	I don't know if the word is not likable.
	A little irritating.
	Right?
	The right is starting to hurt my ears.
	I'm sorry.
	The next one down.
	Here, they're just giving pricing out again, right?
	Let's pull up that page.
	Demographics.
	Oh, yeah.
	What do we say to demographics?
	I'll say 60-40, male-female.
	Okay.
	Now, what program was InfoWars using to track the demographics of its audience?
	You mean to create this chart?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Where did these numbers come from?
	I don't know where these numbers come from.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Do you have any idea how Infowars.com knows that 60% of its users are male and 40% are female?
	Pretty good.
	I don't know what information was used to create this chart.
	That's a pretty good split, by the way.
	But one of the topics that you were responsible for presenting sworn testimony to the jury on was exactly this, his audience, right?
	Right.
	60-40 is actually amazing.
	And so did you ask, hey, what's that information?
	I did when we produced the Google Analytics, but as we said earlier about how or when the Google Analytics were used, that was the information that was conveyed to me.
	Is it your understanding that Google Analytics tracks demographics?
	Does it?
	I suspect it has to.
	I don't know if it tracks demographics.
	It has to.
	I thought that's what you just said.
	I don't know if it tracks demographics.
	It has to.
	If it does, then here we see another example of...
	Objection.
	Hypothetical.
	If it does...
	It does.
	Just tell her it does, because you know that it does.
	So, you asked somebody at Free Speech Systems about...
	If War's audience, correct?
	You mean how much the audience is and the breakdown of it, or just demographics?
	Did you ask, hey, I'm supposed to testify to this jury about influence audience demographics.
	What do you have on that?
	Google has to track everything.
	I believe I did.
	I just don't recall whether I ever received any information on it.
	I don't think I did.
	Okay.
	All right.
	And so when you said, hey, One minute left, people.
	One minute before we go to rumble.
	And if you ask questions about demographics, can you give me what you have?
	You don't think they gave me.
	Right.
	They clearly had it, right?
	Well, I don't know what they had or where they got this from.
	I just don't know where this information came from, right?
	But it came from somewhere.
	No, it came from nowhere.
	And they're purporting to the potential advertisers that this is their audience demographics.
	That's what it says, yes.
	But they didn't give you that information.
	Of how they came to those numbers now.
	Or even that they had the numbers.
	Or that they had the numbers or where they came from or if they're reliable.
	I don't know.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Time for a break.
	Okay.
	Let's go to 217 InfoWars Media Kit.
	I'm sorry, Exhibit 2017.
	This will be the 2016 Media Kit.
	and this is in your honor.
	Council, you mean exhibit 2017, not 2017.
	All right, perfect.
	Oh, 2017 is a full exhibit.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	There should be a live chat on Rumble.
	Let's go to the second page.
	Let's go down.
	How's the truth built?
	We know that.
	Let's go down.
	Dude, it's your exhibit.
	All right.
	Now, let's pull up the bottom part here.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Okay.
	Now, here, this is Alex Jones telling potential advertisers about his reach, right?
	Yes, same as in previous ones.
	Okay, but this is 2016.
	Right.
	And now he's got 150 affiliate radio stations that the Alex Jones show is airing to, right?
	That's what it says, yeah.
	Okay.
	He's got 40 million page views a month.
	That's what it says, yes.
	I've exceeded the time on YouTube.
	And that's just on InfoWars.com, right?
	And I don't know if it also includes like Prison Planet and the other websites.
	For that, we have to check the Google Analytics.
	Let's wait for a lull.
	We're going to wait for the next lull.
	YouTube, half a billion views.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Audio stream.
	What is that, like podcasts?
	that's cool.
	I'm not sure if that means a podcast or streaming of the videos on other platforms, if they were posted elsewhere.
	So I'm not sure if that's what that means.
	You're not sure?
	Right.
	All right, let's back out of this then.
	Now, there's one thing that I really did want to ask you about.
	Let's go to the next page.
	Well, that might be the time.
	Keep going.
	Okay, dude, let's do it.
	We're doing it.
	Ending it on YouTube.
	We can take that one down.
	We can take that one down.
	Link is here.
	I'm going to post it in the pinned comment.
	We are ending it on Rumble, on YouTube.
	Going to Rumble now.
	Go.
	Go.
	Everyone up.
	See you there.
	Is one of the ways that InfoWars offered people to advertise with them that they would say, hey, we'll add a headline that looks like a news headline to our website.
	But it'll take our reader to buy something in yours.
	Did they ever do that?
	You mean to crack the ad in a certain way that it doesn't look like an ad?
	It looks like...
	It doesn't look like an ad.
	It looks like an InfoWars news headline.
	I'm not sure.
	I don't know.
	This is getting to the deceptive business practices aspect of their defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
	There's deceptive business practices as part of the claim.
	Yeah.
	Remember when we talked about earlier about the business model?
	Oh, I remember.
	Maximize that audience.
	Yep, that's called business.
	Get them all to the content websites and then send them to the store, right?
	That's how it works.
	Because if you have billions of audience members, some percentage of those people are going to end up buying your stuff.
	Sure.
	Right.
	And that huge audience growth translated into hundreds of millions of dollars in sales, correct?
	Yep, that's how it works.
	Over a broad period of time, what time period are we talking about?
	Aggregate.
	Let's take 2012 to today.
	2012 to this very moment.
	So in the last 10 years.
	Last 10 years.
	Hundreds of millions of dollars, right?
	Yeah.
	I don't know what the exact figure is, but it's quite substantial.
	I don't know if it's hundreds of millions of dollars.
	In sales, not in net profits.
	You were supposed to talk about it.
	Jackson Judge, can we have a question?
	Look at his face.
	You knew you were supposed to talk about this, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	And all I'm asking you, I'm not even asking you for a precise number.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Hundreds of millions, yes?
	I believe so.
	Okay.
	More than 500?
	I don't know the exact number, which is why I said I wasn't sure about the exact number.
	What would you want to look at to figure that out?
	I think we've produced yearly.
	The revenue from the websites.
	I think they have.
	Did you look at them?
	Have I seen them?
	Yes.
	Basically, by the way, they have all the same.
	The number is off the top of my head?
	Just anything more closely approximated than just hundreds of years.
	I just don't want to guess is my point.
	I don't want you to guess either.
	And you don't need her to guess because you have the number.
	And as a result of all of that revenue, it's fair to say that Alex Jones has become a very, very rich man.
	Well, Alex Jones owns the company and the website is earning money, but I don't...
	Do you want to talk about the value of the company?
	How do I know what Alex Jones does with the company?
	He's very poor because he squandered some money.
	I can't talk about his personal finances.
	I'm here to talk about free speech.
	Well, didn't you produce at least some evidence concerning his compensation?
	Yes, we produced some evidence as far as his draws from free speech as well as his compensation for the issue.
	What was his draw?
	I don't know what the draw is.
	I know he's made some millions of dollars, yes.
	What was his annual draw?
	I don't know the answer.
	You have to ask her.
	Show her a document.
	Would you like to talk about specific numbers?
	I don't recall the specific numbers.
	Has he made personally $100 million?
	I don't know what the number is.
	Objection.
	Um...
	We hear Pat is talking.
	We hear Pat is talking.
	Oh wait, I'm going to go change the pinned comment to something of mine.
	Alright, so let's do this.
	Let's do this.
	Go somewhere.
	Get somewhere with this line.
	She's looking at her watch.
	Alex Jones started his The Alex Jones Show, pardon me, a radio show in Austin, Texas, correct?
	Yes.
	20 years ago, something like that.
	Give or take, yes.
	Long time ago, yes.
	And shortly after that, he formed Free Speech Systems, right?
	Yes.
	And the reason he formed Free Speech Systems was to create a platform for him to make money off of his radio show, right?
	Well, right, to expand the radio show, to build that brand, build that practice, yes.
	He was syndicated across the country.
	We saw the 150 million affiliates.
	Before Sandy Hook.
	And that's when he started his website, Infowars.com, right?
	It's funny.
	This lawyer is almost making the evidence that Alex Jones' growth had nothing to do with Sandy Hook.
	Articles, right?
	It styled itself as a news website.
	Yes, yes.
	And he started to sell stuff, too, right?
	Not supplements at that time.
	Right.
	He was selling...
	Which time, Judge?
	I'm talking about the early 2000s when he had started.
	The very early period?
	Yeah.
	So, I mean, at some point, they weren't selling supplements when they first got started.
	Right.
	Right.
	But I can't remember the year after that, but it was some time later.
	Yeah.
