Knowledge Fight - #378: Formulaic Objections Part 2

Episode Date: December 16, 2019

Today, Dan and Jordan discuss a trio of depositions that were recently released in the InfoWars/Sandy Hook lawsuit, and marvel at the uniquely brazen vibes of each.

I'm sick of them posing as if they're the good guys saying we are the bad guys knowledge I can't endure knowledge fight. I need money. Andy and Kansas, Andy and Kansas. Stop it. Andy and Kansas, Andy and Kansas. Andy and Kansas. It's time to pray.

Andy and Kansas you're on the air thanks for holding. Hello Alex and Mr. Stinghull. I'm a huge fan. I love your work. Knowledge fight. No, no, no, no, no, no, knowledge fight.com. I love you. I love you.

I love you. I love you. I love you. I love you. I love you. I love you. Hey everybody. Welcome back to Knowledge Fight.

I'm Dan. I'm Jordan. We're a couple dudes like to sit around, drink novelty beverages and talk a little bit about Alex Jones. Indeed. We are Dan. Jordan. Dan.

Jordan. Let me ask you a quick question. What's up? It's the end of the year. People are going to be doing all kinds of recap lists. Best of lists. All I want to know, Dan, is there anything in 2019 that has surprised you? No.

Exactly. Yeah. I think the thing is everything is so incredibly surprising. Yeah. You know, you're like, I can't believe they would just do that. And then you're like, yeah, I can. My brain's been burned out to novelty. Yeah.

Yeah. To such a great extent that I can, you know, try a nice dish. Right. Crazy. All right. Cool. Yeah. I guess.

Okay. I'm a little surprised that I'm not enjoying Luigi's mansion as much as I thought I was actually thinking about asking you for a followup on that earlier because I thought that might be the case. He doesn't have some of the same charm as the first one. Yeah. Maybe I was 18 when I played the first one and now I'm 35. Nostalgia can kill.

I'm trying to play it slowly so it lasts, you know, and I come back to it and I don't even know what I'm doing. Oh, no. I know that I'm fighting ghosts and stuff. Right. I guess that's a little surprising. It's kind of in the wrong direction. Is there any kind of like quest structure to it?

Or is it like a platformer? I mean, you got to save your friends who are stuck in paintings. Of course. Right. King Boo. Of course. But I don't know. You just run around.

Each level of this hotel is themed and you have to find a ghost boss. I don't know, man. I don't know. But anyway, this is a podcast where I don't have a lot of surprises this year. But I do know a lot about Alex Jones. And I know a lot about not having any surprises and I don't know anything about Alex Jones. Good stuff. So there we are.

So Jordan, today what we're going to be doing is we're going to be going over some depositions that dropped at the end of last week at the end of November. All three of the musketeers. Yeah, Rob do. Sure. Paul Joseph Watson. Right. Alex Jones.

Road again. All gave depositions in the ongoing Sandy Hook lawsuit. And there's some interesting stuff in this and low key. I think Rob do's might be the most interesting of the three. Okay. All right. I could. That's the surprising thing.

There we go. Rob do has finally done one thing. That's interesting. Yeah. That's the surprise of 2019. All right. Rob do. His deposition was more interesting to me than Alex's.

So we'll get down to business and talk a little bit about that. But before we do got to take a little moment say thank you to some folks who signed up in our sporting show. It's a good idea. So first of all, Caleb, thank you so much. You are now a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk. Thanks Caleb.

Next Matthew. Thank you so much. You are now a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk. Thank you, Matthew. Thank you, Matthew. Next Christopher. You are now a policy wonk.

I'm a policy wonk. Thank you very much, Christopher. Joining the conspiracy. Oh, father. Next, Josiah. Thank you so much. You are now a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk.

Thank you, Josiah. Thank you so much. Next, Elliot. Thank you so much. You are now a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk. Thank you, Elliot. And then finally my favorite character on the magicians.

I flies the magicians. Great show. Great show. Fantastic show. All right. Is it all close up magic? No, it's all real. It's a terrible show, but I love it.

Okay. Okay. I like magic. I love it. Whenever I'd be out at bars doing shows and stuff and someone to walk up on the street while I'm smoking a cigarette and want to do a magic trick. I like it. Yeah.

My favorite. Second only to this next last person who is signed up on an elevated level. I'd like to say thank you so much. Rachel, you are now a technocrat. I'm a policy wonk. Crikey, mate. That's fantastic. Have yourself a brew.

How's your 401k doing, bro? We got to go full tilt bugging on this Watson. All right. Let's just get down to business. We ain't making that money off that heroin. Why are you pimp so good? My neck is freakishly large. I declare info war on you.

Thank you so much, Rachel. Yes. Thank you very much, Rachel. If you're all out there thinking, listening, thinking, hey, I like this show. I'd like to support these gents too. You can do that by going to our website, knowledge fight.com, clicking the button on that. It's a sports show. We'd appreciate it.

It'd be really helpful. So I was kind of struggling with trying to figure out exactly how we should do this episode because it's three depositions. You know, and it seems like the structure would be weird. Like, should we take intermission? Should we do it as separate episodes? I figure we could do as a classic three act structure. Okay.

All right. Third act is much longer. Okay. All right. It's just like. We're in Marvel territory. We're, we're, we're, our third act is going to have some issues. We will have third act problems.

We're going to have first act problems. Second act problems. But each, each of these depositions is really interesting to me in very different ways. Okay. And so there'll be, there'll be a different vibe to each of them. You can predict what Alex's is. He doesn't remember anything or understand anything or nothing had anything to do with

him. I assume I am not me. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. But the other two have a very bizarre kind of almost through line through them. Okay.

Paul Joseph Watson's got something interesting going on. He's got something far more interesting. So let's start with the Paul Joseph Watson. Okay. He sits down and I will say that I do not, I, of course, I'm very clear on this. I don't like Paul Joseph Watson. No, me neither. I find his voice insufferable and his positions a nonsensical bordering on evil.

Now that said, I think he comes off like much more of a human. Okay. This deposition. All right. Because I think that he has some sort of a brand to protect a little bit. Yeah. And he doesn't want to. He has a brand to protect.

So he comes off human. Well, there's two elements to that because there's one and that he does have a history of telling Alex to stop doing the Sandy Hook shit. Yes, that's true. He does have that in his, that, that, that arrow is in his quiver that he can pull out and be like, I tried. Look, dude, whatever. So he has that.

And then second, he knows that he doesn't want to look like he's a fucking idiot. Yeah. He's going to come off as like, like Alex, he obfuscates everything is like, I have no idea what my name is. Right, right, right. I don't think Paul wants to look like that. And so it creates an interesting dynamic where, and I think a lot of people took these headlines to write about this and like he's turned on Alex.

You know, he's under the bus. And I think there's a little bit of an appearance of that, but he is still trying to defend Alex in, in as much as he can while still being like, my hands are clean. I don't know. You guys do what you're going to do with him. He's got a tough tightrope to walk. Yeah. I would say so.

He's like a mid-level mafioso. I don't, I don't, it's not to express any pity or anything, but it is a tough. Oh yeah. No, fuck him. So we start here at the, towards the beginning of the deposition where we learn that Paul has never actually even been employed by info. Can you list for me every job position you have held without Jones info wars or free speech systems LLC?

I'm, I'm not an employee and have never been an employee. So I haven't had an official job position. How would you describe your employment relationship or your working relationship with Mr. Jones? Contractor. Okay. So this is interesting. Paul's been there for 20 years. Yeah.

Yeah. What, what, what is Alex going to pay insurance benefits? A 401k? Hell no. I certainly hope so for one of his longest. I find that very difficult to believe. Yeah. I think it made, I mean, he's under oath.

He's, he's testifying. I would assume that if there were very easily attainable records that he is employed, it has been a stupid thing to say. But hey, I guess, I guess he's just an independent. I guess like it is pro wrestling shit. This is just like Alex's Vince McMahon with all these independent contractors masquerading as employees. I think it must be partially his kind of decision as well.

You can't, you can't be an independent contractor with somebody for 20 years and not at least have a conversation of like, Hey, I, you know, maybe we shouldn't deal with actual labor loss today. Well, I mean, he's in the UK. That might make things a little difficult. That's true. That might. Yeah.

I don't think that would be a impediment. I have no idea. Yeah. The level of responsibility he's had over the years at info wars. Exactly. Editor at large title and like he writes the bulk of the materials. Yeah. Like, yeah, he would have every negotiating chip available to him 100% to be an employee,

should he want to be. Yeah. So yeah, maybe, maybe there is like a mutually advantageous reason for that. Yeah. I'm not entirely sure what it is, but I thought that was pretty strange. I mean, I guess among thieves, the idea is like, we can't take each other down, you know, that kind of thing. Like if you go down, I'm not going down with you and that goes both directions.

Like Paul can say something so fucking crazy that Alex would be able to distance himself. Hey, he never actually worked here, man. I was just, which is stupid, but yeah. Yeah. So as we know from listening back to the episodes of info wars from that stretch of time after the shooting at Sandy Hook. We know that Paul Joseph Watson did interview Professor James Tracy. Yes, was a proponent of the crisis actors theory and did push back right a little.

Yeah. It was it was muddy. It was a little bit mixed in my opinion. There was a little bit too much lenience given to him, but at the same time, Paul did say I don't agree with these ideas. Right. So to again, like I said, the thinnest of prey is possible. Right.

And I believe that to be like, I did say, I don't believe this. Right. So they play a little clip of that. And this is really important because what this does in terms of the questioning is to explicitly lay out that as early as like February, 2013, people at info wars were aware that the parents and the family members were being harassed. Yes. This being a month after Sandy Hook, you were aware at this time that the parents were being

harassed by believers in the Sandy Hook host conspiracy. Correct. Okay. So that is demo that's demonstrated. Yeah. That's not good. No, that's not good for the outlook of Alex in this scenario and in the clip that is played of Paul interviewing Tracy, even back then there's audio of Paul bringing up to James Tracy.

Yeah. That people are being harassed. So there's a large awareness of this. Oh yeah. So also back in the early days, Leonard Posner sent an email to info wars telling them, hey, these people are harassing us and they need to be reeled in. I used to be a fan of your show, but I think now I realize that a lot of these behaviors are being encouraged.

Now, the response to that email from info wars was apparently written by Paul Joseph Watson. Later in Alex's deposition, there'll be some maybe insinuations that Alex wrote it with him. Sure. But it's unclear there. But in this deposition, it's clear that Paul wrote it himself. And now let's scroll up to your response. Do you, do you remember writing this response?

Does this bring back that memory? Now it's presented to me. Yes. I didn't recall it. Okay. When you initially brought it up, but yes. Now, do you know, did you do this on your own or was this a collaborative effort among other people at info wars?

Do you remember that? No, this would have been me personally. Okay. So he might as well. He almost said, no, nobody else knows how to read there. Yeah. He literally, he sounded defeated. It's just hunting pack with the rest of it.

Yeah. It's just like, oh, Jesus Christ. Of course I wrote it by myself. So now this is interesting here for, for one reason and that is that this would give Alex a little bit of plausible deniability. Sure. Because the interview with James Tracy was done by Paul. Maybe Alex could say he never heard it.

He didn't know about the talk about the harassing of the parents. Sure. Sure. And this Paul was just like, I was the one who got that email. I wrote back to the guy. Maybe Alex can pretend he never saw that email. We'll see if Alex screws that up later. Naturally.

So one of the things that the lawyers seem to want to press on is like, guys, do you really think that what you did was okay? Do you think that what info wars engaged in was all right? It's, it's not great that in a court of law, you have to ask people if they actually have morality at all. Do you have no decency? Yeah, exactly. So Paul has asked that and he tries to wiggle out of giving a yes or no answer, but then

kind of just has to be like, nah. In terms of what you think is decent and right in terms of covering the story, do you think info wars always adhere to what is decent and right and covering the story? Well, it's a subjective term, but from my personal perspective, decent and right, I would not have covered it in that way. No. That is pretty. That I think is where you could say like he's throwing Alex under the bus.

Yeah, that would be the only one, but to be fair to Paul, like what position is he in? He has no reason to go to bat and be like everything was just fine. Yeah, I mean, I clearly told them to cut it out back then. And now I with the gift of hindsight realizing how wrong we were, I'd say it was decent and fine. Man, see that's a huge missed opportunity there for me because I think I would want that question to then be broadened of just like, do you think anything you've done there is decent and right?

I think, I think if you're talking to Paul Joseph Watson and he's being this sort of fair. Yeah. Yeah. You don't want to jeopardize it. I don't know. I want to shoot the shit with him. See what's going on.

I would say that the lawyers would be wise to not turn this adversarial. Fair enough. Given that Paul is being candid enough with his answers. Why fight with this British guy when we might be able to get some piece of information out of it? I do appreciate Paul more when he's not able to edit his annoying voice together in a back to back nightmarish hellscape. Yeah.

Yeah. It does make him seem more human. Yeah. So the big piece here, and I think one of the big revelations is in discovery, Alex sent over all of these emails from Info Wars and the lawyers have gone through them. Right. And one of the emails they found was an email that Paul sent to Buckley and Anthony Gucci Artie who were apparently in managerial roles.

Right. Right. Can I get you to drop some tunes at my next party? That is not the, that might be another email. That's a different email. Yeah. But that's not this one. All right.

Fine. Paul is telling them what he has told Alex. He has texted Alex a message and he's sending it to them in order to have it on the record or whatever. Okay. And so the lawyer sets this up here. Mr. Watson, I'd like to show you another document now. And I would like to show you an email that you sent in 2015 on December 17th.

So we got a 2015 December 17th email that was sent to these dudes. And here is what's in the email. And I think that this is where we get into like a real interesting seesaw kind of situation of like, is this a good email? Okay. Okay. We'll see. I want to read what you said to Alex.

This Sandy Hook stuff is killing us. It's going to hurt us with Drudge and bringing bigger names into the show. Plus the event happened three years ago. Why even risk our reputation for it? My first question is. Let's first talk about who Jeff rents it. Jeff. Jeff.

Jeff. Jeff. Jeff. My first question is. Let's first talk about who Jeff rents is. You know who he is. Yes. Okay.

Jeff rents is a notoriously unreliable conspiracy theorist and rabid anti-Semite. Correct. I don't know enough about him to call him a rabid anti-Semite, but I would say he was a conspiracy theorist. Yeah. Yeah. That's kind of a consistent thread throughout this is like they keep asking about these like Jim Fetzer.

Yeah. Like, you know, this guy is a deeply anti-Semitic dude. They're like, well, I don't know. I mean, what is anti-Semitism at the end of the day? Yeah. The reason I think that that email is a seesaw is because on the one hand you have Paul saying we got to cut this shit out, which is good because the end result of that would be stopping the behavior.

Yes. On the other side of the seesaw, it doesn't seem to come from a place of concern or this is wrong. Right. It seems like, well, Drudge won't like us so much and we won't be able to get big guests because we're engaging in this kind of bullshit. Right. Right.

So I don't know how I feel about that. I mean, it would be like Fox News cancelling Tucker Carlson show because all of the advertisers dropped out. Right. You know, it's like you guys let this white, clear white nationalist, white supremacist run on your network unabated for however long. And the only reason you're stopping him is because of appearances and money. Yeah.

Fuck you. Yeah. There is that sort of sense of like doing the right thing for the wrong reason. And I still applaud like his ability to speak this. Yeah. Yeah. Like at least it's some, you know, that there is some voice there that's like, we shouldn't be doing this.

Yeah. I just wish it came from a place of like the right reason to not want to do this. Yeah. Because it does imply that like if these things weren't to concern, I wouldn't have a problem with this. Yeah. And that may be the case. This is probably the best we're going to get from these psychopaths though.

Probably. Although it does also introduce another strange dynamic. And that is the, that is a voice that's there because you don't really think about that. The possibility that at infowars, there is some descent and they still do what they do. Yeah. That's even scarier. See, that's, that is a good question because we've talked a bunch about how it's like, shouldn't there be somebody there going, Alex, don't fucking do this.

And it's clear there are people there saying Alex, don't do this. Maybe not all the time. And no, probably not all the time, but he just can't control himself. Yeah. I don't think that like just going based off this, I genuinely think Alex would listen to him and at the same time, not be able to control himself on the air and wind up just saying that dumb shit. I think that's one of the problems with his sort of improvisational style.

Yeah. You know, like it does, it will lead you to some places where you're like just not doing, not doing it. Yeah. And in the email, Paul Joseph Watson says that Jeff rents and Jim Fetzer are batshit crazy. Right. Now that I don't know about rabid anti semites though, they're batshit crazy, they're batshit

crazy. Now this opens up the possibility for this lawyer to put Paul in a little bit of a trap that he doesn't seem to be thrilled to be in the checkmate. Tell me how you came to the conclusion that these two gentlemen that info wars was relying on were batshit crazy. That's a good question. Because they were pushing the notion that nobody died at Sandy Hook, which I thought was not credible and was supported by no evidence.