	So, at first, it was like DVDs he was selling, right?
	yeah okay uh you sell some merchandise yeah right um selling some ads right yeah here and there and then every question ends with the right and he and uh he had a magazine that he was selling he did have a magazine yes He had an email newsletter, yeah?
	Yes.
	He started filming his radio show and streaming it to Infowars.com.
	Yes.
	He started building some other websites like Prison Planet TV, right?
	Right.
	Prisonplanet.com.
	Yes.
	He got on social media as we were talking about, yeah?
	And the whole message, the overarching message that he was...
	Sending out to his audience from the very beginning until now.
	Was that he tells the truth.
	Is that there is a group of international media, financial and political elites, including in our own government, that are conspiring to establish a global, tyrannical government to enslave and ultimately kill people, right?
	Those are his opinions, yes, but he...
	Created his brand and to broadcast those opinions, yes.
	Well, when you say, I'm just talking about this one message, okay?
	I'm not asking you about an opinion because Alex Jones tells his audience that this is in fact the case, right?
	That global elites are...
	Let me read it to you again.
	Sure.
	Read it again.
	Alex Jones has been paid to his audience for the past 20-some years.
	That there is, in fact, a global conspiracy of international media, financial, and political elites, including our own government, who are conspiring to establish a global tyrannical government to enslave and ultimately kill people.
	Correct?
	He has said that, yes.
	And he hasn't said, hey, this is just my opinion.
	Because someone needs to specify that that's an opinion.
	That's what he thinks is happening.
	And that's what he tells his audience to believe, correct?
	Yes.
	Oh my goodness, this guy.
	And one of the ways he gets his audience to believe that is by telling his audience that he is a journalist, right?
	I know he has said that he is a journalist.
	And I have talked to him about this particular issue, but he has said it on a couple of occasions.
	Yes.
	A couple of occasions?
	I don't know how many times, but the broad...
	What does this lawyer think he's proven?
	Let's just say...
	Objection, Judge.
	Can we have a question rather than admonishments?
	Well, I think it is important for...
	Objection, Judge.
	May we have a question rather than argument?
	So, just to be clear...
	Alex Jones hasn't told his audience that he's a journalist a couple of times.
	He advertises on his website that he is a journalist, correct?
	I don't recall as I'm sitting here seeing advertisements.
	He says he tells the truth.
	Let's go to that, then.
	Let's go to that.
	Dude, only you know.
	Number, please.
	Thank you.
	Now, let's pull this one up.
	Let's pull it up.
	Let's see this.
	This is, and you know this, because when Michael Zimmerman was InfoWars corporate representative doing what you're doing now, he testified that this was on InfoWars.com website in 2015, correct?
	Yes.
	I do recall seeing this.
	All right.
	And let's go to, let's see if we, I think it's right between the first and second page.
	Do we have it here?
	The Alice Jones Show is a nationally syndicated radio journalist and documentary filmmaker, right?
	I see that, yes.
	You can take that down.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	So, in 2015, when his website is getting millions and millions and millions of views, they're seeing that he's a journalist, right?
	That's what that says.
	Right.
	He didn't say it a couple of times.
	He said it every time somebody came to his website.
	Okay, that's a nice argument.
	It's on the website.
	It's on the website.
	So it's however many times it's huge.
	She keeps looking at her watch.
	We know how many times the website was used in 2015, right?
	Right.
	He said it a billion times.
	Tens and tens and tens of millions.
	Judge and Judge asked and answered in evidence.
	Yes, we already talked about it.
	Do you agree that's more than a comment?
	I'm sorry.
	I guess I misinterpreted you when he's saying it versus when it's being published on the website.
	Maybe I wasn't clear.
	I'm sorry.
	Maybe I wasn't clear.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm sure you're very sorry.
	Getting back to my question.
	One of the ways that Alex Jones gets his audience to believe that there is this global conspiracy out to kill and enslave them is by telling them that he is a journalist, right?
	Objection judge asking her to speculate on the contents of another mind and its impact on the listener.
	Is the question whether the purpose, the reason why Alex said these things?
	I don't know.
	You met with Alex Jones, right?
	I did.
	Did you go to your conversation with Alex Jones?
	I did.
	You put in all caps at the bottom of your notes that Alex Jones told you he is not a journalist?
	Yes.
	That was very important for you to tell this jury, right?
	It was important for him to get across to me that that's what he thought.
	No, no, no.
	It was important to him that you tell this jury that because he knew that's what you were going to do.
	Objection, argumentative.
	She doesn't know what it was.
	I don't know if he knew I was going to tell the jury that, but he wanted me to understand that's what his position was.
	Well, he's paying you $37,000 to testify here, right?
	I was paid to do a broad array of analysis of the company and to testify in connection with Texas litigation.
	If she were an employee or...
	So there's no question that you knew you were going to come here and testify to these people, right?
	Objection, Judge.
	Again, calls for speculation in what Mr. Jones knew.
	He'll testify here.
	He knew you were going to come and testify to these people.
	Well, I'm sure he knew that I was designated as the corporate rep, and so that was my purpose, so yes.
	He wanted you to tell them that he's not a journalist, right?
	That is the sum and substance of what my conversation was.
	But what he tells his audience is that he is a journalist, right?
	Or that he was at the time.
	He has, as we saw in the exhibit, yes.
	And he says that because he wants them to believe what he's saying is true.
	That's an answer.
	I can't say it to what is in his mind, so I don't know his purpose.
	He doesn't want his audience to know that he doesn't verify facts that he puts on the air, right?
	He doesn't want them to know that he doesn't do internal research?
	Is that what the question is?
	You know that Alex Jones does not verify the facts he's putting on.
	You know?
	I would agree with that.
	If he reads it somewhere, he will just broadcast it elsewhere.
	So he doesn't do any independent analysis of what he's reading elsewhere.
	He does, right?
	That's right.
	But he tells his audience that he does.
	Objection is mischaracterizing the testimony.
	He tells his audience that he does do deep research, doesn't he?
	Objection.
	Same objection as what previously stated.
	Is the question whether he has said that he has done deep research?
	I recall that he has made such a comment on at least maybe one or two occasions regarding Sandy Hook, yes.
	You recall the comment he made where he said, I did deep research and it just pretty much didn't happen, right?
	Essentially, that's what the quote is.
	And that's what he wanted his audience to believe, right?
	That's what he said on that particular occasion.
	Still hasn't gotten anywhere.
	So he said he was a journalist.
	He told her...
	And when he was telling his audience this claim about the fact that they were under attack...
	He would latch onto stories in the news to prove that to them, right?
	That's a lot of what he does on the show.
	Under attack by whom?
	This global conspiracy that's out to kill him.
	Him or everyone?
	Everyone.
	Everyone, right.
	So what he'll do is he'll take a news article, he'll pull it from a list of sources that he uses, and he'll print them out, and he has a desk.
	Top camera, he'll zoom in on it, and he will talk about whatever it was that interested him in the news that day.
	And the idea here is that he'll see something in the news, like let's just take a food shortage.
	You know that Alex Jones has told his audience that this global conspiracy is intentionally manufacturing food shortages to start with.
	That's what he thinks, yes.
	That's what he says.
	I can answer these questions so much better than this witness.
	Did Alex Jones tell you I think there are food shortages happening?
	I did not talk to him about food shortages.
	Bill Gates told you there's a food shortage happening.
	Objection, Judge.
	Can we have a question rather than an admonishment?
	Bill Gates just talked about 300 million people falling into starvation.
	Let me just go get the article.
	I'm not a journalist either, by the way, but I do know how to read.
	Let me just see it.
	I can't share the screen.
	I'm just going to...
	Bill Gates.
	Food shortages.
	Have I seen him say on videos that there are food shortages being caused?
	I've seen him say things like that, yes.
	And he says there's a food shortage.
	This global conspiracy is out to starve you, right?
	That's what he says.
	And, you know, he sells that audience food buckets.
	God forbid.
	Of storable food, right?
	So does Tim Pool.
	Nothing wrong with that.
	I mean, it probably tastes like crap, but other than that.
	By the way, the article in Yahoo News.
	He says, don't let him starve you.
	Buy my storable food, right?
	That's what he says on the videos, yes.
	Yahoo News headlines.
	Bill Gates likely saw food shortage a couple years ago.
	And why his land accumulation feels calculated.
	Yahoo News!
	I'll show you guys.
	I wish I could share two screens.
	One of the ways that the globalists are trying to kill them and starve them out is intentionally polluting the food and water supply.
	I believe he has said that, yes.
	And the way he tells them to deal with that is by buying his water filtration systems, right?
	I believe they are connected to the advertisement for that, yes.
	And those same chemicals, in addition to poisoning the water supply, are sapping his audience's libido, right?
	I believe so.