So therefore was a crazy conclusion to make. So by that same logic, Alex Jones equally batshit crazy. I wouldn't describe it as batshit crazy. What kind of crazy? I would describe it as him commenting on the controversy of the conspiracy theories that were swirling about Sandy Hook at the time. So that's going to be also a sort of refrain of like we were covering what was happening. That is kind of, I think when you consider their actual behaviors, that facade isn't

very strong. No, that doesn't seem like a really great legal argument. But I do. I love that. I love that. It's like, okay. Why are they crazy? X behavior.

Yeah. Alex does X also. I do like that this is in an echoey room because I don't know if anything has ever rung more hollow than his, I think he's just covering the controversy. Like you can. Thanks for that. Yeah. He's calling in from Jolly old London.

So they push on this question of like, why is this behavior in them crazy and not Alex? And I don't know if PJ dubs is convinced me that there's a difference. Okay. If Jeff Rintz or Jim Fetzer starts pushing allegations that the children aren't real, that the parents are fake, and that the crying is all fake and it's all an act, they're batshit crazy. But if Jones says literally the exact same words on his telephone, his web broadcast, he's just doing a good job as a journalist.

Well, to kind of combine this with your previous question, I would say the description of them as batshit crazy would also involve things that they've said in the past unrelated to Sandy Hook, maybe about UFOs or alien abduction or holograms on 9 11, which I think was Fets as big thing for a while. So, you know, they had they had a previous of engaging in very obscure conspiracy theories which would contribute to that description of batshit crazy. Do you think the third history of doing that is any different than Alex Jones? Fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, what do I say?

What do I say? Shit, fuck. No, but again, they had the right to engage in that speech under the First Amendment. I'm not. Look, Mr. Watson, at this point, I'm not asking you who had the right to do what, we'll all figure that out. What I'm asking you is Alex Jones and his crazy conspiracies about shadow interdimensional governments and fish hybrids, things like this, there's no different than Fets or Inrins.

There's qualitatively no difference in how they covered conspiracy theories. Correct? That's your view. I wouldn't necessarily agree with it. All right, so in your view, people like Rinse and Fets are bad, but Mr. Jones not in the same way. I would say not in the same way because I would say Alex was covering the controversy. Sure, buddy.

Yeah. So you get the get the same. Sure, buddy. Yeah. I think that what you have there is absolutely evidence of, I don't have a good answer for this. Yeah, yeah, yeah. He thought he was, he thought he was so smart when he gave that first answer of like, well,

because they said that Sandy Hook was crazy. And then he got this follow up question. He's like, shit, I should have said that everything else they said was fucking crazy. I feel like if I'm working for Alex Jones or maybe not working for him or working for him as a decades long contractor, whatever the case is, and I'm getting deposed, I might come up with a reason why Alex isn't the same as the other people who lie about Sandy Hook. Yeah.

I feel like that's just something you probably could expect might come up. It doesn't seem like there's any preparation here. You know, this reminds me because I was just thinking the exact same thing. I was just thinking that their brand of crazy cannot survive in an under oath situation with somebody who is prepared to fuck them up, essentially, more or less, but it is such that psychopath of like, no matter what, I'm the smartest guy in the room. You know, I don't need to prepare. I don't need to do anything.

I'm going to outsmart this dude. No big deal. Yeah, like that's what I get the feel. I'm not sure if Paul is a hundred percent on that tip because I think he is still being agreeable and I do see some indications that he might have checked his emails that he had written in the past. Yeah, that kind of thing to know what might come up. Yeah.

But the fact that there's no good answer for something like why is this person different than other conspiracy theorists for like you've worked for him for 20 years. Yeah, that indicates to me a lack of care or concern about it, like defending yourself or like it just feels like it's it's a tacit admission that you're not any different. Yeah, well, I think I'm surprised that he doesn't have a stock answer because it feels like that would come up in a normal conversation. Any interview? Yeah, anything.

Yeah, you would have a stock answer. You know, yeah, you wouldn't even you don't need to have a conversation. You'd have a hundred times exactly. Yeah, very weird. So in this next couple, I'm going to skip this one because it's just the lawyer pointing out that Paul was right about Sandy Hook and Alex didn't listen to him. Yeah, and that I mean it's true. It's a fair point.

So this next couple that's coming up, the lawyer is asking Paul about an email exchange that he had with Buckley, who again is a manager person at InfoWars and a house DJ and Alex's cousin. Right. So Paul has received an email from Quantcast, the website ranking group. And this email was to inform him that InfoWars had seen a large surge in traffic recently. And as a matter of policy, that made Quantcast was going to put a temporary hold on ranking InfoWars in their charts.

They build they build in these protocols so people can't easily mess with their website rankings with automated traffic. It's just a standard procedure there. Yeah, it's more effective than our fucking voting machines. So Paul sends this email to Buckley. He forwards it on who replies to him. And that's where this clip starts. When you sent this email, Buckley made a joke and I want to read it to you.

Okay. Said, but no, surely it's a conspiracy theory. That they are trying to suppress our popularity so that a lizard people can return to the Ascension Pad at Sandy Hook and feast on sacrificed crisis actors. Buckley here is making a joke about the craziness of those theories, isn't he? You'd have to, you'd have to ask Buckley. I can't speak to him. It's smooth.

When you get an email in your day to day business that's talking about lizard people going to the Ascension Pad at Sandy Hook and feasting on sacrifice crisis actors, what did you take that to mean? Well, obviously I would presume that it's dark humor. Dark humor. So this is a very important line of attack that I think the lawyers are going on here and I think it signals a really good strategy. See what this email tends to demonstrate is that people behind the scenes at

Infowars had an awareness that the things that they were saying publicly about Sandy Hook were not true. This email joke, it offers a glimpse into the way that the tragedy was being discussed internally by people like Buckley, who is someone who, like I said, is in a managerial role and is related directly to Alex. He's obviously joking about this thing with Quonkast being a conspiracy against them and the use of crisis actors at Sandy Hook as the outrageous example in the joke that tends to imply that he considers it an instance of something

that is mockable. Yeah. One of the reasons that this is such an excellent line of approach is because the lawyers are able to combine private information they found in discovery with public statements. And sometimes when you do that, you find something damning, like is discussed in this next clip. Were you aware that Mr.

Jones just a few hours earlier had been on Infowars accusing the parents of being actors? Um, I don't, I don't think I joked about crisis actors in that email. Wasn't that Buckley that use the term crisis actors? Okay, let's rephrase the question. Were you aware that in that email that exchange, you were having a Buckley where he joked to you about crisis actors and in the outlandish nature of crisis

actors, that at that same time, a few hours earlier, Mr. Jones was on his show accusing the parents of being actors. Were you aware? No, no, no recollection. How do you feel about that, Mr. Jones? I feel that he was completely inaccurate in making that claim. Not something you're proud of at Infowars, correct?

Oh, it's not something that I said. So this is also the problem with the sincerity that Paul has kind of thrown out a little bit. He allows himself to be put in situations where there is no other answer than, yeah, that sucks. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Because what they've just laid out is that on the same day, a manager at Infowars who's related to Alex was privately mocking Sandy Hook conspiracies

while simultaneously Alex was promoting them on his show. This goes a really long way towards building the case that these people knew that what they were saying wasn't true. Earlier in the deposition, it was established that at least Paul was completely aware as early as the beginning of 2013 that the families of the victims were being harassed by people who believed these theories, which implies that the argument that they didn't know the consequences of their coverage, probably not true.

And here you have a little glimpse of the behind the scenes vibe that really seems to suggest that the people at Infowars were aware that the information they were airing was worth mocking, which is to say, not true. The pieces that come together out of this look really, really bad. Considering that this is not even close to all the information the plaintiffs are working with, it really seems like Alex is probably in some serious trouble when this is all said and done. Oh yeah.

And Paul, I honestly think is probably playing this almost exactly like he should. Yeah. I don't think he has any liability in this. Infowars goes away. He's still a star. He can, he can, he can maneuver his way around this a little bit. There aren't even any contracts to rip up.

He's an independent contractor. This is an at-will state, man. Now, here's what's interesting. So I know that it came out. We've discussed this and we'll play a clip of it. Alex saying this later, but Robert Barnes is not in these depositions. Right. You can tell because no one's yelling, objection every five seconds.

Yeah. So he is no longer Alex's lawyer. Alex confirms in this sworn testimony that he doesn't work at Infowars in any capacity. He is no longer involved with them at all. But what about Paul? Mr. Watson, can you tell me what you did to prepare for your deposition today? Um, I spoke to Robert Barnes and Wade Jeffries.

Okay. Did you review any documents? No. When did you speak with your counsel? I'm sorry. Um, Her objective Sunday evening, my time and this afternoon today. So Wade Jeffries is Alex's lawyer.

He is that now the person who you'll hear saying objection during Alex's yeah, not nearly as much as Barnes, right, but he's probably a better lawyer. These depositions are happening at about the same time. These were over the course of two days at the end of November, 26th and 27th, I believe. And so Barnes is still somehow in the mix for Paul, but not for Infowars, which I find interesting. I don't know what it means.

It may mean nothing, but it could mean something. Here's my right. It is. It is a very interesting quirk. Here's my pitch for you. All right. This is a personal thing that happened between Jones and Barnes. I could 100% believe that and not only that is a show thing that happened

between we have. I, here's what I'm going to go. Here's what I'm going to go with. Here's my. Here's my pitch, buddy. You know my pitch. I think he took our advice. You think you realize that Barnes was trying to take over?

I think so. That's my theory. That is my theory. I think we so discord amongst the lawyers. I don't think I don't. I don't think there's any likelihood that that's true, but I do. I will go as far with you as to say. I would believe it's something personal 100% that seems very

believable. I would buy that more than more than any kind of business issue there either that or he couldn't afford Barnes anymore. That could be it too, even though he was working at exactly almost a pro bono for exposure. So Paul, he's kind of making a stock defense of all these behaviors and all of this stuff, right? Sort of predicated on free speech, you know, like we have, you know, it's

just the first amendment and all this. And so they ask him, you have any education in the field? Oh, no. When it comes to what is or is not allowed in the first amendment, you really don't have any qualifications to say. No, but my a lot of what I do is related to free speech. So although I don't have any academic qualifications, I would like to consider I have a reasonably good grasp of it.

Do you? But see, that to me is not the answer you'd give if you like, I've studied it extensively, not in a formal setting, but I, you know, I'm aware of these various support preem court rulings, the limitations, the, you know, that there's not nuance to that. There's just sort of like, I work in sort of the, this fringe area where we yell about free speech a bunch. So I'm kind of intimately involved in it.

I like to say things that anger people. Yeah. So I know about free speech. Yeah. That's not a good answer. It's, it seems like he's really taken the idea of free speech is whatever I kind of personally define it as to heart. Yeah.

So far as he doesn't have to know what it is legally. I would, I don't have much of a different perception after listening to this, but I don't know. I don't know. I would be interested to know. I mean, I would be surprised if someone like Paul hadn't at least done some reading on the subject, but I don't hear it. I don't hear it from the answer.

Well, it almost, it's almost more, it almost makes more sense to not look into it so that you're dumb, yeah. So that your dumb arguments about what free speech is can never be clouded by your incidental knowledge that it actually isn't that, you know? Yeah. So another thing that's a big defense is that Alex isn't a journalist. Right. That is going to be something that you hear a bit and something that Paul

makes a point out that it's like, this is just opinion. All Alex is doing is opinion. If you have somebody with a track record of being fat shit, crazy and unreliable, it would violate the sense of journalistic integrity to promote what they are saying as fact. Correct. Um, yes. If you were a journalistic middle of the road, non-partisan, non-commentary

outlet, which I don't know what it is. So Alex Jones is allowed to do that. Other, other people who claim to be journalists can't, but Alex Jones can do that. That's under their, under their own journalistic ethic, ethics, they wouldn't. Alex Jones would because he's an opinion commentator. And he has no journalistic ethics. Correct.

Well, he's not a journalist. So no, he's not. He doesn't abide by those ethics because he's not a journalist. Thank you, Mr. Watson. So this opens up a pretty interesting vista because once you're doing that, once you're like, yeah, he's just, this is all just opinion stuff. Now it becomes pretty important to nail down what's an opinion.

Yeah. Yeah. What's the difference between opinion and fact? And this is something that is going to be a little bit of a muddy problem for both Paul and Alex, when they're in depositions, neither of them seems to really understand the difference in a crystalline fashion. Yeah, yeah, yeah, the difference between opinion and fact. Here is Paul trying to walk that line.

I just don't. Cause we've been talking today a little bit about in-doors having opinions versus assertions of fact. What's the difference between a fact and an opinion? Um, an opinion is your viewpoint. And we live in a world where facts are very subjective, unfortunately. And one side has a set of facts which they agree on. And the other side has a set of facts which they agree on.

So it's a very vague concept in 2019. I mean, you can have an opinion on facts that skews one way or the other. So it's very difficult territory. Um, so that's all I would say on that. Well, you'd agree there's, there's certain things. Like if I was to say, um, this person is beautiful, right? That's subjective. It can't be proven ascertainably true or false.

It's totally subjective. You'd agree with that? Yeah. Yeah. But something like the Sandy Hook school was not an operating school. That can be proven true or false. Correct? Um, fuck, fuck shit.

What do I say? Fuck, fuck, oh God, it could be proven, but it's then based on whether you believe the proof that's presented. I mean, ah, Jesus, that I saw that should be on humanity's gravestone. That exact thing. Yeah, that is exactly why we're all dead. Well, I mean, it's a good, I guess if you have to say something and you can't just be like, yeah, that is a statement of, yeah, you're fair.

That is about as good as you're going to do in those sort of under pressure moments, but that's, that's abysmal. That's really sad. He just, he might as well have said, well, it depends about your opinion on that. Yeah. Like what is it then facts don't exist. No, that is basically the underlying crux there. I mean, when you say one side has their facts, the other side has their facts

and they're at odds, you know, like, yes, that is a denial of reality. And that is grim. That, that makes it tough to, to, to, to, to imagine because then everything is the domain of opinion. Yeah, there's no responsibility for anything. There's no, there's no reason to get anything right. Just fucking do whatever you want to do. And that's sad.

That's makes me really bummed. I mean, that is really fucking dark and that he would say it's like, it's like Lindsey Graham coming out and being like, I'm not trying to be a fair juror over here where you're like, oh, this is the darkest timeline that you're just saying that. Yeah. You know. Oh, we're fucked.

So because they're just opinion folk, right? Over at Info Wars. And also all reality is opinion. Right. Uh, they should be held to a lower standard than people who are foolish enough to believe facts exist. Well, that's your opinion. Apparently so.

Um, so Paul expresses that, that they should be held to a lower standard. When Info Wars does something like that, takes evidence and makes a judgment. Does it have any responsibility to be accurate? Um, in the context of opinion commentary, I mean, you could say there's a, you know, you should strive to be accurate, but in terms of bananas, journalistic ethics, I think it's a different ball game in terms of the level at which people are held based on whether they are opinion commentary or

down the line journalism. Okay. So you should be held to a lower standard than perhaps other media organizations. Is that sure? Yeah. That's, Oh, that's not good.

Oh, shoot for the stars. You should really strive to tell true things. Yeah. But you know, if you lie all the time, that's fine too. Yeah. Um, but that's brutal.

And one of the confounding things that just seems to be completely lost on all of these three people being deposed is how is the audience supposed to determine what is opinion and what is being presented as fact? If opinion is presented as fact, right, what is the, what is the differentiation between this is just something that may well, they need to use their discernment whenever you state opinions and then you say it's in the white paper, yes, or it's all been proven. Right.

It came out in court documents. Right. Whenever you'd use those things to reinforce your opinion, right, you're engaging in fact, well, you drive to say that things were in the white papers. If they were sure, sure, sure, but if they weren't in the white papers, you shouldn't be held to that standard. It's just it's just instinct to say white paper and it changes opinion to fact. Yeah.

So that doesn't get resolved at all. Really, and the two, like, I don't really think that Paul's testimony is really all that damning, except for the part where you get into that Buckley email. Yeah, I was going to say the joke is what does it. Yeah. And also there's a bit of a conversation that Buckley attached a meme to the email joke back and it's like a 4chan meme that has maybe some offensive connotations to it.

I wouldn't call him a rabbit anti-Semite. Which leads to like Paul being like, I didn't, I don't know about this meme. Sure. All right. And I'm not sure I believe. All right. All right, buddy. So I think that that like difference between public and private, especially with

like the email being on the same day as Alex engaged in some of this, I think that that is a grim picture. Yeah. As a peddler of jokes, you have to have awareness in order to find the crux, find the leverage in order to elicit the actual joke part. Yeah. So if you don't have awareness, you don't have a joke. If you have a joke, chances are.

And then the second thing is that email that he sent that to Buckley and Anthony Gucciardi that was based on a text message that he had sent Alex. That implies at least some sort of internal conversation about this not being a good thing to do. So this interview ends, this deposition ends with the lawyer asking Paul to name something that Alex didn't think was a false flag. Oh, no. He, oh hell yes.

He lists off a bunch of things that Alex did. The lawyer is like, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, Las Vegas, yeah. Or no, not Las Vegas. Yeah, we had no, he does think that was fake. I thought it was a false flag. Oh, yeah. He doesn't think that's right.

That's right. There we go. That's all Steve. Right. So he lists off these like Columbine, Oklahoma City, all of these were false flags. Right. What is something that Alex thought was not a false flag?

Let's find out. Can you give me an example of a U.S. mass casualty event, like a mass shooting, a bombing or the like that Mr. Jones didn't say was a false flag? Um, I would say that the most recent ones post Las Vegas massacre, maybe the date in Ohio shooting, um, the El Paso shooting again, I don't know for sure, but I think after the Las Vegas one, he was, I wonder why.

More reticent to call them false flags. After I sued him, right? Yeah, you do, buddy. As you quite astutely pointed out, Alex thinks both of those are false flags. So Paul is asked, what does he think is real? What did happen? What isn't just some government false flag? He long pause comes up with two things that Alex categorically thinks are

false flags done by Amtifa or whatever. So he's like, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. Alex categorically thinks are false flags done by Amtifa or whatever. I mean, literally on his show recently, he said it is either a false flag or radical Islam or whatever. Right? Wasn't that, wasn't that it? There are two types of terrorists or something.

Perhaps. Or yeah. Yeah. It's a, I don't think, I, I, I struggle with like how much Paul just doesn't care what Alex does. That's fair. Cause there's a possibility that he doesn't know what Alex thinks about Peyton or the El Paso shooting.

Well, what is he going to watch the show? There's no way he's watching the fucking show. No, there's a, there's a very high likely, but then again, he's the editor of the website. You would think. Yeah, I don't know. It's tough for me to believe that he doesn't know what Alex's positions on these things are unless there's just such a not caring at all about just

like trash in, trash out, just fucking filter it through whatever. I'll fix the grammar. Yeah. I imagine that's the only way to deal with Alex as a boss, to be honest. Yeah. I don't know. So I don't, I don't, I'm interested to see where some of that goes, but I see some indications from that deposition that there's some really, um, uh,

what would you call it? Just some good lines of questioning. Yeah. I think there's some, some positive, uh, indications that, uh, they're onto some, some potentially like really troubling things. Oh yeah. No, like, like I said, that joke. I would say probably most, uh, not that I know, but like, that's

something that would be easy to, to miss or to discount. Uh-huh. But the fact that he was like, this is a joke is my, this is a crux point right here. I can fucking nail him down on this. Yeah. That's, that's smart shit. But I think that you could, um, if you're Alex, you could say like, yeah,

Buckley's a weird dude. I didn't, I didn't, you know, whatever he's saying, I don't agree with. Right, right, right. You could, you could, maybe I'm just inflating the importance of it because it's the only thing I really understand. And that's why I, I'm saying, you know, like that joke, especially on the same day as Alex's presentation, that tends to imply that there's a difference between the public and the private.

I'm not sure if it proves it, but I do think that it's enough to get put into your mind. Like that seems, that seems irresponsible, but we'll see. God, I want, if I had this power, I would just be like, we've reached the end of the deposition as far as the Sandy Hook stuff goes. Now I'm going to lightning round you like climate change, real or no, go. I think that's an abuse of being under oath. Yeah, I understand that your opinion on that is one thing, but my facts

on it are nonsense. I don't know. Yeah. So now we're going to move on to Robert to do. Let's do it. I'm not sure if that's, I don't know if he ever goes by Robert, but Rob do. Yes, Jordan.

What I never expected is that Rob do's deposition would be the one that I find the most compelling. So both Alex and Paul Joseph Watson's depositions are interviews between the lawyers and Alex and Paul Joseph Watson as people respectively. They're there to answer questions themselves about their own knowledge and experience. Conversely, Rob do is deposed officially as a designated corporate representative for Info Wars umbrella company, free speech systems.

Now that was a bad idea. Rob does not seem to understand what this means. I of course he doesn't, which I find fascinating. It's clear based on the lawyer's questioning that they provided free speech systems with a list of videos for which they needed to provide information about sourcing and how they were produced. Each of these videos, which are being said to be defamatory, contained information that was relevant to the case to, you know, you want to know

where it came from. Yeah, in order to sort out how these videos were made, the lawyers requested free speech systems to designate a representative to speak for the company, but more importantly, to prepare, compile the information they were requesting. So he settled. What are they? Draw straws muster.

They wound up with Rob. Okay, that's a swing for the fences right there. It was Rob do's responsibility to speak to the people who produced these videos and wrote the articles and to sort out where they got the information from. This is important to sort out because, uh, you know, if there aren't any sources, it could be believable that these people at in force are just making stuff up.

Rob do has not prepared at all. His deposition is a profound disrespect to this entire process, but the reason I think it's interesting is that it does not read at all like blustery disrespect. This is not Rob dude standing defiant, making a mockery of the entire lawsuit. It's a man who seems to real, not realize why he's there at the deposition. He seems to not know what appearing as a corporate representative means. He doesn't realize that he's there to speak for the company.

Rob do. Can I call you Mr. Magoo from the rest of this deposition Rob Magoo? Yeah, his body language and facial responses to questioning read like discomfort and confusion. He's not there to stonewall on behalf of free speech systems. He thought he was there to appear as Rob do in a capacity where answers like I don't recall can be used to dodge any questions asked, right?

Because he's there as a corporate representative, that question, that answer is not acceptable. A company cannot not recall something. It can either know something or it cannot. So in his capacity as a corporate representative, Rob do has a responsibility to prepare and know what free speech systems knows. When he's asked what the source for video number one is, he can't not recall. He has to either provide the source or say the company doesn't know what the

source was, but he's asked if a particular employee worked on Sandy Hook material, he can't say, I don't recall. He has to say that they did, they didn't, or that free speech systems doesn't know if they did because of his lack of preparation and seeming lack of understanding of his role. Rob do's being forced into a position where he really can't do anything other than physically embody the complete incompetence of info. That's that might be their only defense. Like hey guys, it's not a good defense.

We're a shitty run business. That's what we've got as a defense. Then you take the L yeah, exactly. I mean you you're going to lose that right. Like if you're just shitty and incompetent, you're still responsible. This, this supports my, my theory that Alex is just trying to spend all of the money he has left before the judge. You think it's a Brewster's million. I really think because why else would you appoint Rob do as your corporate representative? Nobody else. That's possible. He's been there forever. Get an intern to do. He's been there forever. He has a, you know, he has an

experience as the quote unquote news director for the station company. Oh boy. He's had like executive managerial roles. Sure. He's been there as long as just about anybody. Yeah. Paul's too smart to do this. He's absolutely not. Who else would you get? Like who's still there? Jerome Corsi. Yeah, but you have him as your corporate representative for this lawsuit. You don't want Steve Pachanik doing it. He's going to get you in more trouble. No good. What are the sources for you? Me? Roger's going to prison. He's out. Who do you have?

Daniels, Darren McBreen. Who are you going to send? I don't know. I and also you can't send an intern. Buckley doesn't work there anymore. Otherwise, he would probably be doing. Oh, he doesn't work there. He left a while back. So like I don't think Alex has anybody else other than Rob that you could probably trust to not like what Owen shroyer. You understand Owen shroyer. The cox slayer is going to go. I don't think so. I legitimately do think he may not have any other options. No, I think you might be right. David Knight may be possibly, but I bet he wouldn't

do it. Yeah. I feel like I don't know. I'd love to see a deposition with him. Did he didn't get deposed? If he did, it's not not in these, the release that we got. It's very, it would be very funny to me if even the lawyers for them were like, God, he's too boring. He's just too boring to depose. Yeah. I'll take the L on his information. I just can't sit there and listen to him for two hours. Can't be helpful. So look, it wasn't a surprise what topics were going to be discussed in Rob's deposition or what capacity Rob was appearing in. And yet this is how he shows up. It's disrespectful, but it's

not macho disrespect. It's disrespect born out of a person, not being equipped to have the conversation that they're legally required to have. Yeah. I find Rob do this deposition far more fascinating than Alex or Paul Joseph Watson's because of that dynamic. It feels like he might as well have like sent Brendan Dassy in there. Sure. This is yeah. Send anybody. Yeah. I don't know. Send the tank. The other reason that I find, excuse me. Could you please establish your ownership? It's the opinion of some people that I'm owned by some things. I

don't know why that's my voice for a tank. That's weird. Yeah. The other reason that I find Rob's interview and deposition more interesting is because in addition to being there in a formal capacity as a representative of free speech systems, this is supposed to be about the source. This is supposed to be about where did you get this information from? And that's always something that I would love for these people to be forced to answer. Oh, yeah. Absolutely. Because the answer is always going to be either made it up or the right wing website or Larry Nichols. Some completely an incredible person like

a Fetzer or Wolfgang Halbig. Absolutely. It's always going to be exactly what you know it is, but they pretend it's not right. It's always going to be some flimsy bullshit. And so Rob, like these Rob, do you give any source? We'll see. Okay. All right. These are the situations where like, you know, how whenever I talk about like when Alex sits down and he's like, I'm going to prove chemtrails. Yeah. That gets me excited. Teach a class. Yeah. Because then I'm like, okay, you will actually give me things to go and find. Right. Always get pumped about that. In the same way, I always get really excited when there is the prospect of

they're going to have to answer these things. Yeah. And it's because by all accounts, this should be their big day. Yeah. Like they are the truth tellers. Absolutely. They're the ones who are right about everything and the globalist media can't stand it for sure. Here is a formal court setting where Rob do is tasked with laying out the sources that they have for this, of course, for the, the, the coverage that they had and it's just such a dud. They also have tons of exonerating witnesses for Trump. I don't know if you knew that. Sure. They've got them all. And the other thing too is like, if Rob is like not going to give you any

of the sources, you should pretend that they're privileged sources or something like that. We refuse to give up our sources and there's none of you would have to have some sort of journalistic ethics or be held to a higher standard. There is none of that posturing and bravado. So anyway, here we start Rob's deposition and he says something that is ultimately the least true thing possible. Which of the four topics listed at the bottom of page one and top of page two of exhibit one, are you prepared to discuss today? I am prepared to discuss A, sourcing and research for the videos described in a plaintiff petition and B, internal

editorial discussions regarding free speech systems coverage of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. He is not. So a lot of this interview and deposition is the lawyer asking about various people and whether or not they still work at Info Wars because Rob has this sort of, I guess, maybe it is a thing where if they don't still work there, he wouldn't be able to really ask them what they did or talk to them because he's a corporate representative. So they don't press on people who don't work there anymore, like Jakari Jackson doesn't work there anymore. So there's no line of questioning about them.

But people like Darren McBreen or Daria, they ask, did they have anything to do with Sandy Hook research and Rob's just kind of like, I don't recall and then they have to remind him, does free speech systems know? He's like, I don't know. I'm waiting for him to try and plead the fifth. It's just constant over and over and over again. Someone is brought up and then just, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know why I'm here, guys. So a lot of these clips are just titled, Rob is not prepared for this. So I don't know how to set this up, but Rob is not prepared for this.

Okay. What did you do to prepare for your deposition testimony today regarding sourcing and research for the videos described in plaintiff's petition? Not much other than speak with my attorney. What? Did you look at any documents? I looked at this document and that's it in terms of preparing for this. Yikes. That document that he's referring to is the list of videos that are supposed to be discussed. So that's the only thing he did to review. All right. So let me, let me throw this out there for you.

All right. Now, when you say a woman is beautiful, that is an opinion. It's subjective, right? When you say I'm prepared to speak about A and B, and then you say that you're not, essentially, then it's an objective fact that you are not prepared to speak about A and B. You know, it's subjective whether you feel prepared. That's fair. So they have to keep reminding him that he's there as a corporate representative. And he's unprepared for that as well. Did you ask him if he's done research for Sandy Hook? No, I didn't ask him that. So you don't know whether or not he's done research for Sandy Hook? I can't remember any videos he was involved with making.

Right. That wasn't my question though, because I'm not asking you personally. I'm asking you as the corporate representative, and you were tasked with preparing yourself to discuss topic A as it applies to the entire company. So my question is, are you prepared to discuss the research that Darren McBreen was involved with regarding Sandy Hook? I would say no. Okay. That happens over and over again. A lot. I got you. Yeah. Why did they? So in this next clip, they try and explain to Rob like what he is there for. And then they teach him the alphabet? Like what's going on here? He doesn't seem to really grasp it. I think he does eventually, but it takes a while.

Let me clear it up. Okay. Does free speech systems know whether or not Marcus Morales has done research on Sandy Hook regarding the videos in plaintiff's petition? The answer is no. He's been involved in any of that. I didn't ask whether or not you thought. I asked whether or not free speech systems knows whether or not Marcus Morales has done any research for the pertaining to the videos in plaintiff's petition. I can't answer that. And that's because you don't know. On behalf of the company. Well, going back to the best of my knowledge, I do not know. You understand that when you were tasked as the corporate representative on that topic,

that you had a duty to prepare yourself to discuss that topic. Do you know that? I didn't understand that. Okay. Nobody has explained that to you prior to right now. You were under the impression that you were to come in here, sit down and testify as to what you know personally, and that's it. No, that's not what I understood. I understood that I was the corporate representative, but I did not know I was supposed to go talk to Marcus Morales. What did you think you were supposed to do? Oh, my God. Oh, my God. No, I might have ended this interview right then.

You can get the sense that we're here to have a conversation about this sourcing stuff. You have not prepared in any way. You don't understand your role as a corporate representative here. Why are we proceeding? I would just be like, get out of here. Go do your work, and then we will reschedule this. Instead, they keep going. To embarrass him, I assume. I don't know if it's to embarrass him, but I think that they keep trying to be like, okay, is there something that you do know sourcing of? Try and get some information. And so they talk about... No, this is the book report at the front of the class. The teacher's like,

did you do the book report? And you're like, no. And they're like, okay, then sit down. That's it. You should probably. Yeah. But instead, we just try and soldier on. Just try and find something that you do know the source of that we can work with. Do you believe sitting here right now that you're prepared to discuss the sourcing and research that went into why people think Sandy Hook is a hoax? Yes, I do. Because I've edited the video. Okay. Who was the source? I don't know. It was probably an anonymous person. That's not a good answer. You say that you're prepared to talk about the sourcing of the video that you edited, and it's probably some random person. Yeah. Probably is a problem. Yeah.

Some random person is another problem. It's an issue. Yeah. So that's not good. This is where we get into trouble with the law and people who feel like stuff they want to be true is true. I feel prepared. Well, that's a fact. I feel so prepared for this. All right. Ask me a question. What's an opinion? I have no fucking clue. I am so prepared for this. Next question. What's a fact? I have no clue. Next question. You were so prepared. I know. So the piece of information in the some random person probably brought up leads to talking about the Anderson Cooper knows disappearing. Sure. The green screen that Alex believed. And the lawyer gets a little bit peeved about the idea that

the FBI has forensic experts that have testified that this is not a green screen. Right. This is a compression error in the video that has happened. And Rob do doesn't trust that. And so I think that you could understand a person getting a little bit frustrated. That's like you'll believe random people, but you don't believe the FBI. Yes. And he gets a little aggro. Mistake or not mistake. Anderson Cooper was behind the blue was in front of a blue screen. The only reason I would say it's not 100 percent because somebody asked him if he was there and he denied being at the at the funeral. You know that's not true. No, there's video of it. There's video of a guy asking him during a taping of a show. He said,

Hey, were you at the funeral? And he goes, No, I wasn't. Right. He wasn't at and inside the funeral. You understand that you've been a corporate representative for free speech systems and other lawsuits in Texas. Correct. And I'm involved with those. Correct. I'm sure you are. You understand that an expert who has decades of service in the FBI and video forensics determined that that was not a blue screen, but was simply video compression. Do you know that? I've heard people say stuff. You know, the FBI also said they put photos of two guys who supposedly bombed the Boston Marathon and said they didn't know who they were when they interviewed them. So the FBI lies a lot. Okay. So you don't trust the FBI?

I don't really trust much in the government. Okay. That comes out of the government. Do you trust anonymous sources on 4chan? I don't know if I've ever used an anonymous source on 4chan. Do you know that's where the picture of Marcel Fontaine was found and used? Are you talking, who's Marcel Fontaine? You don't know who Marcel Fontaine is. He's the poor individual that lives in Massachusetts that Info Wars randomly put up his picture saying he was responsible for the Florida Parkland mass shooting. So we're talking about a different case now? Well, I didn't put that up, but from my understanding.

I'm not asking you whether you put it up. I'm asking if free speech systems is okay trusting an anonymous source that is completely unverifiable and using that information but not trusting the FBI. Is that what you're testifying to? Shit. Fuck. Fuck. Shit. What do I say? Fuck. There's barns. I still don't understand the core concept of a corporate representative. What I'm testifying to is that it's been our experience that the FBI has lied many times to cover up, cover their own ass, essentially.

Did you tell your uncle that? Yeah, I told him that. It's already established that Rob Dew's uncle is a former FBI agent to Alex turned into a source to cast dispersions about Sandy Hook. That long pause there, I think, is really indicative. When I said that it's not a Bravo, like a macho kind of disrespect, there is a look on his face of like, like, I know you're joking like shit. What do I say? But there is a feeling of like, what? What? Oh, no, that does make total sense. Why would we trust? Not me personally. I'm here for the company that did use anonymous information from 4chan.