	And so he sells them to deal with that super male and super female vitality in order to fight back.
	Right.
	And save themselves.
	Right.
	They're connected to those advertisements for those products.
	Right.
	And he says to his audience that this global conspiracy has intentionally released pandemics upon them to kill off a significant part of the population, right?
	I believe he has said that, yes.
	Including the COVID-19 pandemic.
	He said that amongst other things about COVID.
	And what he's offered his audience as a way to deal with that are immunity boosters.
	Right?
	So that if they buy his products, they could be safe from COVID.
	Are they going to go sue emergency?
	I just took one this morning.
	And in fact, he's received...
	This lawyer is not good.
	He's not a prosecutor, by the way.
	He's just a plaintiff's lawyer in a civil case, not a criminal case.
	Wait until we read these articles during the pause.
	Okay, people, I'm going to run it.
	No, I'll get it afterwards.
	What's going on now?
	Am I on pause?
	No, this is live, and he's just...
	Wasting.
	What's he doing now?
	And the way he's able...
	By the way, were you here during opening statements?
	I was in the building, but I wasn't in the room.
	Were you in the overflow room?
	No.
	Okay.
	Are you familiar with Alex Jones' product, Basel Beat?
	I'm sorry, I'm not.
	Beat juice derivative?
	Okay.
	I don't know.
	Do you know what Alex Jones says about the health benefits of beet juice?
	It makes your pee red.
	I don't recall specifically statements regarding beet juice.
	Sorry.
	Do you know what it retails for?
	I don't.
	He sells it for $40.
	He makes it for $4.
	Oh my god.
	Capitalism is on trial right now.
	In a way, am I correct, if Alex Jones has been able to convince His audience to buy this stuff is by convincing them that he is the only one who's telling the truth about this, right?
	Oh, my God.
	It's such a terrible question.
	Can you make it a legitimate question?
	Free Speed Systems agrees that Alex Jones has built a very loyal bubble, correct?
	Sure.
	A very engaged bubble.
	Yes?
	Yes.
	His credibility with his audience...
	Is central to his ability to sell them products, correct?
	I think he said that too, so yes.
	And that's why he tells them that when they come to InfoWars, he'll give them the truth and nothing but, right?
	I think that's one of his taglines, so yes.
	And he calls his audience truth seekers, correct?
	Yes.
	Can you imagine that we're in the context of a defamation trial now?
	He tells his audience that he will deliver them the truth in journalism, correct?
	I think that's also a tagline, yes.
	Does he have journalists that work for him?
	Just out of curiosity?
	I'm just scribbling for no good reason.
	Do you recall on David Jones' deposition when he was asked?
	You have a very unique audience that is highly loyal to you and purchases products based on essentially Alex Jones' credibility with them.
	Is that fair?
	Do you recall his testimony was yes?
	I do recall that, yes.
	Terrible.
	What the heck is he thinking that he's trying to get at right now, other than losing everybody?
	By the way, he's opened a big door to cross-examination now.
	Would you want to take lunch at 1:00, Judge?
	I think one to two.
	And why was he telling his audience that they count on him for truth, and that he's offering them truth in journalism, but that he would reveal his truth to them where others wouldn't, right?
	I believe he said that, yes.
	Because to him, the mainstream, what he calls the mainstream media, they're in on this conspiracy to kill people, right?
	He said that, yes.
	All right.
	Let's play...
	I don't know what you are, if I think.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	It's positive.
	You're aware that on the day of the Boston Marathon bombing, Alex Jones would broadcast, correct?
	Did he broadcast that day?
	Yes.
	Yes, he did.
	I'm going to play you a clip from Plainish Exhibit 10. This is the clip, sir?
	Yes.
	Which one?
	Thank you.
	I interviewed the cops and the people that saw the fence like the moms in Oklahoma City.
	You saw them stage Fast and Furious.
	They staged Aurora.
	They staged Sandy Hook.
	This is what we were talking about earlier, when Alex was telling his audience that somebody's got to tell them the truth, right?
	Yes.
	This is five months after Sandy Hook, yeah?
	I don't recall exactly when the bombing happened in Boston, but...
	Assume with me that this is April 16th, 2013.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	Five months after Sandy Hook.
	Take your representation that it was five months later.
	Okay.
	They staged Sandy Hook.
	The evidence is overwhelming, right?
	Amongst other events, but yes.
	I'm asking you about Sandy Hook right now.
	Yes, he says Sandy Hook in the video, yes.
	The evidence is overwhelming, right?
	Yes.
	You agree with me that you heard him say also that they staged Aurora, right?
	I did hear that, yes.
	Ask him what he means by staged.
	What was he talking about there?
	The shooting at the movie theater at Aurora Colorado.
	There was a shooting at a movie theater in Aurora in August of 2012, right?
	I don't recall the date of that shooting, but it was prior to this video.
	And just so nobody misconstrued.
	Yes.
	This is neither support nor affirmation.
	Just what does he mean by stage?
	This came up in the last trial.
	He tells them that these horrible mass shootings are actually...
	Hoaxes.
	Staged and hoaxed are different things.
	The ones that he mentions there, yes.
	Karpov, in the last trial, got to explain this.
	At least through Alex's thought.
	American government is staging these events as a pretext for disarming them, right?
	He has used that type of words, verbiage, in terms of Second Amendment rights, so yes.
	Okay, I'm not asking about the Second Amendment.
	Okay?
	I'm asking you to confirm that what he's saying is that the hoax...
	He's using hoax and staged interchangeably.
	Correct?
	Objection to the form, Judge.
	Objection to the form.
	I apologize.
	In this clip?
	No, no.
	Well, let's talk about something different, right?
	Okay.
	He tells his audience over years and years and years.
	I'm not agreeing or saying Alex is right, period.
	If I'm the witness, I'm saying...
	What do you mean by stage?
	What do you mean by hoax?
	...is because they wanted to create a pretext for disarming.
	That's what he says to his audience, yes?
	That's one of the things he says about Sandy Hook, yes.
	And the reason these evil people want to disarm you is so that it's easier to enslave and kill you.
	That's the threat, right?
	That's what he says about various shootings.
	Yes.
	And this strategy of telling his audience that they could count on him for the truth was paying off, both in terms of audience growth and in revenue, correct?
	I'm talking about the period, let's say, leading up to the same issue.
	The strategy related to what?
	I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.
	What we've been talking about.
	This message that he's been pushing out and telling his audience that all these things that they have to fear, A, he has remedies for that he'll sell them, and B, He's the only one that will tell the truth about it.
	That strategy is working, right?
	Well, if you're looking at the social media numbers and the visits to the sites, yes.
	But even before, even before, that was the strategy that was working, right?
	I think it's been the strategy.
	I think it's been his strategy.
	And in 2011, he was profiled in Rolling Stone magazine, correct?
	I don't recall.
	I don't know.
	I don't recall.
	I'm sorry as I sit here.
	We'll flesh out his website where he cites the Rolling Stone article and comments about it.
	I don't remember.
	Do you know what I'm talking about when I say Rolling Stone article?
	No.
	I don't remember.
	Okay.
	Let's...
	And by 2011, Ms. Paz, at least by 2011, Alex Jones knew.
	That his audience could be provoked to violence, correct?
	Objection.
	I don't know what Alex knows.
	Free speech systems knew that its audience could be provoked to violence.
	What a stupid question.
	What a stupid question.
	Objection, did we approach?
	Yes.
	So I just got a text from Barnes that apparently we had Matt Stoller for tonight, but he had to cancel.
	So we're determining what we do.
	Can we excuse the jury?
	If it's an objection, it needs to be done on the record.
	Well, I thought all these were on the record.
	But I mean...
	It might be brief.
	I don't know.
	So, the Presbyte System's new analogy, when she was told, I don't know that the plaintiffs can have it every which way.
	I found a motion to say she can't because she has to have all the other's toys with the corporations.
	Okay, that's not good.
	I hadn't had a question before, for representation, I've proposed and I made a mistake, and I apologize, but I did search.
	I didn't, I hadn't myself, which came in last night.
	But my understanding is that a corporation is a legal section that doesn't know if anything she does, people interview, Alex didn't know if there's questions about it.
	He's saying the corporation doesn't know anything, individuals do.
	It's a corporation, it doesn't exist.
	It's an entity with a memory or a mind.
	So he'll ask it of individuals and then there's going to be an objection, you know, calls for speculation.
	Yeah, so what I was saying earlier, I'm not sure we're going to hear this.
	Like, if you have a witness on the stand...
	Okay, here we go, we're back.
	Free speech systems knew that Alex Jones' audience could be provoked to violence, correct?
	I don't know.
	Are you referring to a specific incident?