And yet I'm saying the FBI's experts are full of shit. That is a tough line to walk in the same way that Paul is trapped with, hey, why are these people insane? And Alex is totally fine. It is like, yeah, you know what, I really don't have a good answer for this. He said he talked to his attorney. So his attorney must not know that he was the corporate representative, right? Otherwise, the attorney, because it seems like the only advice that his attorney could have possibly given him is, say you don't know over and over and over again. It might have like been the thing where he talked to Barnes and Barnes is no longer their

lawyer, right? And he was not doing a good job. Maybe he's like, tell them that the FBI is a bunch of liars. I'm Robert Barnes or Bill Blower. I don't know what. Yeah, I have no idea. It does seem like they've had a change in lawyer. Yeah. And so possibly there's a miscommunication. Possibly somebody didn't get the right info where it needed to be. But yeah, it seems absurd to me that no one was like when I, when you appear right in or hey, he could have been talking to his lawyer and the lawyer be like, you know, you're appearing as a corporate representative. You bet I do. That's fair. That's totally fair. And the lawyer assumes he knows what that entails and he doesn't. It's possible.

Hey, Rob, do you think you're prepared for this? You bet. Okay, then you get on in there, buddy. Go get a big guy. So Rob claims that they were respectful to the victims and the family members. All right. So he was unprepared for this interview. This is one of these like, you know, just a slow motion volleyball hit. Yeah. That Rob is doing that just like immediately cuts to normal speed and someone on the other side spikes. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That kind of this is not good. And I believe kids are shot and killed in the beginning. Okay. And if you look at our articles, we always talk about the victims, we were never disparaging towards the parents. Bullshit. Do you have, you've seen the video of Mr. Jones mocking Robbie Parker's father by

mocking him crying as a grieving father, surely? Robbie Parker's father. I don't know if I ever seen a video of Robbie Parker's father. I mean, Robbie Parker, excuse me. You've seen the video of Mr. Jones mocking Robbie Parker about crying over his dead son, right? I don't know if I've seen that video. You're a corporate representative. So you're not prepared to talk about that video that's listed in plaintiff's petition that you had a duty to prepare for today. I'm not prepared to talk about that video of Robbie Parker crying over his son. Oh, no, of Mr. Jones mocking Robbie Parker crying over his son. I'm not. Okay. I wouldn't be either. Oh, man. Yeah. Oh, man. That's tough. Like when you're trying to present,

like we were always very respectful. What about this time Alex is mocking a guy whose son just died? Never seen it. Okay. Is this even legal? I didn't even do this. I feel like he can't. I don't know the law well enough. Is there a rule that's like by law you're supposed to like is there a contempt of something contemptful? Yeah. I mean, I don't know if in the legal definition, but I find this to be full. Like I said, the way I would describe it is a rank disrespect. Yeah. Like and and not like with the middle finger, but with just like I didn't I don't even care enough to do what I need to do. Yeah. It's fucked up. So one of the other big things that info wars did in their Sandy Hook coverage that is particularly disrespectful

is that they put on screen and posted the address that Lenny Pozner used to pick up his mail. Yeah. There's a PO box that he was using that was I believe the address of the honor network, which was the foundation that he put together to try to get like pictures of the children like when conspiracy theorists would use their pictures of the kids. Yeah. Those videos DMCA struck. Yeah, I know the story. He was he made that a fucking heroic effort. Yeah. So Alex was pissed off about this because some videos of fringe weirdos that he associates with were being taken down. Right. It's an attack on free speech. Sure. So they got into the honor network and posted Lenny Pozner's PO box address right on on air, which some people could say is

harassment, probably not a safe thing to do and incitement to buy it. So they discuss that a little bit and Rob makes a pretty pretty fucked up claim. The videos that the honor network had taken down were those true sitting here today? I'd have to see the video to know whether standing here today, whether I think it was true. Buddy, I think a lot of it he pulled down just because they were giving him carte blanche to pull down whenever he wanted. And then you're just making that up. You have no evidence of that, correct? I'd have no evidence. Okay. And I just wanted to make sure again, we're sitting here as you make up information and spread it as I make up information.

Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. It sucks. I mean, to be in that situation where you are just making stuff up and yeah, so I'll be like, just to be clear, you're making that up. Well, well, I mean, I don't have evidence per se. Then you just have to answer like, yeah, yeah, fine. It's petulant. It's very childish shit. And I think that's what happens when people who do stuff like Info Wars does are cornered. Like you can't really have any other response than like sort of indignant disappointment. It's just, it's sad. No, it's a stone wall. Like what are you, okay, you corner him and he just says, fine, you think I make stuff up all the time. And he's never going to actually believe that he made it up. It's never going to be satisfying. No.

And that's what I was getting at at the beginning of like, why this is a more compelling deposition is because presumably this would be where Info Wars is supposed to shine. Yeah. If they were what they pretend to be, the sourcing deposition would be six hours long. It would be exhausting. Alex is one hundred percent correct on every would be on the record. For sure. It's in the white paper. It's not. It's just, I don't know shit. I just, you know, whatever. Yeah. Leonard Pozner was just, he had carte blanche to take everything down and like what, why would you base that on anything? I mean, I feel like it's true. Yeah. So Rob is also like unprepared because he doesn't have access to all the videos they wanted to go over, right?

Because Rob, can I stress this one more time? You are the corporate representative. We'll see free speech system. Jordan. Here's the thing. YouTube took down their YouTube channel. So all those videos are gone. Right? The internet ate them. I don't know dog. Dog internet eight homework. So Rob, Rob claims that one of the videos that he was supposed to prepare all the sourcing for and stuff like that, he can't find his and then his lawyer, my God, he is just not putting up with Rob's bullshit. You don't have this video as your testimony and by you, you mean free speech systems. I didn't have it in any of the searches that I made. Okay. Where'd you search? Actually, some of these I actually went on the internet to see if people had reposted them and

I didn't find anything at the time because that's usually how we find stuff that got erased. People repost our stuff. How long did you spend looking for the sources or video or the researcher for Sandy Hook, false narratives versus the reality? For that particular video, maybe 15 minutes. Are you aware that in this case, you produced this video to me? Yep, you're not prepared to discuss it. The problem is, and I think I discussed this in the last step position, we don't have video, the titles that you're using are you referring to YouTube titles and those aren't always what the video file is named when it gets uploaded.

Mr. Dew, you gave me this video free speech systems produced this to me, not YouTube. I understand that. So you have it in your possession. Correct. What is possession? I don't know if I have it in my possession. How on earth could free speech systems produce a video to me and it not be in your possession? There's only one copy. You had it and then you spoliated it, which is the destruction of evidence. No. Or two, you never had it yet somehow magically produced it to me. Which one of those is probably more accurate? Or three, you're just not prepared to discuss it. I'm not prepared to discuss it.

Of those three, I think that's probably. Yeah, I would choose that one. Look, man, we don't have this video. You gave it to me. Excuse me, sir. I would like to amend that back to magic. Can we? Yeah. Is magic admissible in the court of law? I mean, that is so disrespectful. That is, that is just like manifestly. I don't care. Yeah. I was told I was supposed to do all this stuff. I'm not taking this seriously at all. Absolutely. It's, it's, it's horror. I mean, horrifying is maybe not the right word, but it's, it's shocking. It really is. This is the first time I've been surprised in 2019 right now. It's deposition right here. So the subject of Dan

Badandi comes up. And as we know, the Kraken right is released from time to time. Sure. And one of the things I find particularly interesting about their angle on but up Badandi is there's a unified front that seems to be pushing the idea that Dan Badandi went around and was yelling at people at Sandy Hook. And then that was it. Alex was like, I don't want anything to do with you. You're fired. Sure. Get out of here. You never worked here in the first place. Stop using that microphone screen that says info wars. Right. Cut it out. How do we, how do we do on that one? How's our do going to fight that battle? Rob tries to maintain that illusion. Sure. And then the lawyer brings up an email that they found to discover. But shortly after that video,

he was fired because of what he was doing to those people. He wasn't, he was doing contract workforce and we would either accept or not accept his reports. And after that, you stopped accepting all reports and stopped responding to him according to your position testimony last time we spoke. I have to look at the dates for everything, but yes, that sounds right. Okay. So it's weird that we were produced in this case for the first time an email that you're involved with that has Dan Badandi being fired for how he was acting at a Donald Trump rally in 2016. Fun fact, right? That is a fun fact that is a fun fact. Oh God, man, they really should have went through the discovery stuff. This is bananas.

It was really screwed by this. Like we just sent everything over. We didn't review anything. That's insane. The like plaintiffs lawyers are going to look through all that stuff. They're going to find these things like. Hey, you know you said you fired Dan Badandi because of this abusive behavior and all that stuff. And that's a great story, but it turns out it was because he was acting like an idiot at a Trump rally in 2016. You didn't want to be associated with him. Right. So fun fact, that is a fun fact. Thank you for bringing that to my attention as a representative. You personally are on that email. I don't, I don't, I don't recall. And I, I reject. Oh, Oh, did the FBI send that email? So they get to talking about this video that Alex put out,

which is called Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed. Right. And Rob says he can discuss the sources of that because he worked on it. Then the lawyer brings up something unfortunate that. Do you think vampires are real? Yes. Opinion. April 22nd, 2017, after the final statement, that was our last video, is Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed. Do you remember that video? I do remember that video. Who researched the information for that video? I would say myself and Alex did. What were your sources? I believe a Megan Kelly interview. Any others? And then I believe previous videos that we produced. Are you aware that on April 22nd,

2017, that Megan Kelly interview hadn't even happened yet? No, it hadn't happened yet. Okay. Fair to say that you're not prepared to discuss this video. Right. Yeah. I think that's a, that's a, that's a fun fact. Man. Yeah. The source for that video was the Megan Kelly interview, which happened afterwards. Can I go back and revise my answer to Time Travels Real? Would that one help? So I think this is a, like a pretty understained, but Rob dude did not do his job as a corporate representative. That is, I can only assume the reason that the interview kept going was just because the lawyer really wanted to expose how fucking shameless these people are.

But it doesn't feel vindictive. It doesn't, like the questioning doesn't like veer too far into like, I'm going to humiliate you. That's what I, that's what I'm saying. I'm not, I mean, I think the reason that I'm saying that is simply because they, they can't be humiliated. They're shameless. I think if it were me in there, I probably would try and set more traps. Like I would try and do all sorts of crazy things. Do you believe in climate change? That's your angle that you would go on it. But yeah, and I don't, I don't think that they resort to too much of that. No. But, but like I said, it seems like they're dangerously a, a patient. Yeah. But, and I would say from the last deposition to this one, I, I see,

I'm not a market improvement because I think that would be condescending for me to say, but I see far more what they're trying to get at in this. And I think that it's far more problematic for Alex. Like I think it's much more troubling. And I think probably a large part of that is based on the discovery and the process moving on, being able to match up these private communications along with public statements. Yeah. And I think that they're doing, from all indications I can get, I think they're doing a good job. Unlike Rob Do. Ah, come on. You didn't review any emails prepared for today. That's correct. Right. Do you think you should have? I wasn't relying on the advice of my attorney. Without this,

deposition's gone so far. Do you think you prepared enough? Oh, I'm not going to answer that. Okay. I wouldn't either. What? Rob, Rob, really, really, really, Rob, I'm not going to answer that. What do you think that means? That's about where like the lawyer's being a little bit petty possibly, but I still think it's a fair question. It's like, do you think that you should have done more? I actually, I generally, I genuinely think that's a great question because that is indicative of the entire ethos of info wars. You also wonder too, like it's not a question that's meant just to prod. Like there's a chance that he might actually think he did exactly what he was supposed to do.

I genuinely think he does. He might. So like I said, in the Paul Joseph Watson one, there is a an attempt to sort out the difference between opinion, fact, the presentation of it on the show. Yeah. And it comes back up here with Rob, where it's the discussion is broached of how are people supposed to tell what's reporting and what's opinion? As a journalist, don't you have the duty to be right and not burst? Well, and we're not always wearing journalistic hats. Sometimes we're commenting on something. So when you're commenting on something, you can just make it up and it doesn't matter. No, you can say your opinion. In any way, is that differentiated on air? Does Mr. Jones say

here, I'm just going to make stuff up here. You should trust me because we're truth in journalism. Does he do that? I think he doesn't play devil's advocate as much anymore because of instances like these where we're at today. Because I got sued. Do you guys not want to answer my question or do you not understand what questions are? I think that the question is being asked incredibly clearly. How are you supposed to tell the difference between opinion presented as fact and fact, whatever? Okay, so you gave me a very clear question and I'm going to respond with a time-based question, which has nothing to do with it. It's completely impossible to answer

for them. That's why I think that that is a dangerous thing for them to, for infowars to even give a bad answer to. Yeah, even acknowledging that. Because it is, every single thing is presented as truth. 100% truth. You can't listen to Alex Jones for any extended period of time without coming away with the impression that he, first of all, is wrong. And second, he is absolutely making statements of fact, not opinion. Whatever ways he can couch it, I don't know, based on the law, where the line is or what side he's on, but as a consumer of it, and a listener to his show, I have no problem saying that they blur that line perhaps intentionally and it's super unclear. Because can you imagine if Alex is just like, yeah, all this stuff is

just my feelings? Yeah, that's just my, like what I think about this. I'm not saying that it's based on, when I say that it's all in the white papers and everything I say is proven, that's just my opinion. I believe that everything has been proven. I'm not saying to you that it has been proven. What is your show then? Well, I mean, my opinion is me saying that everything has been proven to you is a statement of opinion. We will never solve this because I am a circle. So this deposition with Rob do ends with the lawyer asking if Rob is proud of what info words has done. Wait, now, is that a personal question or is that a question for him as the representative of free speech system? I think it might be personal. So he asks that and Rob's

answer, I think might low key mean that he might be way more of a fucked up bad dude than we think, because this answer is borderline sociopathic. My last question is sitting here today, on behalf of the company, are you proud of the work that you did that that free speech systems did on Sandy Hook Elementary School and the shooting that happened in December 2012? I think our reporting stopped what was going to be a lot of anti-gun legislation coming down. You didn't answer my question. My question was, are you proud of the information that you've spread about Sandy Hook from 2012 to 2017? As a company, is that what you want to be remembered for? I don't think we're going to be remembered for Sandy Hook. What do you think you're going to be

remembered for? I know that's what you want. I think that when you're being asked, are you proud of this? If you don't want to show us, there's some sort of an answer you could give that's not yes or no. Mistakes were made. I think we did some things well. Are you proud of every mistake that you've ever made? You could say, hey, look, Jim Fetzer, or you probably don't want to broach that. No, you don't. You don't speak as Wolfgang. How big was presented by other people as a completely credible source? You know, sometimes you believe people who are you shouldn't believe you could do whatever you want. His answer being, I believe that there was a lot of gun legislation that we stopped by lying about Sandy Hook. That's an ends justify the means

argument. Excuse me, Mr. Dew, are you saying that you spread false information in order to achieve a political result? Do you know we have a word for that? I mean, it does seem to imply that he doesn't have qualms with putting out false information if it's expedient to his goals. Yeah. And that to me under oath. Yeah. Speaking for the company. Sure. Is not good. No. No. Yeah. I gasped when he said, Hey, we stopped gun legislation. Honestly, honestly, I don't know if Goebbels would have said he was proud of the misinformation that he spread. Well, I mean, also, you've got to consider like these gun paranoia fears that they've had over the decades. Like they didn't need to fake something like this. They didn't

have to engage in this to stop that legislation. The like tons of money from the Myak report and all that shit. Yeah. It's like the like gun advocacy groups do enough to make sure that a lot of that legislation doesn't pass. You don't need people like Alex doing this sort of shit. Right. Okay. So they've spent delusional. They've spent millions and millions of dollars on lobbying directly to congressmen and essentially have purchased their votes. Did the NRA ever completely lie about a mass shooting? They might have. That's true. They might have. So Rob's deposition is like this real spectacle of incompetence and disrespect that I find really interesting. And I find it to be like

like a real low point for like these depositions in particular because they had such potential. The sources, we're going to find out information. And then it's just Rob do with a backwards beanie on just being like, I don't know anything. You're speaking as the company. The company doesn't know anything. Who cares? That's that's so fucked up. Yeah. And not least of which just because if anybody had ever given me like, we are going to depose you. Here are the stuff. Here's the stuff you need to know. I would have done the shit out of my homework. So nervous. Yeah. So fucking. They're going to depose me. I'm under oath. I better get my facts right. And these people are

just like, I'll wing it. Yeah. That's fucked up. We had Paul Joseph Watson as the opener. Yeah. Rob do is the feature. Right. And which is the best spot as as we've clearly seen. Yeah. Yeah. And as is tradition, we got our headliner. And that is of course, Alex Jones being under oath deposed again. Yeah. So we had like the Paul probably was about an hour long deposition. Rob do is about an hour 40. Alex is almost three hours of him under oath. And a large part of the beginning of it is discussing like, what means did people communicate with each other internally at info wars? Right. Which is, you know, to try and be like, do we have all of these internal communications emails? All this? Did you all use slack that

kind of thing? Right. Right. And Alex is very wishy washy about all of this. I don't know what people use. What's slack? Yeah. God damn it. So he in this first clip, he claims that he's never texted with anybody about Sandy Hook. So you're saying you never received text messages relating to Sandy Hook. Is your testimony the same that you've never sent a text message relating to Sandy Hook? I mean, I've like said, like to like talk to a lawyer like meeting about it or something. But I know I don't sit there and talk about Sandy Hook. It's not my identity. I very rarely talk about Sandy Hook period. Okay. So your testimony is you've never sent a text message relating to Sandy Hook to a fellow employee or a source or somebody outside the company. No, I mean,

I think I've talked about meetings with lawyers about it. That's it. Okay. That seems to be in direct contradiction to Paul Joseph Watson's email that he sent to Buckley and Anthony Gucci Artie, which was a like on the record version of a text that he sent to Alex. Yeah, I was literally waiting for him to be like, and here's the text you provided us. But I don't think he needs to I don't I don't think that the lawyers need to bring that out. You just need like here's Alex being duplicitous. It's not there. Here's yeah. So one of the angles that I thought was really interesting at the beginning of this conversation with Alex is getting into have you ever disciplined anybody at info wars? Because I know an employee we just talked to him who

could use a little discipline my friend. So like Alex seems to think that the question is all about whether someone has put out false information intentionally, right, and then been disciplined. Yes. Whereas the question is really more just like, have you disciplined anyone for anything? Yeah, like making a mistake. Yeah, being hasty. Any of those are thrown axes, Adam. Let's talk about requests for production number three on page four. This request sought all documents reflecting disciplinary action taken against any employee of free speech systems LLC for publication of false information or for breach of journalistic ethics between December 14, 2012, and April 18, 2018. Your response is none, correct?

Yes. Okay. None in six years. Apparently, none. No one has been disciplined. They're heard this stuff. I mean, it does really feel like their defense is we're a shittily run business. Yeah, I mean, I still think that's all I can. I still don't think that doesn't get you off the hook for this. Of course not. No, that's what I'm saying. I think they I think they know they're going to lose because of course they are. I think they have to. Yeah. And and I think they just started like fucking let's let's push this back as long as possible. Let's write this out. Let me reframe this. It's not necessarily that they think they're going to lose, but they I get the sense that they think it's a more likely outcome than they might have

previously. Yeah, yeah, fair. And I yeah, it's not surrender. It's not giving up or anything like that, but it's fucking like it's weird. This is this hinge of we're all opinion. Yeah, kind of thing is not what you'd want to do if you're info wars. You don't want to testify and put on oath that they we're not talking facts here. We're not talking facts. I mean, yeah, but by their own definition of facts, nobody is going to care or listen to them because they're just going to say that's what you think. Sure. Like facts are not going to convince anyone maybe. So before we get to some more talk about disciplining employees, we get to this idea of what is an opinion and what is fact and see if Alex knows the difference. Okay, what would you

think Sandy Hook is not an operating school? You think that's an opinion? I don't know the context for speaking about it. I'm just saying right now, if I told you, I said to you, Mr. Jones, Sandy Hook wasn't an operating school. I believe it was torn down. It's not what I'm asking. Oh, I'm confused. I see that. I'm asking you if I said to you right now, I'm going to say it to you right now. Mr. Jones, Sandy Hook wasn't an operating school. Did I just make a statement or did I just make an opinion? That's your opinion. Okay. Okay. So those sorts of statements can be set on InfoWars without fact checking. I don't know the context. So the reason that he's trying to nail this down is because it's

trying to get the sense of like, if you're an employee for InfoWars and you want to just say something on air, is there any kind of, I believe prior constraint is the term of any kind of like, how would you go about making a claim like Sandy Hook wasn't open on air? And it turns out- Well, they said it. Well, it's an opinion. Whatever. And that is not an opinion. That is something that is either, that has a truth value attached to it. It's either true or false. And that I think is one of the clearer things that comes out to me in the course of all of these depositions is a staunch refusal to understand or accept that there is a difference between a fact and

an opinion. I don't think that these people, and I think that there's a strategic reason for it. But I also think that there's a possibility that they like sincerely don't quite grasp that. I genuinely believe that they don't. I really, I really don't think they do. And if we're going by, if I'm going by that like, they're the weakest link in this propaganda chain, I think they're low enough on the totem pole where they're convinced that there is no difference. You know, like higher up in the upper echelons of journalists at Fox News who are, or opinion people at Fox News, they have to be aware that they're not telling the truth. But these guys genuinely don't believe there is a truth. They don't believe there's a fact.

It's really hard for me to tell because it is, it seems possible that there is an inability or an unwillingness to understand the difference on their part. It's possible. But I can't really necessarily believe that because I also think that it's exactly the last refuge you would hide in. Like it is where you would go if you're like, well, everything is indefensible and my behavior is clearly shown to be fucked up. I was, you know, hey, look, there's just opinions. It is real. It does seem like exactly where you would try and hide out. That's true. You're not wrong. I mean, obviously they can't combat it with any kind of facts. Because there is a functional use to it, I find it hard to believe that it's

just like the inability to recognize reality. If it didn't serve a purpose, then I'd be like, that's fascinating because it does. But that's something that I hear so often from a lot of people is that baseline belief. And I don't know. I think it's a combination of purposeful ignorance along with a willingness or what is it? Constant bombardment of this as true. Like somebody repeated it often enough and I don't want to really engage with the fact that repetition isn't reality. So I'm going to say that it's true. Like that's kind of their operating system, I think. Could be. So we get back to these employees who have not been disciplined at all and we get some examples. Let's say an editor publishes an accusation that someone is a criminal

and in doing so, they relied on a source whose identity they cannot verify. They have no idea who it is. It's a totally anonymous message they got. And then it turns out that that reporting was false. Is that okay? No, it's not. Okay, you would take disciplinary action if that happened. Yes. Now, what kind of disciplinary action would you take? I would generally just write it something like that and probably let them go. Okay. All right. Now, when Kit Daniels ran an article accusing an innocent young man of being the Parkland mass murderer based on anonymous sources, which he could not verify. He didn't fire him, did you? That individual's name was not put out and it was from another site and it was pulled down

and then the individual reported themselves and their name into the record. But Kit did not do that on purpose and it was on thousands of publications. He intentionally on purpose reported an accusation of a crime based on an anonymous source whose identity he could not verify. Correct. No, it appeared to match the information that was also on other sites, but it was incorrect. That's why we took it down. What sites are you talking about? It was a long list of sites. It was all over the internet. Before Kit Daniels published it. Yes. That's your belief. That's why I remember. That's my knowledge. All right. Kit Daniels testified that he just founded on 4chan and saw it in a tweet by an anonymous Twitter account.

I don't remember that. Okay. If that was true, though, if he just relied on two anonymous sources whose identity he could not verify, that's a fireable offense, isn't it? I'm not happy. Yes. Yes. I believe it was more, but yes, it's not good. That's not good. I cannot believe that he is not clever enough to sense that a hypothetical question is going to lead to a literal question. That is insane to me that he's answering that question honestly. I fire the guy. Yeah. Don't answer that. Don't answer a hypothetical. It's not like he's going to ask you a hypothetical question that's going to exonerate you. No, probably not. So he asks that one, and then there's another example. You didn't take disciplinary action against any employee

involved in the false reporting on the Chobani Yogurt Company that you publicly apologized for. Correct. That was a publicity stunt by Chobani Yogurt, and there was no money. There were migrant workers being brought in. There were rapes in the area, but technically the company itself wasn't doing it. It was the owner and the Federal Reserve Board member. What? Didn't David Knight tell you explicitly that there were no rapes? That that was false? I don't remember what you're talking about. Okay. Hey, Hamdi. What the fuck? Did he just commit another crime? I'm not entirely sure. It does seem like under oath he just said that Hamdi Ulacayo was involved in bringing

migrant workers. Yeah. I wonder if that is a violation of his. It has to be. It seems like it would be. There's no way that it's like, oh, you can't say it publicly. However, in a deposition in another lawsuit, it would be totally fine. And when it's released on the internet, we won't consider that public. Yeah, that's insane. Yeah. And so you got that really fucked up answer. And then also a demonstration that no, when the whole Chobani thing happened, no one was punished. But again, Alex is presenting it as because it was a publicity stunt. Yeah. That's bananas. I don't, I'm starting to think that that public apology wasn't genuine. It seems like it wasn't. So there's even more things that he didn't have any disciplinary actions about. When your reporter,

Owen Shroyer, tried to falsely connect the Austin pizza restaurant East Side Pies to a pedophile ring, you didn't take any disciplinary action. Correct? I don't know. I'm not too specific to what you're talking about. You've never taken any disciplinary action against any employee for any of the false things said about Sandy Hook on Info Wars, correct? Shit. Fuck. Fuck. Shit. What do I say? I don't, I don't understand. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Really? I want to hang that on the wall. I'm fair. It's pretty clear what I'm getting at is that you create an environment where everybody is not at all punished for putting out bullshit. And in fact, they are actively encouraged to do so. Seems like that's the pattern

that's being demonstrated. How do you not know what I'm getting at? I am very clearly leading you. That's, that's why the really is so like, come on, man. Yeah. It's like, you know exactly what's going on. I would hope so. So then the topic of Dan Badandi comes up. And of course, Alex wants to downplay his relationship with the Kraken. Okay. That's Mr. Badandi. Yes. All right. Thank you, Mr. Jones. That's the man that Info Wars sent to Newtown to report on Sandy Hook in 2014, correct? Well, he lived up there. He went to cover it. He lives in the Boston area. Correct. Okay. So Info Wars sent him to Sandy Hook to cover it in 2014, right? Not exactly. He had his own separate radio show from us. Okay. But he did reporting for Info

Wars in 2014 in Sandy Hook. We had him on as a guest, but he wasn't working for us. Okay. He wasn't your reporter? Not technically. You're just like him as your reporter. I don't remember that I may have. Okay. He certainly has that was certainly heard him describe Dan Badandi as an employee says he hired him said he sends him places. Right. So that is an opinion though. So he Alex tries to play the same game that like a Rob do does and that is that our sense of decency was offended by what Dan Badandi was up to. And so we told him to fuck off. Bullshit liar. What did you think of Mr. Badandi's work in Newtown in 2014? I did not follow a lot of it. Okay. When you did find out about it, what was your reaction? What'd you do?

Injection form. I don't remember the specifics. Okay. When you testified back in March, didn't you say that you had seen what he did and had a reaction to it? Are you talking about this report? I'm just talking about this report. I'm just talking about his work in Newtown. What did you think about his work in Newtown in 2014? I don't remember the exact year, but I remember telling him, you're not reporting for us to stop using the might flag. And I told him and stop. Don't come on the show. I don't like your demeanor and you don't represent us. I do remember that. I'm not sure of the year. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I don't like your demeanor cracking. Yeah. No kidding. The guy who I specifically praised for his demeanor. I might as well have created a statue

because he disrupted Boston bombing related press conferences. I didn't like the way you was carrying himself. This is unreal. Yeah. So ridiculous. I don't understand why there. Why is Alex doing both or trying to do both the I don't recall and answer the question thing? Because I think it's hubris. I think he has to be ready. I think that sometimes he feels like I could I can handle this. Right? Yeah. It feels that way a little bit. No, because nothing he says well and like Rob, he's not prepared. He hasn't he hasn't really sorted out. Like there is a part of like I don't understand what you're getting at that is kind of accuracy to it. Like I don't think he understands some of the lines of questioning and what their purpose right. Right.

Like there's the you didn't discipline any of your employees for all of these clear instances of being lazy, being sloppy, being irresponsible. There is a point to that line of questioning in the same way with Dan Badandi, like bringing him up. There's a reason that we're going down this road. Were there depositions in the Humptyulacaya case? I don't think it proceeded to that point. I think he settled before. I was going to say I'm not entirely sure and I don't know if any became public. Yeah, because it kind of feels to me like the advice that they must be operating under is like, this is going to settle. So don't worry too much about yeah, we're going to settle this the same way that we did with the other law. That's not what bar

is just going to cost you money to the Supreme Court. Yeah, and they also said that I will die before I give into this. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I will not be taken down by yogurt. Never. So Alex again, another line of questioning that seems very consistent is that I don't believe that the lawyers think that Alex has any sources really outside of Wolfgang Halbig and Jim Fetzer. Yeah, they seem to be pretty clear that like any any question kind of traces back to them a little bit. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And so Alex really wants you to know that Jim Fetzer wasn't a source. Sure. In addition to Wolfgang Halbig, one of your other sources for your Sandy Hook reporting was Jim Fetzer, right? Not not one of mine. I remember a long time ago. Really, you didn't testify to that in March

that Mr. Fetzer is he was one of the people questioning it in one of your sources for Sandy Hook coverage, correct? I don't I don't remember what I mean. I remember. I don't think he was on my show. Didn't you testify that Mr. Watson was telling you that Mr. Fetzer was bad? You shouldn't be relying on him? I remember Paul saying he didn't like Fetzer. I do remember that. Mr. Fetzer is a retired professor in a rabid anti-Semite, right? I don't know if I've called. I don't know that. You didn't know Mr. Fetzer was a rabid anti-Semite? No, I don't know that. You didn't know that Mr. Fetzer thinks the Jews did Sandy Hook? No, I don't know that. Just like he thinks the Jews did 9-11? No.

Alex should really know more about the the worlds that he dwells in. It seems like it would be helpful to him. This is bananas. So in the Rob Dew deposition, Rob didn't know the name of the guy that they fingered as the Parkland shooter, which is crazy because they're engaged in all of this and this attention, this negative attention, these lawsuits. You would think that this would be something that like, okay, we got to cover our bases on this. You don't even recognize the guy's name. Now, Alex doesn't know somebody's name. You remember at the end of the 2016 election, there was some media coverage about how you would set on your show that Trump had called you and to thank you for your help in the election. And some of those mainstream media sources were,

you know, kind of trying to pile on you about that. Do you remember that? Yes. Okay. Two days after that happened, a woman named Erica Lafferty. First, let's back up. Do you know who Erica Lafferty is? No. Okay. She's the daughter of Don Hoppring. She's currently suing you. You don't know who she is. I've never talked about her. Okay. She's been talked about on Info Wars, though. You didn't know that. I don't know. Okay. And you didn't know that she currently is the named plaintiff in a suit against you in Connecticut, called Lafferty versus Jones. You didn't know that. Oh, I've seen that name. Yeah. Okay. Oh, I've seen that name. That's crazy. That, how you don't even understand how you can be that level of, because it doesn't feel like

that's not a genuine answer. No, I genuinely believe he has no idea who she is. Even if you watch it there, it seems like, I don't know, who's that? Yeah, who's that? I don't know. No, when he's lying or trying to find a way to lie but not lie, he pauses for about 45 to 80 minutes. There is a strange, and it just goes to the larger picture of what I see as just blatant disrespect going on by these people who work at free speech systems. They must genuinely never have thought they would actually be deposed. Maybe. Maybe. They have to believe that. It would explain the lack of preparation, the lack of lawyerly advice. It's possible. Or they just thought like they won't put these out. Yeah, I guess we'll just be able to, you know, keep this

under wraps. Wow. So this is insane. The lawyer plays a video of Alex's from 2016. And in it, Alex is discussing some of the evidence and some of the reasons why, you know, there's suspicions around Sandy Hook. And this is one of them. But the biggest piece of evidence, the smoking gun, if you would, of a coverup of whatever really happened is the Wayback Machine, the Internet Archive. We see Sandy Hook's New Town website, K through 12, having zero traffic, 2008, 9, 10, 11, 12. And then all of a sudden, it just explodes. It's impossible to have zero traffic to a K through 12 entire school system. And the word is, that school system was shut down for those years. That's what the records show.