	Well, I'm getting there.
	But is your answer, I don't know?
	I don't know what you're referring to.
	Okay.
	One moment, Your Honor.
	We have to break in at least 11 minutes.
	Exhibit 74, your honor.
	Let's just hold off.
	All right.
	Now, are you familiar with this webpage on InfoWars.com?
	It's an About Alex Jones webpage.
	It looks pretty old.
	Yes.
	And this was in 2016.
	Do you recall Mr. Zimmerman's testimony that this appeared on the 2016 website, correct?
	I believe so, yes.
	I do recall that testimony.
	All right.
	And let's go to page...
	Actually, can you go back to that page one?
	Okay.
	I don't want to belabor this point, but in the second paragraph there, it says that he routinely breaks huge stories, right?
	The third full paragraph?
	Yeah, he routinely breaks huge stories.
	That's what it says, yes.
	You can read real good.
	He's not a journalist, so that's not true, right?
	Journalism is an act.
	It's not a vocation.
	If he has done one act of journalism, he can say he was a journalist.
	It's such a stupid question.
	All right, here we go.
	Okay, so you see here on this webpage about Alex Jones, they reference a 2011 Rolling Stones article, correct?
	I see that, yes.
	Okay, and they represent a, or they describe a quote about Alex Jones in that article, correct?
	Yes, I see that in the first paragraph, right?
	Yeah, we can take that down.
	And Alex Jones actually was interviewed for that article, correct?
	Oh, he was actually interviewed.
	That means it's not going to be a total hit piece.
	I would assume so, based on that article.
	Okay.
	And so when Free Speech Systems published that article, I'm sorry, at least on that website in 2016, it was aware that Alex Jones' audience members had been involved in high-profile acts of violence, correct?
	Objection mischaracterizes the exhibit.
	Try to repeat that question five times, lawyer.
	Do you recall the assassination attempt on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona?
	Yes.
	Do you recall when that happened?
	I do not, no.
	And Frisbee Systems acknowledges that Jaron Loeffner was a big fan of Alex Jones, correct?
	I don't know anything about him, so I can't say.
	You haven't read that article?
	No.
	Yeah, we need to get a way to highlight.
	All right, so we will take our luncheon recess.
	We will be back in court right promptly at 2:00 PM.
	So just make sure to report back a few, maybe five minutes.
	Remember what I told you about not talking and researching?
	I'm good.
	I'm good, people.
	You brought with you the good weather.
	Just make sure you avoid any of the lawyers or any of the witnesses or any media.
	I'm going to stay on the bench and address something with counsel.
	So we will see you back after lunch and Mr. Farrar will retrieve your notepads and secure them.
	Alright, let's see what the housekeeping is with the lawyers.
	And then we'll see if I ramble for an hour through lunch and then carry on this afternoon or not.
	See where Barnes is.
	See where Barnes is.
	Please be seated.
	I just want to clarify that.
	I really don't want routine objections raised at a sidebar.
	I want them in open court.
	It is on the record, the sidebar, but I want the objections made routinely.
	If there's an issue where you want to have an opportunity to speak with counsel or each other or the court on some issue.
	It was more than a one-word one, and I didn't think it was appropriate to raise it in the jury's presence.
	Well, then I also don't have...
	We really have not moved them very much, so if there is some argument that needs to be made outside the presence of the jury, I'm happy to do that as well.
	But he said he didn't want to.
	So I hope everyone has a nice lunch, and we'll start promptly at 2pm.
	I don't think I would ever want to be a judge, even if the opportunity...
	Were presented to me.
	They don't have the emblem that they had during the Rittenhouse trial.
	Oh, hot mic.
	And just like that, the audio fades.
	Oh, people!
	Two things I can do now.
	I can take this out and I can take that comment off so I can stop deliberately...
	It's a public hearing, people, but I don't want an issue with the law and crime logo.
	I think it's academic, and I think it's probably overkill neuroses, but such is the existence of Viva Frye.
	It is an existence of neuroses.
	Barnes and Nick going off on this shit would be hilarious.
	That's Banolis.
	Okay, so we've watched...
	It's not going to go anywhere.
	It's not going anywhere with this witness.
	We've gotten the gist of where plaintiff's counsel is trying to go with this witness.
	Let's actually just talk pure lawyering.
	Everybody who wants to be a lawyer, this includes myself, by the way.
	I listen to myself plead when I ask for audio recordings from court.
	You want to improve your own...
	Ability to practice law.
	Listen to yourself.
	If this lawyer were to listen to himself, he would note an excessive amount of ums.
	Right.
	Correct.
	Asking a question.
	Right.
	Um.
	It takes a little bit of effort.
	You don't have to fill in blanks with um.
	Justin Trudeau doesn't seem to know this.
	You do not need to fill in blanks with um.
	You should not finish every sentence with right, correct, okay.
	It's bad habits.
	And if you hear yourself doing it, you'll correct yourself because nobody wants to sound bad.
	People want to be good at what they do.
	Setting that aside, this lawyer has now had a representative of the company on for...
	We've been live for two and a quarter hours.
	So he's had him on for about two hours, we'll say, because they were on for 15 minutes before there was a bit of a break.
	Just between us, what do you remember from the last two hours of testimony?
	Let me see what the chat has to say.
	What do you remember from the last two hours of testimony?
	Infowars is tremendously popular.
	They had a lot of impressions, so that's what I remember.
	I did that on purpose.
	They advertised...
	Alex Jones said he was an attorney, but also told his representative that he wasn't, not an attorney, I'm sorry, a journalist, but also told his representative that he wasn't a journalist.
	Yeah, that's pretty much it.
	Time is valuable, especially when, you know, on the internet, you're fighting for attention in a sense, you're competing for attention, as you are with a jury, as you are with a judge, if the judge is the decision maker, here the jury is the decision maker.
	Boring them to sleep.
	Making no headway.
	Opening up so many doors.
	What will be fun to watch is Cross.
	Because right now, in Cross, they've opened up the entire discussion to the substance of Alex Jones' statements.
	And when I say substance, we're going to get into it.
	I took notes down on my PetSmart receipt.
	We have not had any more fish fatalities since the first...
	Four fish died.
	Not the first four fish.
	We got a bunch of fish for the fish tank.
	The mollies are good.
	They survived.
	The guppies are alive.
	The plico, which are my favorite, survived.
	But those four stupid...
	And they're not stupid as in creatures.
	They're weak fish.
	The four barbs.
	They're sort of like flat, round with long fins and black stripes.
	The four of them died.
	Weak fish.
	Can't deal with stress.
	And apparently, I guess my water was...
	Whatever.
	Sorry, the whole point of that was that I took notes.
	In Cross, they're going to be able to flesh out clickbait because that was one of the things.
	I mean, I'm taking notes.
	I forgot about the whole clickbait title discussion because that's how boring, tedious, and uneventful this testimony was.
	Clickbait titles.
	In my estimation, clickbait titles are more than just catchy titles.
	Clickbait titles are inaccurate titles to the substance of the video.
	You have clickbait thumbnails and you have clickbait titles, which refers to something that potentially is not in the video itself.
	So you have a clickbait thumbnail.
	It'll show you a picture of a massive marlin for a fishing video.
	Then you go to the video and it's a three-pound bass.
	That's clickbait.
	Clickbait titles tend to be things that misrepresent for the purposes of Exaggeration.
	Or generating interest.
	Something that's not in the video.
	I don't know what was in the video that they're talking about.
	About witnesses saying Sandy Hook was a hoax.
	I don't know if there's any element in that video of a witness saying that.
	It won't technically be clickbait.
	So this is something that in Cross they might want to flesh out.
	Presumably Paddis knows what video they're talking about.
	The other thing that they should flesh out in Cross, the way it was sort of fleshed out by Karpov, I think that's her name, the corporate representative in the Texas case, these terms, false flag, hoax, staged event, setup, fabrication, all of these things, they're loose terms and they could mean any number of things to greater or lesser degrees.
	Hoax.
	It doesn't even necessarily mean it didn't happen, although typically it does, I think.
	That's my understanding.
	Hoax means it never happened, it didn't happen.
	First of all, Alex Jones, in as much as he ever might have said Sandy Hooks was a hoax, I think he said it once, apologized, corrected multiple times.
	It's a stupid thing to say, in my view, objectively.
	Referring to it as staged, For the purposes of coming after your Second Amendment rights.
	Arguably a hyperbolic way of describing politicizing of an event that in fact occurred.
	But staged doesn't mean hoax.
	Staged, technically speaking, if you want to get into the not splitting hairs, but rather the actual definitions or actual meanings.
	Staged typically means it happened.
	But other players were at play to greater or lesser degrees.
	Staged as in they knew it was going to happen.
	And just by way of examples, think about the shooting that happened in Texas at the drawing of the Muhammad competition.
	Where the FBI knew that these two entities, these two individuals who were known to the FBI, saw their social media posts, knew that they were going to the event.
	And apparently were tailing them there.
	Does that count as staged?
	Some might argue that that means it was staged to some degree.
	Then you can get into the, you know, MKUltra-type discussions of the guy who shot Kennedy.
	Not JFK, not Bobby Kennedy.
	One of the Kennedys.
	Individuals who might have been weaponized for these purposes, staged.
	Or staged as in, maybe using the term improperly, an uncontrollable...
	Horrifying event that in fact occurred that then after the fact gets weaponized for political purposes.
	Just applying this all mutatis mutandis to COVID.
	People go between hoax, set up, staged, all saying it was created by humans.
	This was, you know, verboten discussion at one point in time.
	All along the spectrum.
	It doesn't exist.
	I've heard people say it.
	It's never been isolated, yada, yada.
	Not getting into that.
	I think most people agree it exists.
	The question is, was it man-made?
	Was it natural?
	Okay.
	It exists.
	Now the question is, was it deliberately released so that governments across the world could do whatever?
	Or did governments across the world say, this is out there.
	This is our opportunity.
	Let's exploit it.
	Well, you're sort of describing the same phenomenon from two different perspectives, and it's not even clear that the distinction makes a difference.
	Deliberately released, accidentally released, or originated in nature, if the end result is that the governments of the world are weaponizing or capitalizing off of that state of affairs, you're probably describing the same thing.
	So whether or not it was deliberately released by bad actors, when you have the WEF literally saying black on white on their website, It's an opportunity to reshape the world.
	I'm paraphrasing how they said it, just so nobody accuses me of misrepresenting.
	Let me just go get the actual manner in which they described it.
	WEF Great Opportunity COVID Pandemic.
	I don't want anyone accusing me of mischaracterizing.
	How they said it.
	Deliberately released, accidentally released, man-made, naturally occurring.
	Once the governments of the world start doing this, the pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world.
	Professor Klaus Schwamm, who's penetrated more than half of the Canadian cabinet and arguably other governments across the world, once you start...
	Seeing this, it no longer matters when you're saying it's a staged event, whether or not it was released on purpose, released by accident, man-made, natural, whatever.
	Once it's out there, and then you have these global organizations saying literally, quote, the pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world, end quote.
	Professor Klaus Schwab, no, no, hold on, we've got to reread it again.
	This pandemic represents a rare but narrow window.
	Of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world.
	End quote.
	Professor Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman, World Economic Forum.
	When you have global entities saying this, well, then when someone says it was a staged event, these are the nuances.
	So Padas, you know, if you're listening to this, when they're using terms that have multiple meanings, are often used interchangeably but inaccurately.
	So this would be the thing to reflect.
	Okay.
	Oh, by the way, Alex Jones says they're trying to starve people to death to reduce population.
	That sounds crazy.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Where's the link?
	It's because I opened it in the wrong browser.
	Safari?
	I opened all of this in Safari and not Google Chrome.
	Come on, Dave.
	Get your stuff together.
	Oh, it sounds crazy.
	They're starving.
	They're trying to starve the world?
	These global elites who are using the pandemic to reset the world are also involved in some form of plan or act of starving people?
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	What's this?
	By the way, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with any of this.
	I don't get into the intentions.
	Whether or not Bill Gates and the global elites are deliberately trying to starve people or it's just occurring because of their...
	Idiotic government policies.
	If the outcome is the same, I'll set aside intentions.
	On purpose or not, I don't know.
	But look, if I'm in that jury, and now that the door has been opened by the principal chief examination of this witness, Bill Gates likely saw food shortages coming years ago.
	Why his land accumulation feels calculated.
	I'm sorry, is this written by Alex Jones?
	Who's it?
	No, no, I'm sorry.
	That's Dan Budzen.
	Yahoo News.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	I thought Alex Jones was the crazy person talking about global elites buying up farmland to try to starve people.
	Let's read the article just to see if the headline remains anything true.
	Let me just go to the chat in Rumble because I like seeing the chat.
	There's a $10 Rumble rant.
	Goldie Sisp says, I strongly urge...
	Oh, Goldstein, you're wasting...
	This is another one.
	I strongly urge plaintiffs to sue Robert and David for defamation, given this false information discussed regarding these cases.
	Okay.
	By the way, you just financed something.
	I guess they should...
	I think you...
	I guess you should be sued, too, by extension.
	I don't know if this is intended to be parody to illustrate the absurdity of the lawsuit against Alex Jones.
	I'm not sure.
	You never know, but thank you for the support.
	There were more Rumble Rounds, which I'll get to in a second.
	I can't get over the absurdity of that comment if it's intended to be serious.
	But Alex Jones believes that global elites are trying to starve the people.
	Bill Gates likely saw food shortages coming years ago.
	He saw it coming because it's here now.
	Why his land accumulation feels calculated.
	It feels deliberate.
	It's almost like his land grab was deliberate when he foresaw Food shortages.
	Hmm.
	If Alex Jones had written this article, you would be, well, not you, as in the prosecutors, screaming from the rooftop.
	Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft Corp., has had an incredibly impressive career.
	Having the foresight and vision to push technology forward and make savvy investments along the way helped turn Gates into one of the richest men on the planet and a billionaire several times.
	You know what's amazing?
	You can see how they're going to frame.
	Some are going to frame this as malicious, deliberate, and sinister.
	This article is going to frame it as genius, business savvy, foresight.
	You know what the problem is?
	When you get rich enough to actually produce the results of the bets that you've placed, that is where things become a problem.
	Has Bill Gates acquired enough influence, enough wealth, to actually produce certain outcomes?
	I'll say yes.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	Didn't that lawyer just accuse Alex Jones of saying the same thing in different words and calling it crazy conspiracy theory?
	Not journalism.
	They attributed the increase in scarcity to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and climate emergencies.
	Yep.
	Nothing to do with Government responses to those issues.
	It's not the incompetent government response to global issues, and I'll include climate emergencies for the sake of argument.
	It's the issues, not the response.
	COVID caused the food shortages, not the government response to shut down the world.
	Just one example in a litany of contributing climate factors is the current state of affairs in India.
	Experiencing unprecedented heat, India banned wheat exports a few months ago.
	According to the World Food Program, roughly 50 million people across 40 countries are already on the verge of famine.
	Nearly 350 million people injure near-starvation conditions, a number that is up 25% since the start of the year.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	Because with the way that lawyer was saying things, it sounded like Alex Jones was crazy.
	Climate change and its effects on hunger and global pandemics have been on Gates' radars for years.
	Oh, he's so smart.
	Such a savvy businessman.
	Gates invested $10 billion in the global health in 2019.
	A smart move because making vaccines more accessible creates a 20 to 1 return.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	I thought returns were immoral.
	Alex is only doing, oh no, what was Alex doing?
	10 to 1. Yeah, Alex was doing 10 to 1 on the beat juice.
	I think the net cost, sorry, the gross cost was $4.
	The gross sales was $10.
	So that was not a net 20 to 1 return.
	It was gross.
	His foresight is uncanny.
	And had you mimicked his investment patterns, you probably would have made money too.
	Just because you don't have $10 billion doesn't mean you can take what you want.
	Just doesn't mean you can take what you have.
	Just because you don't have $10 billion doesn't mean you can take what you do have and copy his trading decisions.
	Oh, wow.
	Okay, story continues.
	Oh, boy.
	Let's see here.
	Related...
	Hold on.
	There's not much more to it.
	Concerns were shared earlier this month by farmer Will Harris, who owns a family farm that's over 150 years old.
	Benzinga covered the story.
	The farmer shared his concerns ranging from overuse of technology to misplaced blame.
	Thank you.
	I'm sorry, I missed the most important thing.
	It may be beneficial to do the same with farmland.
	Gates has been gobbling up farmland for years and has recently become the largest owner of U.S. farmland in the world.
	It's funny when other people say it, it's conspiracy theory.
	Other billionaires are also buying land, including Jeff Bezos and Ted Turner.
	So the man who's pushing vaccines, who's pushing compliance, medical compliance, is now acquiring, let me just say it, the largest owner of US farmland in the world.
	He has a hand in policy.
	At least he has an influence in policy.
	And now he's going to have control over food.
	If I were reading this on Infowars, I would be scared.
	I might be buying food to put under the table, but I'm reading it on Yahoo, who's also making money off the fear, but they're fine.
	Concerns were shared earlier this month by Farmer Yada Yada.