But they tell us it was open. So you might have some questions about how that evidence works. And Alex doesn't, he seems very confused when questioned. So you said in the video, we see Sandy Hook's website having zero traffic. According to this. So according to you, the Internet Wayback Machine, do you believe that that shows internet traffic? Is that what you believe? What it shows is what's being archived there. And then there's also, it's a group of not just this, but I'd have to go back to that was years ago. Okay. Internet Wayback Machine does not show internet traffic at a school, correct? It shows new material and traffic on a website as opposed to. Okay. You were going to stick by, you think it shows traffic, internet traffic. That's what it's

measuring. I guess the term would be, you know, traffic in posting, in activity. Have you ever read the Wayback Machine FAQ frequently asked questions or figured out what it is? That is not with the Wayback Machine. So you have this like this, the smoking gun, as Alex called it on this 2016 video, that is a completely misunderstood, misrepresented piece of information. And what makes it all the more troubling is you say there's things showing that there's no traffic coming to the school. What are you talking about? I had to pull that out. This was years ago. Well, I think you could pull it up pretty easily because it comes from Jim Fetzer's book, right? You could just open up Jim Fetzer's book. I've never read Jim Fetzer's

book. Mr. Jones, I'm going to caution you again. Please wait till I answer your question, because as you can see, it's very frustrating for this man. And he's not here affiliated with any party. He's a private person who's paid to provide a service. He's coming here to try to write all this down so we have a good record. So let's try to behave in the deposition. Let me finish my questions. You didn't check any other Connecticut School District websites, did you? Because they all look like this, don't they? I don't remember. Well, let's say hypothetically, if you had gone and you had seen that every other Connecticut School District website looks just like this, be pretty irresponsible to go on the Internet. I mean, go on your web show. Call this the Smoking

Gun, wouldn't it? I was predominantly talking about the other information, but I had to go back and get that. Okay. I'm glad he finally understood what a hypothetical question. He finally understood. I was waiting for him to answer it and be like, haha, yes, you're right. That would be wrong. And he's like, did you do that? Oh, right. Hypotheticals are leading to reality. Shit. Yeah. I mean, the problem with that is like, yes or no, you're wrong. Like if you go and see that all of the Connecticut School Districts have this same pattern on the way back machine, if you did look that up, then you're willfully lying. If you're not, then you clearly just took this piece of information, presumably from Jim Fetzer, as it's a piece of his book. And Alex

does not want that to be the perception because Jim Fetzer just lost that big lawsuit over the book. And it seems if he put out that book back then, and it's, you know, still now he's losing a lawsuit for it, it tends to look like Alex could be heading for a similar path. I believe that Alex has never read his book. I believe that Alex has never read a book. I believe that he has been given several quotes from that exact book. It's possible to say them. Yeah. Or the same information, like let's say he read a blog that was based on. Yeah. Yeah, I could see that. That makes more sense. Or one of his employees read the book and was like, oh, here's a piece of it. Oh, let's run with that. Let's give you a cliff notes. Yeah,

which is why it's important for the Rob do interview to have actually had some substance to it trace down what's the process. But nope. So in that same clip from the 2016 video, Alex is saying that the records show that the school was closed. And he gets asked about that. Right after that, the way back machine discussion, you said the word is that school was shut down for those years. That's what the records show. That was your argument, correct? I'm specifically talking about the other articles I was talking about. Yes, that's what I'm asking you about right now. Those records, what are you talking about? I'd have to go pull them up. You haven't done that. No, no, not recently. You've been under lawsuit now for over a year on Sandy Hook related cases,

multiple cases. And you haven't done anything to go try to find what your sources for these claims are, have you? Is that is that an opinion or effect? It's an uncompelling response. I did all that have done all the work. So Alex, like I said, he just really doesn't want the perception to be that he's getting his information just from Fetzer and how big because that looks really bad. So he keeps claiming that he can produce other evidence, but then somehow hasn't. So if I wanted to know when you say the records show that the school was closed out and you could produce those records? I could show what I was talking about at that point. Or you could produce

whatever you were relying on as your source, right? Now that you've specified. You haven't done that though, have you? I don't have a law degree. Sure. If you were asked the question produced to me, your source or records or information that you relied on to say the school was closed, that's something you could do. Yes. I don't know if it would be what you're looking for. I mean, look, if you had records or some sort of information, some sort of source showing the school in America's most horrifying school shooting was actually closed, you'd probably save that somewhere, right? Well, I specifically mentioned, I mean, I remember what people were pointing out, what was going on. I'm asking you if you would have saved that stuff.

Shit, shit, fuck, fuck, fuck, what do I say? Fuck, shit. Arns. I mean, I don't have the specifics you're infront of me. I'm not asking what you have in front of you. I'm asking you when you had information that the school shooting that is the most famous in American history actually occurred in a school that was closed down and wasn't an operating school. Did you save that information? You know, I don't remember a long time ago, almost seven years ago. Okay, okay. So where should we run businesses is defense. And it was a long time ago, man, I had this game changing information and I just add it's a long time ago. So this narrative is bunk. And I think that in this course of this conversation, they've pretty well laid out like you were full of

shit on this. And his only response is like, well, I guess I could find your information, but I haven't yet. But so the other one another one is the Anderson Cooper knows thing. They kind of talked about that on the last deposition. So it doesn't come back up. And another one is Alex has this dumb narrative about a CNN interview that took place. And it was two people that were out in a remote location. And you can see the same car pass behind both of them. And Alex is saying that this is meant to be faking the news and it's meant to, you know, it's supposed to be like, Oh, they're pretending they're in different places. But you can tell they're in the same place because the media is all lies. Sure. That and that had nothing to do with Sandy Hook. No, but it had

to do with the media lying. Yeah, it was actually people waiting for the I believe it was the jury verdict in the Jody Arias murder trial. So but Alex says like they're pretending they're in different places, but it's clear they're in the same place. Ergo CNN lies. And this gets dismantled so fucking quickly. Do you remember that bus going behind them? I remember the story was that they were the same location. Yeah, explain what you think is going on here. Well, I'm not saying they're staging Sandy Hook. I'm saying it just they were staging that they were different locations. Were they staging that they were in different locations? That's what I believe the report was. Do you see how at the top of the picture here, you have little boxes that say

where they are? Are they in different places? Or do they both say Phoenix? Well, sure. But that could be in there a different remote location. Sure. But they're only 40 yards away from each other, right? I don't know. You don't remember what they're covering here? No. He has no awareness of the details of these pieces of his narratives. It's so tragic to look at. But it's so obvious. I mean, if you listen to him enough with a critical eye, you know that these are the only kinds of answers he could ever offer. Yeah, if pushed on it, like, why do you think that they're presenting themselves as being in separate places? Yeah, it's like a they're waiting outside a courthouse, one person stationed over here, the others over here, and they're

having a conversation while they wait for the jury to come out. Like, that's not suspicious. They didn't present it as anything other than that. You are presenting it as something other than that. This this gets to the like, when people ask us, if you would you actually sit down and talk with Alex, it's like, look, this is what you get if you if he thinks he's telling you the truth. And if he is under oath, this is what you get. Imagine how bad it would be if you're out. Yeah, yeah. So after this point, I think you get to the only point of the interview where Alex, the lawyer gets a little bit like pointing the finger at Alex, because he starts comparing Alex to Nancy Grace, and says that he is the same thing as her. And, you know, hey, you know, I

don't mind the lawyer getting a little personal and being like you should this is what you do is shit. Yeah. But that's a statement of fact, Dan. That is not an opinion that you and Nancy Grace are basically two peas in a pod. You do basically the same thing. I don't follow Nancy Grace enough to know what your definition of her or I are. Well, I mean, I'll just tell you Nancy Grace does really, really reckless tragedy porn. And you do the same thing with the conspiracy twist, don't you? No, I question a system known for continually lying that says that babies were thrown out of incubators that never existed in the DU. And there's WMDs in Iraq, when there's not, and then all these and then the Benghazi standouts, we've been lied to so much, just like most Americans,

I question the official story. So it's not illegal. What question did you ask in that video that we just watched? What was the question? I was talking about some of the questions people have. I'm not, I don't, what was the question? What question? I heard a lot of statements. Can you tell me what the question was? I was putting out some of the, you know, reasons people question things. You were putting out assertions that were false. I like this approach, because it's not getting bogged down in the like, what about, what about the babies and the incubators? Yeah, yeah. It's just letting that roll off his back. What was the question in that video? What was the, what are you questioning? That was perfect, because the entire, the whole babies,

he's doing his classic laundry list of things, hoping that you'll get caught on one. And then he can be like, aha, now we're in my arena. Yeah. And I believe it was in the Rob Dew one that he brings up also the babies and incubators thing. And he's like, the lawyer's like, you know, in that case, if one of the people in like, let's say Saddam's army, they're the people who are being lied about in that case. If one of them wanted to sue the media, they should be able to, right? It's these little unexamined pieces of their flippant self defenses. You can see how easily they can be tweaked. And Alex accidentally does that to himself, because throughout this entire interview in deposition, Alex keeps bringing up questioning Epstein's death. And it leads to,

at the end of this, Alex stepping in a big old puddle of mud. But we'll get to that as it goes. You son of a bitch, because he thinks that that is going to be his big like, big like, yeah, well, you know, you say, I can't question things, but what about, you know, and it's just much like Rob do and the, the babies and incubators, it turns on him very quick. Yeah, this is very clear that Alex and Rob do exist in a world where they think they're smarter than everybody and they don't have to prepare. And that none of this is going to be a big deal. I can take care of this. You're absolutely right. PJ dubs comes out of this looking like, looks great. I am out of my class here. So I'm going to be as honest as I need to be while

still controlling what I can. I'm going to get this in, get this out. It's an hour long deposition. But the reason that he can do that is because there are pieces of evidence that he was not in with this bullshit. He's, he's exculpatory. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And he, so he can, he can take a little bit of an external like, well, look, man, right, I tried to say, don't do this. I can't control what goes on at info is, yes, I still worked for them afterwards. But I'm an independent contract. I did what I could. Yeah. And that argument, I mean, it kind of works. I mean, he's a, he's a shitbag for so many other reasons, but this one will take off of his list. Yeah. Yeah. It's a low priority. Yeah. So in this case now, Alex is being asked about that video

that they just played about all this Sandy Hook stuff. And the lawyer asks, any of that true? Literally every single assertion you made in that video is false, correct? Not one thing you said in industry. I don't, I don't, I'm not, no. I'm not understanding your answer. Are you claiming there are things you said in that video that are true? I'd have to watch the video again. There's also a full video. That's only an excerpt. Nice. Oh, nice. Lame. Lame. One of Alex's other big narratives about why people, you should be suspicious about Sandy Hook is that Bloomberg sent out an email the night before to get ready for something big. Sure. And this apparently probably is not true.

Let's talk about that Bloomberg email that comes up. This idea that there was an email sent the day before Sandy Hook saying get ready next 24 hours, there's going to be a big event. That email, you've been asked for that email and you say you don't have it, right? We were, we were covering reports of the email that was sent out to the activist groups that have been in the news. Where were you covering it? What do you mean? Were you covering it? We were covering the reports of them activating their anti-gun rights organization. Okay. Well, so here's the thing, Mr. Jones. At first, I thought there must be some email coincidentally sent on the day before Sandy Hook, that Bloomberg or his people sent,

that you must be willfully misinterpreting or something like that. But the problem is, nobody who's looked at this has been able to find any evidence that such an email has ever existed. And I want to know if you can explain that. Well, I'm just not taking your assertion that that's the case. Well, I'm asked, that's why I've asked you questions in discovery. And you haven't been able to produce that email to me, have you? Well, you guys were asking if we have an email in our emails. I was reporting on other news reports about an alert they put out to their group. Right. Could you find those reports if you needed to? Could you identify your source? I see what you're doing there. Well, I mean, A, you can hold back a source if you want to,

but I remember being online. I can try to go find that again. What do you mean you can hold back a source if you want to? What does that mean? I mean, if I have a confidential source on something, I don't have to hold back the confidential source for their protection, but that's not what's happened in this case. I remember the news articles about it that we reported on. So you could find those, right? I should be able to. Okay. Well, I haven't you because you can't. But the great thing there is that that's really one of, I think that's the only time it really comes up, the idea of holding back information, holding back a source. And Alex is doing it specifically to say that's not the case here. Yeah. That's the only time when that trigger, it looks like it's going to be pulled.

I, I, I'm amazed. Yeah, I mean, the clear message that you get is just like, okay, can you produce this? Why, why haven't you produced this? Well, I can prove all my claims, but I have to watch that video again. Man. Yeah. It's all just. Everything I've asked you to produce and discovery. You just sent me a treasure trove of emails that you didn't even read. And then you didn't even bother to look into other shit that I asked you for. And then you got drunk on air and put out a million dollar bounty. Yeah, that's right. Got censured. And then, oh, man. So now Alex is asked if he is ashamed of his Robbie Parker impression. Here we go. This bit about Robbie Parker, the whole fake crying bit, the that bit. I'm curious, do you feel any shame about that? Or are you totally fine

with seeing video of yourself do that? I don't think I did it quite the way you did. That is an interesting response. I find that his first instinct is to protect his abilities as an impressionist. Instinctively. The first thing he thought was, well, whoa, whoa, you're doing a shitty me. Come on now. Don't do a shitty version of me. That's weird. Only want my image to be at the highest quality. Yeah. Wow. So spice it to say the answer is not really. Yeah, well, the then they play a video of Alex and Rob do talking about all of these anomalies in the Sandy Hook case. They're they're saying these things all as if they're like, definitely like, well, the school wasn't open, you know, all of these things not as asserting them as fact or statements.

Yeah. And so when they come back from that, again, the question comes up of, do you know the difference between an opinion and a fact? I want to ask you about the things that you and Mr. Dew said in that video. And we can agree, there was a list of factual claims made in that video, correct? No, I was giving my opinion. When you say porta potties were delivered an hour after it happened. That's not a factual assertion to you. I believe they were delivered sooner after that's not what I'm asking you, Mr. Jones. I'm asking is that a factual assertion? I think it's my opinion. Okay. Oh, that's not that's not an opinion. I that is an assertion. That's so he call it time of death. So Alex keeps trying to use this excuse

and the reason why I had a little bit of sort of fumbly around answer to your like he's saying these as statements effect is because Alex's defense is I was just explaining why people were suspicious about Sandy Hook, right? So that's his way of getting around like these are things that I'm saying is like, I'm just explaining why people were suspicious. But if you really break that down, the way you would do that responsibly is say, here's something that's not true. This is why people were suspicious about it. There is a lie going around that let's say porta potty's were delivered, blah, blah, blah. Right. Instead, he's listing off all of these assertions of factual things and being like, that's why people had suspicions, right? The way that's presented

retains the truth of these statements that he's making or the presentation of truth to them. So it's still even though he's saying like this is why people were suspicious x, y, z, that's still at least in some fashion, presenting x, y, and z. Right. Here's why it's wet outside of my apartment. Somebody let go or somebody opened the fire hydrant. That is a statement of fact. That's not why people think it's wet or that's not why people are concerned that it's wet. It's just why it's wet. Right. If you're doing this as a like this is why people believe this. Yeah. And you're doing it responsibly and not in a way that is to land credence and credibility to these things. You would be doing a debunking show and Alex is not

doing that. He's decidedly not. So he tries to explain that like his excuse here and it's just so thin. He started the video talking about the wrong name was being given. Mr. Dew said that they gave the wrong name of the shooter. You remember that's what he said. Yeah. Right. So Lanza had his older brother's ID on him. Why does that support a conspiracy of Sandy Hook? Why is that weird? I think Rob was explaining why people had questions. There was a lot of anomalies. That's what I'm asking. Why is it weird? Why does that make you question Sandy Hook? That Adam Lanza had his brother's ID on him. That was Rob Dew saying that. Okay. Why is that you're sitting there agreeing with it? Right. Why are y'all questioning it?

We were pointing out why people questioned it. Okay. When they said Rob said they're pulling guns out of cars. Lanza had a shotgun in his trunk. Why does that support a question about whether Sandy Hook happened? Because it also, I remember he served as a long time ago. Like they said the AR-15 was in the car too. So how was that inside of it? Was inside the Bushmaster? Okay. And you understand the AR-15 was not in the car? I guess this is almost seven years ago. Okay. Actually, this wasn't seven years ago. Mr. Jones, this is April 2017. No, I know. I'm just saying going back to the time, it all gets, you know. Okay. That's so weak. So such a weak defense for this. Oh, man. So the thing is that Alex, like I said, I keep coming back to this

because I think the sense that I get is that Alex is really trying to protect from the perception being that he's just repeating stuff from Fetzer. Yeah. And how big? We have our own individual sources that we've researched. Yeah. Not just I am repeating whatever anybody. Yeah. I think that that is really important for him. And I think that's what he's doing here. Same deal of kids going around in circles with their hands up around the school. That is false. That is not the truth. I'd have to review it again. All these things you were saying as fact, you were saying them just a couple months before you were sued, right? I mean, I believe I said in the tape, I believe it's any hook happened. That's

how people were questioning what I'm saying. Right. And all these things that this entire list all comes from Fetzer and Hallbeck, doesn't it? I don't know about Fetzer, but it just came from people questioning. It's important to him somehow to disassociate himself, particularly from Fetzer. And I think it's because he lost the lawsuit. So it's not because he's a rabid anti-Semite. I don't know about rabid anti-Semite. So they get to this claim about porta-potties at the school. And Alex is a bit wishy-washy. The next one that says, why were porta-potties, sandwiches, fruit, drinks, and chips brought and set up for people at the crime scene to eat inside the school? That's another thing you got from Hallbeck, right? I believe so. Okay.

You want to take a wild guess right now, whether that's true or not? I don't remember the local, I remember seeing news of the stuff set up. You think people ate food inside the school at the crime scene? That's what you think? Oh, I don't know about that specific. I thought you meant about the porta-potties and food. I don't know about the inside the school. Okay. So that's another thing that you just relied on from Hallbeck and just put on your show without checking. Your saying is from Hallbeck. I mean, I'm not, I thought you just agreed it was from Hallbeck. Well, I mean, I'm thinking Hallbeck did say some of those things.