	Most alarming was his reference to Gates' attempts to influence agriculture systems in India and Africa and their perceived failures.
	Harris even went so far as to call the attempts a fiasco.
	Whether or not you believe in Gates' intentions is up to you.
	From an investing standpoint, however, it can be wise to mimic the rich.
	If you want to make moves like Gates and possibly achieve massive returns, consider investing in Farmland Real Estate Investment Trust REIT, like Farmland Partners.
	Oh, wow.
	While Farmland may not be exciting, it has proven to be sustainability and returns.
	It's amazing.
	It sounds like exactly what...
	The lawyer was saying was a total wild nutjob would be saying these things.
	But lo and behold, when Yahoo reports on it, it's news.
	When Alex Jones reports on it with his hyperbolic, over-the-top rhetoric, which some might argue is more style than substance, it's a big no-no.
	Is Goldstein doing it?
	No joke.
	I spent the money to force you to discuss it.
	You have no training in American defamation.
	Okay.
	Goldstein?
	Or it's Goldie Cisp?
	Again, thank you for the support.
	Oh, yeah.
	That's one element of it.
	Alex Jones is saying that there's a global elite.
	That's forcing the world into starvation.
	The force is a question of opinion.
	There's a global elite who have declared that they are using, exploiting the pandemic for a reset.
	You have another billionaire who is now the largest U.S. farmland owner in the world in the context of what is now a famine that is up 25% over this year.
	Has 50 million people on, I forget what, it was 50 million in famine, 350 million on the verge.
	Yeah, no, no, but what Alex Jones is saying is totally crazy.
	But wait, there's more.
	What was the other element that I was discussing?
	Not a journalist.
	We got that, clickbait.
	There's another article that I had brought up, which was on point as well.
	Let me see here.
	Oh, they're poisoning the water.
	That was another one that the lawyer has now mentioned.
	And it's interesting.
	He's brought up these stories.
	And the question is going to be, you know, what latitude is the judge going to offer in any response, in any retort?
	Deliberately poisoning the water.
	People in Flint, Michigan might, you know, have something to say on that.
	Whether or not they deliberately, like, this is another example.
	Deliberately poisoning the water.
	Suggest that there's some evildoer emptying a vial of poison into a well.
	Okay, did they do that?
	Probably not.
	Probably not, but we'll get to the story about the military drinking poison water in Hawaii.
	We'll get to that in a second.
	When they say poisoning the water, it certainly suggests an active act.
	Some might say, however, that if people become aware of the fact that the water is in fact poisoned, even by natural occurrence or human negligence, If they know the water's poison, and they don't tell people, and they let them keep drinking it while they order clean bottled water for themselves, some people might say, that counts as poisoning the water.
	You didn't pour it in with your hand, but you knew that it was there, you didn't tell anybody, and you were protecting yourself instead of drinking the same poison water.
	It's, again, a hyperbolic, arguably less accurate way of describing a phenomenon.
	But some people might say, Whether or not you pour the poison in, if you knew that the water was poison, you didn't tell anybody, you neglected it for decades or however many years, while buying clean water for yourself because you knew the water was poison, you are just as guilty as if you had poured the poison in there yourself.
	I'm not saying I agree with it, but that would be the argument.
	But speaking of actual poison in the water, here we go.
	Military families sue over poisoned drinking water at Pearl Harbor.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	This isn't Alex Jones.
	This is...
	Who is it?
	Corky...
	I'm not trying to make fun of him.
	I just want to get it.
	Corky Simasco, if I had to guess it.
	Or I would say Simasco.
	Corky Simasco.
	Military families sue over, quote, poisoned water.
	Drinking water.
	Poisoned drinking water at Pearl Harbor.
	The Navy accepted responsibility for jet fuel leaks, but refuses to acknowledge any lasting medical harm or risk, say lawyer for families.
	September 2nd, last week, and they're not saying poisoned water, or they said poisoned water, which implies an act, not an accident.
	I got to drink this before the ice cubes melt.
	Because when the ice cubes melt, the coffee gets too diluted and it doesn't taste good.
	Done.
	Okay.
	They are sick because they all drank the bad water.
	That is what four military families formerly based in Hawaii claim in a federal lawsuit filed this week against the U.S. government, alleging they were poisoned by drinking water that was contaminated by leaks from the Red Hill bulk fuel storage facility near Pearl Harbor.
	The four plaintiffs are among some 6,000 people poisoned and forced to evacuate their homes last year.
	When, quote, when four-year-old IW, what does that mean?
	When four-year-old IW has to explain what happened to her, why the butterfly in her neck is swollen and her hair falls out and the blood draw makes her cry, she tells me it's because I drank the bad water.
	End quote.
	The opening line from the complaint filed Wednesday in the District of Hawaii States.
	The butterfly is a euphemism for the hypothyroidism the little girl suffers from, according to the court papers.
	Her mother, Ariana Wyatt, is married to U.S. Air Force officer.
	Then, in language that reads more like a newspaper article than a legal court document, the complaint goes on to describe how former pro golfer Patrick Feint, whose wife Amanda is an Army major, has undergone five surgeries and contends...
	And contends with persistent abdominal pain.
	It also describes how another plaintiff, Nastasia Freeman, spent her family savings to get off the island but still suffers seizures and wakes up with her mind blank and blood in her mouth.
	Her husband is still serving in the U.S. Navy, the complaint states.
	It's the same reason plaintiff Jamie Simic weighs less than 98 pounds and tells her children that things they need to know When she passes, the complaint states, they all drank the bad water.
	Simic's husband is a Navy officer, according to the complaint.
	The Hosoda Law Group in Honolulu and the Texas-based Just Well Law firm filed the lawsuit on behalf of Fent, Freeman, Simic, and Wyatt families under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which states that the United States shall be liable for actual or compensatory damages.
	Ariana Wyatt wants accountability and change.
	Just Well Law attorney Christina Baer Said in an email to NBC News, she wants to ensure that this never happens to another little girl on American soil.
	It goes on.
	The source of the leaks, the Navy concluded, was the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility, a massive World War II-era tank farm located in the hills above Pearl Harbor.
	From there, the fuel seeped into the well that supplied water to housing and offices in and around the sprawling base.
	I want to see where in tension.
	In some instances, the United States has failed to treat the plaintiffs altogether, refusing appropriate tests or treatment.
	The families are now seeking compensatory damages.
	Oh, no.
	But, no, I mean, this doesn't have to do with population control.
	But the idea that, you know, people might actually be partaking in negligent conduct and covering it up.
	It's all crazy.
	Until you understand or see things that have actually been done and have actually occurred in the real world in real time.
	Then things Alex Jones says, whether or not they're right, whether or not they're hyperbolic, whether or not they're exaggerated, they at the very least become, you know, less science fiction and maybe perhaps looking for current events of things that have occurred in the past.
	So anyways, we'll see what it opens up for in cross-examination, because this was broad and useless, in my humble opinion.
	As a Quebec attorney with no expertise in American law, hashtag no legal advice, no election fornification advice, no medical advice.
	Rumble is cutting out, says 123 Lees.
	Okay, maybe we're blowing the bandwidth.
	So that...
	That deposition-in-chief, examination-in-chief was overly broad, useless, and as far as I'm concerned, opens a great many doors and cross because they want to get to the journalism...
	Okay, hey, Alex Jones told you he wasn't a journalist?
	Did Alex Jones ever go undercover?
	Did he ever go on-site to report?
	If he did, good for Alex Jones.
	You can say he's not a journalist.
	He engaged in acts of journalism.
	You know, hoax, the hoax versus stage.
	They had, I don't know if her name was Karpov.
	The hoax versus stage, the various terms that I know Alex Jones uses the terms.
	I actually don't listen to Alex Jones, not for any question of principle.
	I see some clips, but I don't, the rate of, the amount of time I spend on the internet, you know, it's very difficult to listen to stuff that takes a long time to listen to.
	But I mean, I've heard them talk about this.
	They talk about exploiting unwell individuals to carry out certain acts so that they can then be weaponized after the fact.
	It's happened in real life, people.
	I mean, if you don't know about certain things that have actually occurred, then certain theories about what might or might not be happening today might seem absurd and outlandish.
	When you read about things like, just for example, PatCon.
	Patriotic conservative.
	The government's attempt to actually set events up so they could then weaponize them.
	When you read about things that actually occurred, MKUltra, with a Montreal connection to it, McGill University, actually testing on mental patients at the Allen Memorial in Montreal.
	When you hear about things like Operation Paperclip, which actually occurred, Operation Mockingbird, Operation Paperclip was...
	Secretly getting former Nazi scientists out of Nazi Germany into the West.
	Operation Mockingbird.