Okay. Okay. You just said earlier, probably got that from Hallbeck. Man, great. If they win this case, if they don't get taken down by this case, it's going to have to be on some bullshit technicality thing where the judge is like, clearly you did all of the wrong things that is, but according to the law, this is, it's on a Tuesday and you said two bouquets. Like that's the only way that they get out of it. Hoping for some sovereign citizen miracle. Right. It has to be some kind of like, I think in this deposition, he's waiting for him to stand up so he can sit in his chair and be like, now I'm deposing you. Like, what are you doing? Put the system on trial. Yeah, exactly.

So Alex also wants to fall back into this place where he's like, well, look, I mean, there's a lot of questions because there was a ton of secrecy around the case. And they didn't even put out a report until last year or whatever. You know, like, he's like, how am I supposed to know? There's no official information out, although I would just not believe the official information anyway. Alex, let me, can you take a wild guess as to whether or not that's true? It's not. That part about why didn't they let paramedics and EMTs into the building after 27 children were declared dead? That's not true either, is it? That's false. I remember being reported that there was a long wait.

I'm asking you if it's true or not, Mr. Jones. I don't have the specifics in front of me. You did in March, right? You read two different EMTs who went into the building, performed services in the building. You read those reports, correct? Well, you have to remember they kept a lot of that secret for years. It was the longest time anything was ever kept secret. And that was also what contributed to a lot of the questions in the community around the country was the level of secrecy. There were a lot of lawsuits. I don't remember all the specifics, but there was a lot of stuff kept secret for years and years. Didn't put out an official crime report for a very long time, years and years.

I remember all the specifics, but there was a lot of that. I'd have to go back online and fresh my memory get exactly right. All right, let's unpack all of that, because first of all, when you read those reports in your deposition, you acknowledged that paramedics went into the building, correct? Start there. You showed me documents that recently come out showing that. Recently come out, when do you think those documents came out? I just know that there was big controversy about most of the case that kept secret. Didn't we cover in your testimony last time that those documents were out in 2013 right after the incident? Isn't that something we covered? I don't remember specifically.

If those documents were out in 2013, and here you are in 2017, talking about there being no paramedics in the building. It's a pretty bad error, isn't it, Mr. Jones? I mean, if that is the case, the New York Times know only a lot about WMDs in Iraq and killed millions after the sanctions. I would never do that on purpose. Absolutely. New York Times messed up bad. Some people needed to get fired, didn't they? Instantly deflated. You see that super long pause, and then it's like, well, what about the New York Times? Yeah, absolutely. Let's fuck them up, too. Yeah, exactly. Oh, yeah. No, I thought you were a globalist, and you're trying to defend all the globalist stuff.

That is something that does come up, too, is the Alex, you and the establishment. Lawyer's like, do you think that I wouldn't sue the mainstream media if I had the opportunity to? Do you think I wouldn't take that case? Yeah. Do you think I am the establishment? Yeah. I am not. And I was like, yeah. It's sad. It's clear that Alex is still, even in this case, under oath, and here in this deposition, it's clear that he still kind of, at least, somewhat thinks that this is part of a conspiracy. Yeah, absolutely. It's very, it's very tragic. I'm just trying to figure out exactly how many other offenses he's committing in this deposition. Like the Hombie one, he's he's fucked on that one.

Maybe. Like there's no way that you can. I don't know. I can't. I don't know enough internal details, but it doesn't look good. So earlier, we talked about Paul's deposition. And in it, Paul said that he wrote that email back to Lenny Posner himself. Now, because Paul said that there's plausible deniability for Alex to pretend that he didn't know that family members were being harassed as early as 2013. Alex completely blows that. Alex, we've got a clear path to the end zone for you. Just run that ball right on in there. All 11 defensive numbers. I'm not sure it's a clear path to the end zone, but it helps him. Yeah. And he destroys that right here. And then you and Mr. Watson together composed a response,

correct? I don't remember that. Okay. You don't remember saying that you and Mr. Watson were did this together? I remember talking to Watson about it. I remember inviting a guy on the show too. There's some eat mother. So although there's differing, slightly differing takes on who wrote the email, the fact that Alex is clear that he had a conversation with Paul about it and invited or wanted to invite Posner on the show indicates that he was clearly aware of all of that back then. Yeah. So in that email, I have a quick question. Yeah. Do you think he knows the difference between a criminal trial and a civil trial? Not the finer points. Because it really does feel like he's trying to pull this like, I don't know. I don't recall.

I don't know. See, you guys can't get me on anything. You can't force me to testify against myself. See, I don't know if like, there's there's an appearance of playing dumb. And I think that some of that is is playing dumb. And I think some of it is just being dumb. Maybe a belief that on their own, they can't prove what we did. Like they can't prove exactly how we arrived at the conclusions we arrived at. So let's just keep that vague. Even if we lose, we'll lose a ton of money, but we'll be able to keep on with the grift or something. Yeah. I think it's more just defensiveness than anything else. Almost instinctive reflexive. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. If you're someone like Alex,

you never want to give up your sources because it will only reveal that you have no idea what you're talking about. Yeah. I think that's when there's the dumbness and they're like, Oh, I could find that. I just said, Oh, I've been busy. I don't know any of that. I think it's because on some level, Alex knows you dig too deep into whatever his sourcing was for any of this, you're going to find Fetzer. You're going to find Halbig. Yeah. And it's just not going to look good. And it's going to demonstrate that he never did any kind of work to corroborate anything. It's just going to, it's going to look real bad. I do like his disciplinary policy at Input Wars. Anything goes. Anything goes. I do enjoy that. Yeah. It's like an outback state.

So in the email that Paul sent, he was saying that we do not encourage and condone the actor theory. We are distanced. We've distanced ourselves from that. Sure. So they ask Alex about that. And this is, we got a clear path to the end zone for you, Alex. It's a yes or no answer. No, no, no, no. This pathway is blocked. Mr. Watson writes back, sir, we have not promoted the quote, unquote actors thing. In fact, we have actively distanced ourselves from it. Over the next six years, that's not true, is it? You didn't, you didn't distance yourself from the actors thing you actively embraced the actors. I think that's Paul saying this. And no, I didn't do, I didn't get into the actor stuff. People brought it up. And I said, that's why people had questions.

You produced a video to me entitled crisis actors used at Sandy Hook. And it has an exclamation point, not a question mark. With that video, you'll admit to me you endorsed this crisis actors thing. A lot of the videos that we gave you were were were videos that that we were in, but that we did not produce. I don't see the specifics. Okay, so if info was produced a video and uploaded it to YouTube, and it was titled crisis actors used at Sandy Hook, that would contradict what Mr. Jones, I mean, what Mr. Watson is saying. Yes, I mean, I need to see that. But you know, okay. Do you why did you say yes there? I have no idea. Because if they're asking this question

with the specific of an exclamation point instead of a question mark, you got to know that they have that. You got to know that they have evidence. It's on the list. They already told you that they have you just admitted that you endorse the crisis sector theory. Here's what I would have gone with. I would have gone with that was a typo fake a heart attack. Should have been do something get out of there. So that is an interesting question. Could he could he could they have just been like, can we stop real quick? He does at a certain point. Yeah, he does take a break just because like that. I don't think it's because of a question that is bad. Yeah, but I think

yeah, he could have called for a break. Yeah, or or can they reschedule? Maybe I mean, I maybe they have been and it they've been their hand is forced. That could be we don't know how many times this could have been put off or not. Yeah, I don't know. I feel like there's a reason why you would proceed with the Rob do deposition in spite of him being completely unprepared. That's fair. Whereas I think a normal thing to do would be like, do the work you need to do and come back in a week. Yeah, but I don't know. I have no idea how these things work. That's the only thing that I mean, if I was then there and I got two of those hypothetical questions and I got them wrong, I would have been like, Hey, we're going to break for

the next, I don't know, two to three weeks while I actually read up on all the shit you're asking me because I'm going to lose this conversation. It's not looking good. And it gets worse because as we talked about earlier, Alex posted the address of the mailbox that Mr. Posner used. And that's an opinion bad, but my opinion is that it's bad. Right. And what makes it worse is providing surrounding context to it, which they do here. And it does appear that Alex was mad at Mr. Posner and the YouTube strikes on people who were using pictures of their dead children. Well, you didn't like this foundation Mr. Posner was running. You didn't like that. I don't know the specifics of that. You said on your show you didn't like it, right?

What did I specifically say? You called them bullies. Didn't you remember that? I don't remember that specifically. You said you're going to fight back. You remember that? Well, I remember none of it was those guys, but some of them like saying I said nobody died in Parkland in Florida and saying, Jones is saying no one died again. And then getting me to a platform and we were able to show the videos on our own platform and YouTube put us back up and took the strikes off because I didn't say nobody died at Parkland. You said the Sandy Hook parents were stirring up a hornet's nest, right? By coming after you? I don't remember the specifics of that or what was pitifully was happening, but you told the Sandy Hook parents you're not a guy to mess

with, didn't you? I don't remember those specifics. On your show, you showed maps and addresses used by a parent who complained because in your mind, he was running an anti free speech foundation, right? I did not show that footage. What do you mean you didn't show it? Aren't you the you run in for words, right? You haul empty parking lot to debunk a thing that the guy has using a false address. We said that's normal to use an address when you're a public figure. I remember like when you said that, I remember going in front of find it and we found like this is us saying some parking lot in a U-Haul. We're not showing this guy's house is. Yeah, that's where he picks up his mail. It's U-Haul story. You get a post office box there, right? You got you said we

were sending people to their houses and stuff. That wasn't true. I'm not. I'm not. I've certainly never said that. Well, that's what they were saying. That's what the media was saying. All I'm asking you never sent anybody to their houses. Never done that ever said people either harass them. That's not true. All I'm asking you. All I'm asking you, Mr. Jones, you showed maps and addresses used by a parent who complained against you. That's what you did. Right? That was not the intent of that. I'm not asking what your intent was. I'm asking it happened. You showed maps and addresses used by a Sandy Hook parent who complained against you. That happened. No, we we showed where his foundation was supposedly said that people were saying it was

fake and we said that's not proof of something's fake. Okay, so that argument is so thin. The idea that he had people who were saying that this is a fake foundation and he put up the address of it and showed a Google map to the location of it as a way of debunking that it was a fake foundation is ludicrous insane. This is a this is a conversation with an eight year old who stole a cookie like every single like I'll try I'll throw out anything to avoid saying yes, I stole that cookie. But what's so crazy about it? What's so weird in my mind is that Alex is presenting this thing that he did is not a bad thing. It was actually trying to help Mr. Posner, but also he didn't do it unless you convince him he did do it. Yeah, sure. Play me the video. Now I didn't do

that. No granted. Before that I was saying they were stirring up a hornet's nest and I'm not someone to mess with. Sure. But I was trying to help. That's why I'm not somebody to mess with. I'm so helpful. Yeah, that's what it is. Don't mess with me. I'm trying to help you. I find this hard to swallow. So now the topic comes up of when was Badandi fired? Oh, he's fired before Sandy Hook, sir. In this clip, Alex plays dumb. Well, the truth of the matter is you didn't have a problem with Sandy Hook. You had a problem with him embarrassing you at a Trump rally. One thing you're right about is I do need to spend time in Berlin. There's more. It's just it's just that because it's like I mean, I remember a lot of it. I remember what happened and I think if I

go dig even deeper, I can I can get the specifics. But I remember telling them try to find out the specifics. You've now this is your second deposition in a Sandy Hook case. You've got more going up and up in Connecticut. You've had discovery in Connecticut. You've had discovery three times in Texas. And you're telling me you think you need to go burrow in and figure out what happened? Well, now that I get these kind of questions, I don't think you're asking me these exact questions last time. I was very much asking you about Mr. Badandi and when he was terminated in the last deposition, wasn't I Mr. Jones? I don't remember this video. Did you show me this last time? I did not show you this video. That's not what I asked, is it? I asked you. I went and I guess

tried to get invoices or something. I guess you're saying actually, Mr. Jones, your document production in this case shows you did that in May 2018, right after you were sued. The truth of the matter, Mr. Jones, is you knew immediately after being sued that Dan Badandi was going to be a liability for you, didn't you? Barnes? No. No. That's real damning to me. Yeah, that's... I believe he is under oath, Your Honor. You hear stuff like that and it's just... Yeah. So the lawyer wants to really nail down how all of Alex's sources are really just Fetzer and Hulpe. And so this is really interesting. In a video, Alex is saying that retired policemen and school investigators and they've all been threatened. He's creating the perception that

there's tons of people who are being threatened about Sandy Hook and this is just great. Mr. Jones, before we break, I asked you about your statement about what state police officers were threatened and you told me Mr. Halbig and maybe somebody else, correct? Okay. Then you said that school investigation experts were threatened. Who was that? It wasn't just Halbig. I remember there were some other groups and people asking questions and some other professors, other than Fetzer's. I was really going off what Fetzer said. Okay. And then you said that in addition to those two groups, that some school safety experts had been threatened. Who was that? They were talking about Halbig. Right. I mean, all of these are talking about Halbig, right?

You're nine. You're nine years old. Shut the fuck up. You just answered yes by saying no. The way you said no is a yes. No. That's you. Yeah, that's bad. You just said yes. That's a yes. Maybe one of the other professors was James Tracy, too. So I mean, like there could be two professors but all of these other descriptions like retired state policemen and school investigator are being presented as two different people. They are both Wolfgang Halbig. Yeah. All of these, like trying to create a chorus of folks, you just got two dudes. I would like this denographer to make sure that the record shows while he did say no, please put a parentheses yes right next to parentheses deflated. Yeah. Wow. So Alex has asked about his narrative surrounding ambulances at the school.

Yeah. And don't believe in him. I don't think he comes off looking knowledgeable. You said in that video ambulances came an hour and a half later. That's not true, right? I don't have a timeline. Are you going to claim in this lawsuit that those ambulances came an hour and a half later? I'm going to have to check that. Well, I asked you to check it, did you? Asked you in discovery to check it, did you? I'm going for memory. I believe there's conflicting reports. I'm not asking what your memory was. I'm asking if you checked it. I think I did check it. I don't. What were the results of you checking it? I don't have that in front of me. And whatever it was, you didn't give it to me

either, right? In discovery? Oh, correct. Oh, I thought that was rhetorical. Oh, I don't ask rhetorical questions, Mr. Jones. I want testimony. Oh, I don't have that in front of me. I can't speak accurately to that. That's just nothing. That is tragic. In Wisconsin, a judge just ruled that, you know, the 200,000 people could be purged from the voter rolls because they have to respond within 30 days to a change of address form. And the judge in his ruling literally is like, 30 days, I don't understand. You can get it done in 30 days. That's plenty of time. And that is how people are going to lose the right to vote. Alex can get away with this

shit. That's unacceptable. That's unreal. Maybe it's the end of the road for him being able to get away. I hope so because this is this. I mean, just this deposition alone should be enough to be guilty. I would be so fascinated to find out what like someone who likes Alex and believes him. How would they interpret these answers? How would they interpret like his clear inability to answer any direct question when anything he should be saying would be completely exculpatory? Anything that he presents, the way he presents himself on the show, I have all this, it's all proven. We've got all the documents. If he had any of these documents, if he had anything proven, this is the context wherein bringing that out would be like, oh, okay. Well,

you are completely well within your right to do this. And in fact, oh my God, what's this? You are, you're correct. Here's the thing. If Anderson Cooper did a three hour deposition where he answered every question confidently and clearly he had evidence backing up. But there was one question where he was like, oh man, I just don't have that one in front of me. One of Alex Jones' listeners or Alex himself would have grabbed that clip and been like, see, he's a lying piece of shit. You can see it. It's all a lie. But if somebody can watch this deposition and not come away with being like, oh, that guy did everything you say he did, it's insane. It's, it's, it's weird. I just don't, I don't know how

it would be interpreted. Like, I would be very fascinated to know like, what is the, what is the logical explanation for why he is behaving like this other than flippant disregard? Because that's not really a good, because if you, if you consider like worst case scenario, he's going to lose tons and tons of money and possibly become financially unviable as a business. Best case scenario, he gets away with everything and everything is good. Why wouldn't you tend towards behaviors that would lead towards the better outcome? Acting like this is only going to make it more likely that the bad outcome happens. He's not acting in his own best interests. And that implies to me, he can't act in his best interest.

There is no best case scenario for him. Best case scenario for him is he loses and gets to say he still won somehow. Sure. You know? So now the lawyer plays the video of Alex talking to a caller and saying, I didn't believe it at first, but Sandy Hook was totally fake. There were no kids killed there and all of that. And I don't recall that. I'll have to check the video again. Well, when pressed on it, his explanation of what his show is is very bizarre. Illuminating. And I legitimately looking at all that stuff have gone back and forth on all of this. Yeah, you said false things and then you said things

that were true, right? No, I have had opinions and I've had different views on things. Okay, but you're, let's just go ahead and use your word opinion, even though we all both, we all know that's not an opinion. Your opinion is false. Objection. Kids died at Sandy Hook, right? And I didn't kill them. Do you see me anywhere in this deposition saying you killed children, Mr. Johnson? Remington didn't kill them. Do you think you're here? That teacher didn't kill them. You think you're here because you killed children? That's the accusation. No, but it is like I'm Adam Lanzin or something and it's all just. I'm just asking you, you're a journalist. Do you feel like you're responsible for the things you report? If I put out a journalistic report and said,

this is fact, then that would be that. But when I'm on a show talking about how I feel I'm allowed to have my feelings and to say at that point, I even say I've gone all over the map. I'm there talking about my emotions. This isn't journalism. Absolutely not. It's me talking about my feelings. So apparently info wars is Alex talking about his feelings unless directly presented as fact, which again might be opinion. See now earlier in his child custody case, when his lawyer said that he's playing a character, everyone was like, you admitted you're a character. And that to me is a super compelling because it's his lawyer and also it's in the context of a like a family case. And it's all very messy. This is Alex directly under oath saying of my show is mostly me talking

about my feelings. Yep. Yep. My show is the closest that I can get to therapy as a toxic male. That's what I've got. This is not the area I would like things to go in, wherein now we look at the show as what does this say about his feelings? Yeah, exactly. That's not the interpretive direction I want the show to go in. But it's going to be hard for me not to think about that. Like a lot of this could just be a manifestation of what you feel, right? But it's presented as being backed by the white papers right years of history. It's documented. That's not good. That's not good. I mean, just jointed nonsensical thing. I don't know the thing about the deposition, especially here is I don't know whether or not he believes anything he's saying.

That's true. I just, I can't because there's so much of him here that is wriggling. Yeah, that is plenty. There's plenty that could just be desperation. Yeah. No, and he even tried in one of the clips that you played earlier. I noticed that he was trying that like apologize to authority kind of way of getting out of something like, yeah, you know what? You're right. We made some mistakes. I'm sorry about that. We'll work to fix that in the future as though he was talking to his boss, you know, instead of being like, this is going to continue going from the establishment. Exactly. It really does feel like he thinks he's talking to somebody who can make it all go away if they just decide to leave him alone or to like him. Yeah, exactly. That's weird. That's wild.

So Alex wants to talk about Epstein and that's interesting because it's a deposition about a Sandy Hook case. This I this I believe in whatever he says. Now I believe he speaks. Now what's strange is Alex should have known that something was up because the lawyer does want to talk about it. Oh, he still doesn't get the hypothetical question leading to bringing up Epstein lawyers like I promise you will get to that. Oh, no. And if I were Alex, I would be like, let's never never speak to him. No, no. You know what? Actually, I've changed my mind. There's clearly a point that this lawyer is going to make. He just doesn't get that. No, he doesn't get that. He thinks they're having a conversation. Not the lawyer spent hours and

weeks preparing for this exact interview. Yep. Let's talk about Epstein for a minute. I've been wanting to talk about that. I think maybe, and I'm going to take a guess here, but I think one of the things that you and I agree on is that large segments of the ruling class of this country and indeed the world are psychopaths and criminals. Yes, I agree with that. Okay. And in fact, because of that, when these really, really strange happenings with Epstein happened, when Epstein killed himself in his cell allegedly, when he was supposed to be under watch by federal officials, that looks suspicious to say the least. Correct? Yes. In fact, I think a lot of people in this country think it's most likely true that there was foul play, that Epstein was

killed. A lot of people think that, right? Yes. And now Epstein is a massive public figure. He's been in the news a ton, right? Yes. Partially because it's something called the Lolita Express, right? Yes. Okay. And we in this country get to talk about public figures, wouldn't you agree? Yes. Two things. One, Alex should be terrified. Right now, my hackles are raised. I'm like, oh, I sent something bad coming around this quarter. Yeah. Alex should not be like, yeah. The hair on my arm is standing up. The second thing is you can tell how much differently Alex responds. Oh yeah. These are direct yes, no quick answers. You're on my team. Yes. Yes. Yes. Oh wait, you're talking shit about the elites? I'm in. I'm in. Yes. I'm willing to testify they're

bad. He doesn't realize that the entire use of bringing up Epstein is to use it as a case study about why it's okay to say whatever you want about Jeffrey Epstein, but it's not for someone else. Let's say that there is a security guard at that federal penitentiary and his name's Bob Smith. If you wanted to get on TV and say, Bob Smith killed Jeff Epstein and you were wrong, should you be held responsible for that? Private citizen like Bob Smith had no involvement and trying to get on the news. Is it okay? I mean, if there were issues and anomalies and I questioned whether it was whether Bob was involved or not, then no. No, what I'm asking Mr. Jones is you just flat out say Bob Smith killed Jeff Epstein. Is that okay if you're wrong or does Bob Smith,

do you have some responsibility to Bob Smith to make that right? Not if I did it out of believing it was true. That is a weird line, but Alex is pretty far off the beaten path there in terms of his understanding of what is appropriate with private and public figures. One of the things that they try to lay out is that by implying and saying directly that no one died there, what you're doing is accusing all of these people of gigantic crimes. Not only because they're involved in some elaborate hoax, but because let's say if you're a parent and your child didn't die, you have filed false police reports. Like there's all sorts of implied crimes there. A host of them. Yeah. So by behaving in this way, you are making criminal accusations against

people whether or not you directly say it. Yeah. And Alex tries to play the game of like, I didn't say these people's names. It's like, well, you said no one died. My client's son did die because you said no one died. You are talking about them. I would like to ask you to explain that because you made it. Yeah. So because it's clear that this lawyer's taken Alex down a road that's going to fully demonstrate private versus public figures, Alex just starts rambling. Yeah. And then probably one of my bigger laughs of the whole proceedings. I've learned though that some stuff's real, even if it's unbelievable that somebody would go kill all those kids, but that's just that's just unbelievable. But it really happened. And so I would not ever do that.

No one I know would do that. So it's hard to believe that. And so people get in denial. That's well known. And that happens. You know a question you're answering? You know, you want me to elaborate a large question about that. That's a big question. And that's what the whole thing's about. And that's what that's what it comes down to with New York Times versus Sullivan and the whole nine year nine yards. And I've never intentionally gone out and tried to hurt people by questioning big public events. But we need to question public events. That's what it is to be an American. And if we don't, we're in North Korea. I asked you, sir, would you be responsible to Bob Smith?

And I told you that it would be that it would be the specifics that if there was reporting and information and questions about it. And Bob was the one that could have had access. And then I questioned it and turned out Bob was innocent. If I wasn't doing it intentionally to go hurt Bob. No, then I'm cool. Turns out that's probably not the case with private citizens. If I especially if you're relying on people like Jim Fetzer and Wolfgang Howe big pointing the finger at Bob Smith for no reason. Okay, so that's that's insane. That's God. Do you know what question you're answering? I love that. That's my favorite. That's my favorite line of this entire day. Yeah,

because I've always I've always wanted to ask him that. It's exactly what you're talking about. It cuts through a lot of the shit. Yep. So one of Alex's big defenses is basically that he believes that the family members are public figures. Right. He believes that just by virtue of them being the victims and family members of a tragedy. Yeah, they have entered the arena, right, or whatever through no fault of their own. The massive amount of media attention upon them has thus raised them into public figures, opening them up to now. It's interesting because literally courts have ruled the opposite. Right. Well, there's that. And Alex doesn't respond well to that being brought up. Okay, but what I'm trying to get to you, Mr. Jones, is do you agree

that there's a difference between an internationally recognized famous person and a person who's spent millions if not billions trying to influence our country like Jeff Epstein, and a private citizen just minding their own business. There's a difference between those two people, right? There is a difference. There is a difference in journalistic ethics in how you have to treat those two people, isn't there? I think there is. And at the end of the day, with a private person, you would agree with me that infowars needs to take appropriate steps to make sure it isn't reporting false things about private people. Most of what we do is punditry and opinion and when parents and others become public figures and go out with a

political mission to restrict gun ownership, then they have stepped into the arena of politics. You know courts disagree with you on that, though, right? I don't know your interpretation of courts. Well, you were involved in a lawsuit with Leonard Posner and Veronique de la Rosa. You're familiar with that lawsuit? I know about it. Yeah, you know the Texas Court of Appeals came back and told you they're not public figures, correct? I know that that's a Democrat court. I'm sure they'll be delighted to hear that. That's a Democrat court. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. All right. So essentially he believes that no law can be made unless it's made by people who agree with him. Yeah. And he doesn't have to

he doesn't have to follow any law and any law that a Democrat judge says is real. Yeah, it seems that way. Gotcha. Well, because they're all demon globalists. Right. Yeah. I mean, that is the logical that is the logical extension if he actually believes that they're all out to get him in a conspiracy, then yeah. Yeah. So they take a break and they come back and there's just a couple of minutes left here where we get get update on Barnes. Sure. We get the dismount. Right. And then we also get first Alex needing to clarify something about his sources. And they don't exist. I find this to be weird. I really need to clarify something because I don't think you understood what I said earlier,

so I probably mumbled through it. Okay, clarify my earlier testimony. You kept asking about sources and where these sources are. When we have articles of things, most of it is links. And so I've given you to my knowledge everything we've got. We'll do another search, but 90% of things is links to other sources that are online. And then over time, those links die and it's very hard to find that stuff. So anything that we haven't given you is outside of my office and not in my office when you say a source, that would just be newspapers and archives and TV reports that are outside of my office on the internet. Your sources for things that I'm thinking about from memory that need to go out and find. So I must have misunderstood what you

meant by sources. I'm sure. Okay. You'd agree. It's not general practice. It's not part of your operating protocols to save corroborating information underlying infowars as news broadcasts. Well, we save some of it, but then over time, it just gets over time. We just like piles of articles, news folders with information. Yeah, but it tends to get thrown away. Okay. But most of what we have is articles with links and that's where people can go look at what we're talking about. And the links go to outside websites and outside TV stations and networks and things. And so when I talk about, you keep asking about sources of info, where I got something, where I put something, I need to go back to those original articles that you've been given,

but then follow the links through that are on there. Oh, links. Oh, it's links. I, he's so unused to the concept of a follow up question. Jordan, that explains everything. He genuinely thought that he came up with a brilliant response. Yeah, he really did. It's links. He really thought that, okay, look, you're a newbie to my whole version of journalism. All right. So when I have a source, now this, a lot of other journalistic outlets don't do this. When I have a source, I'll do what's called a hyperlink. You know what? I'm just going to call it a link. Hyperlink might be a little hard for you to understand. So I'll make one of the words like a little blue. And then you click on it. And that's my source, right? Crazy. Now the internet

never heard of such a thing. It's made of fire. And who knows what's going to get burned. So when you click on the link, sometimes it's not there anymore. I'm sorry. This all makes sense. Please do not follow up with any other questions. That's, I'm flabbergasted by this level of needing to clarify that. I really think he, and he seems to be thinking like, Hey, you know, it's a great defense. Sometimes some of these links are dead links. They're gone. You've already talked about the way back machine. Okay. Now I, I understand that, but that's only for traffic on school websites, Dan. Forgot. Didn't you know that? Forgot. That's all it was. So here we get to this update on Barnes, who as we know, may or may not still be

Paul's lawyer, certainly not Alex's. I understand, um, Mr. Barnes, Robert Barnes, is no longer representing? No. Is he still employed by the company? No. Okay. So he's not general counsel and in there. Okay. While he was there, did he have any managerial responsibilities? No. Okay. Did you have any director positions at the company? No. No. Did he at one point serve as general counsel? That's the name you call it. He was trying to manage some things. What? What does that mean? He's trying to manage some things. He was, he was trying to get the cases organized. Okay. So he's practicing more. Yes. Okay. Thank you. I wonder if that line of questioning has anything to do with like a suspicion that he

was doing more there. Yeah. I don't know. It could just be sort of standard question stuff, but, uh, based on how frequently Barnes was appearing on Info Wars, how Alex said he was going to give him a show, it does seem to like the fact that that line of questioning like, was he a director at Info Wars? Is he a managerial role? That makes me think that they might have a different suspicion, but I might be over reading things. I don't know. The first, the first thing that I thought was what they're asking for is you didn't disclose something. Like there's some communication between you and Barnes or between Barnes and somebody that you guys didn't disclose. I wonder. That's, that's the only thing I can think of. And there, and your argument that you

didn't disclose it is because he wasn't an employee or a manager, director. I wonder if that's the case. Um, but it could be just nothing. Yeah. No, it could just be, uh, is Barnes still around? Normal last question. Yeah. Yeah. But it just read a little weird to me. So here's the last clip and it's, uh, Alex being asked if he's sorry. Spoiler alert, he's not, and his big dismount. But I want to ask you now looking back on this, are you sorry? You know, I did all this from a good place in my heart and I'm, and I'm really sad the establishment has lied so much and, and done so much that, uh, that the public doesn't believe what they're told anymore. There's been a real loss of confidence in the system.

Um, wow. You know, I, everything I've done has been from a place that really trying to get people to think and trying to find out the truth. And I've certainly been wrong about things and, uh, you know, but, but, but it came from a place of really trying to do my best job. And so I'm, I'm overall proud of, uh, getting the public to be skeptical and getting people to think for themselves. And, um, let me get this straight. These videos we just watched today, you're proud of those videos? I'm proud of the compendium of my work, not small clips taken out of context. And I'm, I'm a good person. And, um, and I, I pioneered exposing Epstein 13 years ago, said they fly around on aircraft with the Clintons and kidnapped children.

And it's been proven right. Everybody comes up, shakes my hand, apologizes in Austin now, the liberals do, they go, we're sorry. I'm, uh, and, and, and we were wrong about you on a bunch of other stuff. So in some ways you're a victim. Well, let's just say Thomas running out for the establishment. Epstein didn't kill himself. All right. Mr. Jess. Thank you for your time today. We can tell next time they're, they're laughing at him. Oh boy. That's so funny when that scene didn't kill himself. He's going to go out on a meme. Yeah. When that's his plan, when that tweet went around, no, people did not believe that, uh, Alex ended his deposition saying Epstein didn't kill himself. Wow. But he did.

That's good stuff. Wow. Good stuff. Good strong stuff from everybody at info wars, really. Um, this, you know, it's, it, I wanted to, you know, do a present day episode for today because I mean, I wanted to find out if you did that surgery. Yeah, that in studio, of course, of course. Yeah. People ripping, uh, computer chips out of there. Yeah. I want to need an update on that. But, uh, sometimes things happen. You get thrown a curveball. You got to watch seven hours of testimony from these, uh, these obfuscating weirdos. This is, I, I can't, I can't hang with him being like, you know, it's really sad that the mainstream media isn't trusted enough anymore that my brand of fucking with people is like,

it's almost like him being like, well, it's your fault that I even have a job. You made me do this. You, you guys made this space because sometimes you get things wrong where now I can lie and make a shit ton of money. This is your fault. You should have been accurate. He is, he is, he is manifesting that. That's insane. Yeah. It's very sad. And Alex, you're not a good person. No, you're a shit person. I think what is so interesting to me is how all of these three are so different in theme. Wow. I mean, it's all that Sandy Hook, but the feeling is so very different. Like Paul covering his ass kind of 100% being slightly straight up, slightly candid. Yeah. Rob do being completely underwater, not knowing what he's doing. No, just I can't believe that

that's, I genuinely can't believe it's legal. Yeah. I really can't believe that what he did is legal. And then Alex being Alex, but also just the feeling that I get watching this deposition as opposed to the last one is it feels like Alex is closer to the wall. Yeah. Like it feels like the room is closing a little bit. His ability to dodge things is greatly diminished. Yeah. Without Barnes there just yelling objection all the time. It kind of the flow of the questioning is much different. The lawyer not having to deal with Barnes antics makes him way more effective. Oh yeah. And the way that like repeatedly Alex would do those things like the babies and the incubators and the way it's just like say whatever you need to say, I'm going to proceed. Yeah. Like

not allowing him to do those pivots and dodges. Like you could see what happens then. Yeah. No, it's a, it's a patient with a child. He's like, okay, have your little tantrum. Yeah. Then we're going to give him right back here. I'm not going to engage with you. I'm not going to do, man, that really bums me out that that's true. What? Because that suggests then that Barnes did Alex a good job. Good job, Barnes. I mean, he was serviceable. Yeah. All of being like a complete asshole being an accessory. Yeah. Yeah, that's right. So yeah, we'll be back on Wednesday, but this has been a lot of depositions. Yeah, this has been some serious deposition talk. Oh, boy. But until then we have a website. We do. It's knowledge fight.com. We are on Twitter.

It's that knowledge underscore fight. Not go to bed Jordan. We are on Facebook. And if you want to download the show, you can go to iTunes. You can go to wherever you listen to podcasts. You can leave a review. You know, you do the whole thing. Sure. It'd be nice. Yep. We'll be back. But until then I'm Neo. I'm Leo. I'm DZX Clark. I am the juiciest ice cube. Andy and Kansas, you're on the air. Thanks for holding. So Alex, I'm a first name caller. I'm a huge fan. I love your work. I love you.