	Intelligence infiltrating media to use it as a tool of the military, of intelligence.
	Operation Northwoods.
	The Department of Defense discussing staging terrorist attacks on American soil to support a foreign war.
	What's another one?
	MKUltra?
	Hey, there's just too many.
	When you know things like that have occurred in the past, whether or not it makes you smarter or more traumatized in real time where you either see things before others or potentially see things that aren't there because you're looking for them, that's a separate discussion.
	But once you know the things that have actually occurred, the Tuskegee experiments, we have our own version in Canada, the residential schools, where they were not only taking Indigenous children from their families to put them into...
	Religious institutions, schools where they were abused in all manners.
	They were tested on.
	They would die and then they were buried on site.
	These things have happened.
	And the truth is sometimes so shocking that it's almost undigestible.
	But when you know that these things have actually occurred, it might make you more traumatized in real time.
	You might see things before others, or you might see things that aren't there.
	And you might see hoaxes everywhere because you've known what they've done in the past.
	But all that said, once you know what's been done in the past, that has actually been done, confirmed, and you can go read it up on yourself.
	Whether or not Alex Jones is right or wrong on any given issue, at least some of his theorizing becomes a lot less fantastical.
	Okay.
	Gulf of Tonkin.
	There's another one.
	Cars 10W.
	Yep.
	Gulf of Tonkin.
	Bay of Pigs.
	So that's it.
	I'm going to see what we're going to do.
	I'm going to go.
	I'll see what Barnes is up to for this evening.
	I'm going to cut this before lunch and you guys can go watch the trial afterwards and continuation.
	I'll watch it.
	But I'll have to take care of some other things.
	There was an article that I had brought up that I wanted.
	Yeah.
	My pillow guy got raided.
	My pillow guy, Mike Lindell, has been raided by, I don't know, the FBI?
	Authorities?
	Where's the link to the article?
	I'm wondering here, is the states going to turn into a place where buying a pillow is going to be as risky as donating to a federally incorporated not-for-profit?
	In Canada, Justin Trudeau authorized banks To freeze the accounts of people who donated to the convoy.
	They only froze the bank accounts of people who actively participated in the convoy.
	Actively, I don't know, organized and whatever.
	But the question is, hey, if you buy it, I bought a Mike Lindell pillow today.
	Is the States going to turn into a country where literally buying a pillow is going to be as risky as Canada, where donating to a federally incorporated not-for-profit Created exposure.
	And we're going to convince ourselves that we still live in a free world.
	Let me do this here.
	I'm watching myself.
	When watching myself, I notice that I talk with my hands.
	I like to think that my hand gesticulation is coherent, on point, and not distracting or excessive, but I'll have to watch and maybe rely on commentary.
	But, here we go.
	DOJ.
	Sends some 40 subpoenas to Trump aides.
	The subpoenas.
	Subpoenas.
	Can I zoom in?
	There we go.
	The subpoenas are a step forward in the event, in the investigation.
	Where is this from?
	Sorry, is this the right article?
	Yeah, September 12th.
	It's a step forward in an investigation that's been going on for nearly two years.
	My goodness.
	Step forward to one person is a step back.
	To any reasonable person with a sense of justice and freedom.
	Let's read it.
	The subpoenas are a step forward in the investigation of the events leading up to the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol.
	Two years later, they're subpoenaing Trump aides, including lawyers, by the way.
	And to some people at Politico, this is a step forward in an investigation that's been going on for nearly two years and has yielded Bubkis?
	Gotta keep going.
	Gotta keep going.
	We will find it when we find it.
	The Justice Department has issued some 40 subpoenas to aides of former President Donald Trump regarding Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, Politico confirmed Monday.
	The subpoenas, first reported by the New York Times, I actually think they might have first been reported by Steve Bannon, if I'm not mistaken, are a major step...
	Oh, maybe it was the raids that were reported by Steve Bannon.
	They're a major step forward.
	A major step forward in the ongoing investigation of the events leading up to the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol.
	They also come as Trump is dealing with a separate inquiry into his handling.
	Yeah, we know that part.
	Former Trump advisor Stephen Bannon was the first to discuss the recent batch of subpoenas.
	I thought you said it was the New York Times.
	Saying on his podcast last week that 35 had been issued.
	That number appears to have been slightly lowballing the actual figure.
	Among matters that investigators are reportedly looking into is Trump's post-election fundraising and his efforts to overturn the election by appointing false electors.
	I think the word is alternate electors if we're going by the law and not by political spin.
	Alternate electors, which there is a mechanism provided for in the law and not false electors.
	Just throwing that out there as a Canadian with limited understanding of American constitutional law.
	I think the proper term is alternate electors.
	And as far as I understand, we'll confirm this.
	I don't think that's the first time it's ever been done.
	Hold on.
	Let's just do this right now.
	Alternate electors news.
	Let's see this here.
	News.
	When had it ever been done in the past?
	I'll look for it afterwards.
	I'm fairly certain it's been done before, but I might be wrong about that.
	Where were we?
	Where were we?
	Okay, we've got to get to the fake electors.
	Oh, the false electors.
	As Politico previously reported, a grand jury issued subpoenas last week seeking information about Trump's Save America Political Action Committee.
	On his show Monday night, Fox News' Tucker Carlson said he obtained a copy of a subpoena that was issued and that it pertained to, quote, any claim.
	That the vice president and or the president of the Senate and or the president of the Senate had the authority to reject or to choose not to count presidential.
	Is this?
	I don't understand.
	Look, I'll say this.
	I don't understand how a grand jury has the power.
	Where was the grand jury?
	Yeah, I don't understand how a grand jury has the authority to issue these subpoenas.
	Subpoenas in general, I presume.
	Any claim that the vice president and or the president of the Senate had the authority to How does a grand jury have the authority to issue subpoenas that, ostensibly, as far as I can tell, don't actually refer to any crime?
	Politico was not able to independently verify the language of the subpoena.
	Any claim that the vice president and or the president of the Senate had the authority to reject or to choose not to count presidential electors.
	That sounds like the grand jury is issuing a subpoena for legal opinions, which might explain why among those who received the subpoena were Trump attorneys, Jenna Ellis, and I don't know who else.
	This is a step forward, people.
	It's a step forward in the...
	March towards tyranny.
	It's a step forward in the march towards a banana republic where a Justice Department is weaponized to go after political adversaries.
	Because that is nothing shy of what's going on right now.
	It's preposterous.
	So apparently they also issued a subpoena to Mike Lindell, the MyPillow guy, and 40 other Trump aides.
	I see someone...
	Jay Winkler says a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich.
	That is the old expression.
	Let's see here.
	Oh my goodness.
	So that's the latest of what's going on.
	It's not encouraging.
	But I just wish...
	I don't know what the public sentiment is.
	I don't know if people are finally starting to realize that this is...
	A little too much.
	This is a little over the top, and this is turning off and pushing away even the centrist middle ground people, which I consider myself to be despite the physical appearance.
	Let me just share my Twitter and just see what other news stories are.
	We're going to duck out before 2 o 'clock.
	I will not interfere.
	Go watch the trial.
	I'll listen to it, but I'll tend to other matters and see what we do for tonight's sidebar.
	Okay.
	Okay, looks like we might skip Sidebar tonight.
	I'll let everybody know.
	I wouldn't mind a...
	Not a night off, because I think I'm going to be going this afternoon.
	Okay, I'll check that out in a second.
	Okay, share.
	Share a screen.
	Twitter.
	We'll just go through the diary.
	The diary of the descent into tyranny.
	Full-on tyranny.
	People are okay with this.
	Just don't break the law.
	You don't have to worry about anything.
	Find me the man.
	I'll show you the crime.
	Was a communist maxim.
	Because...
	For obvious reasons.
	Let's...
	Promo code POSO.
	We'll see if the pillows are good, by the way.
	I actually needed a pillow anyhow.
	I took the mid-fluff because I don't like a pillow to be too firm.
	I actually like it to be a little bit softer so that it keeps my back straight, but we'll see.
	Listen to this.
	Listen to this.
	You want to talk about...
	What did I just do?
	That's the difference between the two parties in a nutshell.
	That's the difference.
	That's the difference between the two parties.
	What do you think the punchline is going to be?
	Spoiler alert.
	We bring people together.
	Those goddamn MAGA Republican extremist bastards don't.
	That's the difference between the two parties in a nutshell.
	Classic.
	While MAGA Republicans are fixated on their extremist agenda like a national abortion ban.
	Democrats are focused on creating jobs, lowering costs, and bringing the country together.
	It's a damn joke.
	Those MAGA Republican extremists are destroying the country, and we're trying to bring the country together.
	Except those MAGA Republican extremists don't want to.
	But we want to bring the country together and heal.
	Except those bastard extremists MAGA...
	I mean, it's comical in its confession through projection.
	This is division.
	This is divisive rhetoric, not at the political level, at the human level.
	People have to understand this.
	It's one thing to demonize political leaders.
	It's one thing to criticize and lambaste and ridicule politiciens.
	That's the difference between the two parties in a nutshell.
	That's it.
	We love it.
	While MAGA Republicans are fixated on their extremist agenda like a national abortion ban, Democrats are focused on creating jobs, lowering costs, and bringing the country together.
	Except for those...
	Oh, and by the way, the abortion ban that he's talking about?
	I have to understand this.
	I saw the video of Lindsey Graham talking about a national piece of legislation that would...
	Whether or not it's a ban after 15 weeks or authorization.
	Up to 15 weeks.
	I mean, that just depends on which side of the aisle you're on.
	And the funny thing is, it pisses off both sides, from what I can see on Twitter.
	Lindsey Graham proposed, or is discussing national legislation, so at the federal level, that would prohibit abortion after 15 weeks.
	How he got to 15 weeks?
	Well, it's slightly more than Germany at 12 weeks, slightly less than Lichtenstein at 16. I'm making that up.
	I forget which are which.
	All that to say is in Europe, despite what everyone says about America not providing abortion rights to women, Europe, they are between 12 and 16 weeks for most countries.
	And some countries have an outright ban.
	And I think the most tolerant country allows it up to 20 weeks.
	I'll go check my...
	I snipped and clipped it from Wikipedia.
	So it's pissing off everybody.
	Lindsey Graham is pissing off the people who don't think...
	Elective abortion should ever be allowed on one side of the spectrum.
	And he's pissing off the other side of the spectrum by saying 15 weeks and they're saying not enough.
	But to call it a national abortion ban when the legislation specifically allows for it or would permit it up to a certain point, whether or not it's permission or whether or not it's a ban just depends on how you look at it.
	One screen, two films.
	But my goodness, for Chuck Schumer to say they are bringing the country together, but those damn MAGA Republican extremists.
	Are tearing the country apart.
	Preposterous.
	Where are the...
	The stats came out the other day.
	Doesn't really matter.
	Here it is.
	Here it is.
	These are the stats.
	So, are we seeing this?
	Oh, no, we're not.
	Wait, we are.
	Are we?
	What the heck?
	Did I take it out of the...
	Took it out of the screen.
	Lisa, Lisa, you're tearing me up.
	Okay, here we go.
	When people complain about America and say that this is an abortion ban, and it's not because the states can still legislate, it's just no longer deemed to be a constitutional right, which was specious reasoning even according to great legal minds from the date of Roe v.
	Wade.
	People say America is anti-women.
	They're denying women's reproductive rights when...
	At the state levels, you can get it, depending on the state, very freely.
	This is Europe, for those who don't know.
	Austria.
	Three months, 12 weeks.
	And then it's got exceptional remarks.
	Later abortions possible in cases of serious danger, psychological, physical health, physical disability of the child.
	The woman got pregnant before the age of 14. And I presume where they don't have the exceptional remarks, there aren't any, but look, I'm pulling it to get the dates.
	Belgium.
	12 weeks.
	Bulgaria, 12 weeks.
	Croatia, 10 weeks.
	Cyprus, 12 weeks.
	Czech Republic, 12 weeks.
	Denmark, 12 weeks.
	Estonia, 11 weeks.
	Finland, 12 weeks.
	And it goes on.
	Greece, Hungary, Republic of Ireland, Italy, Latvia, 12 weeks.
	Liechtenstein, ban.
	Total ban, with certain exceptions.
	Lithuania, Luxembourg, 12 weeks.
	Malta, don't even know where that is.
	Total ban.
	And then there was one more.
	And UK got cut off.
	I think UK was 20 weeks.
	And then you got Romania, 14 weeks.
	Sweden, 18 weeks.
	Very liberal.
	Switzerland, 12 weeks.
	UK, 24 weeks.
	But it's at the state level authorized, greater or lesser degrees.
	People in America still talk about denying women reproductive rights when...
	I don't want to say virtually all.
	A great many European countries have even stricter abortion laws than America.
	Try to figure out how that debate happens, given those facts.
	America is the country denying women's reproductive rights.
	Europe is not, somehow.
	And Europe is like the measurement of women's rights.
	Doesn't make sense, but what do I know?
	Okay.
	What do we all say in the chat here?
	Chat moves fast in Rumble.
	Can't yet bring up the chat, but I can see it.
	Lone Star Angle says, America is heading towards becoming Venezuela if this admin keeps going.
	Midterms are going to be a very, very, very important time, which some might argue, some might hypothesize, is why these raids, these subpoenas on Trump aides are occurring.
	Okay, let's see here.
	If you don't want Roe now, 15 weeks.
	LOL.
	Okay.
	So people, the trial looks like it's going to start back up in 15 minutes.
	I'll be watching it.
	Maybe I'll do...
	I don't know, a live stream tonight to discuss it, to fill in for the sidebar.
	We'll see.
	Maybe just a short talkie, you know, summary of the day.
	My prediction on what's going to happen so I can look smart if it happens and I can ignore the prediction if it doesn't.
	They're not going to go for much more with the examination in chief because I don't think they're getting anywhere.
	I think over lunch, the lawyer is going to realize he's not getting anywhere.
	He's not gotten anywhere.
	He's just boring the jury.
	They're going to try to end it with a bang, end it with a punch, end it with the point that they ought to have made the entire time.
	They're going to try to correlate the increase in sales to the coverage of Sandy Hook.
	I just don't know as a matter of evidence whether or not that can be substantiated.
	But it's going to be brief.
	They're going to end it.
	Cross-examination.
	They're going to try to flesh out the idea of Alex Jones, the journalist.
	Whether or not Alex Jones is stating his opinion or stating facts.
	I think they're going to try to get into the substance of some of the elements of the statement that the plaintiff's attorney has attributed to Alex Jones.
	I suspect there will be objections to that.
	There's going to be some sidebars as to...
	Some sidebars.
	There's going to be some objections, possibly a sidebar, as to whether or not...
	They can get into these incidentals.
	It's been deemed to be verdict, default verdict, intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	They can't even discuss whether or not it was his opinion because it's been found by the court to be deemed, by default verdict, intentional infliction of emotional distress.
	So there is no defense to that.
	I suspect that's going to come.
	The argument's going to be, whoa, you raised these statements.
	We get to discuss them, flesh them out more.
	And Google Analytics.
	I don't know what the defense would want to elucidate on the Google Analytics.
	If I had to guess, they might try to illustrate the idea that plaintiff had that information at all relevant times to the suit.
	They're going to try to undermine any direct connection between sales and Sandy Hook.
	They might bring out some messages.
	Internal messages saying from...
	What's his name?
	Oh, geez.
	The British guy.
	A, B, C. Chat's going to know before I know.
	The British guy.
	Come on, the reporter at...
	What's his name?
	Thank you.
	Come on, what's the British guy's name?
	Watson.
	Paul Joseph Watson.
	Oh, I got it right at times.
	SC Britain.
	They're going to probably bring out the internal correspondence urging Alex to stop talking about it, to show that it actually wasn't financially lucrative for Infowars, just to undermine that.
	And expect Patton to try to open the political door to this, to try to make this all about...
	Suppressing someone who's successful at doing basically what mainstream media does, but their institution, Alex, is outside.
	They are less hyperbolic when they say the exact same thing, by and large.
	And we'll see if Patton brings up some of the articles that could substantiate the fact that even what plaintiff's counsel said, Alex Jones said, there's some articles in Yahoo News.
	To substantiate those claims.
	So that's it.
	I'll be watching.
	I'll be tweeting.
	And right now I'm going to go tend to stuff.
	Because I like stuff.
	Thank you all.
	I will snip clip.
	Share some clips on Viva Clips and on Rumble.
	And that's it.
	See you guys soon.
	Stay tuned.
	I'll post to locals for the update for the evening.
	And I'll be tweeting this afternoon as I listen to this.
	Go!
	First of all, everybody, standard disclaimers at the end.
	Conduct yourselves in a manner such that your parents and children, and I'll even add this, and your pets would be proud.
	Dogs know when their owners behave badly.
	Conduct yourselves in a manner such that your parents, your kids, and your pets would be proud, and you can do no wrong in life.
	And keep trying to open minds and keep trying to make people appreciate just information.
	Information is the tool, what people decide to do with it.
	If they want to ignore it, if they want to move and evolve with it, it's up to them.
	But let's try to educate and open some minds.

▲