Knowledge Fight - #739: Formulaic Objections Part 8

Episode Date: October 21, 2022

Today, Dan and Jordan celebrate Hot Shot Lawyer Norm Pattis mentioning them on his podcast by breaking down a deposition from the Connecticut case against Alex. In this installment, attorney Chris Mattei deposes long-time Infowars writer/editor Adan Salazar, and things get fishy. Citations

A young fireplug of a warrior got his teeth in the Alex Jones and decided that this was something he'd like to know on. And so he tore through a series of people who were designated as corporate reps and then published their depositions online. And so the haters, we had a field day with the corporate reps. No one else at Info Wars was willing to do it again. No one wanted to have their deposition placed on video online to the ridicule of all the Alex haters.

Knowledge fight. Knowledge fight. There are people. There's a cult, absolutely. Knowledgefight.com. There's something called Knowledge First or Knowledge Fight. These people apparently live by loving the eight Alex Jones and they bounce on every piece of video they can find.

Knowledgefight.com. Knowledge fight. There's a website I heard about called Knowledge Fight and these are a couple bottom feeders who make their chops hating Alex. And so they have episodes almost daily. The corporate reps didn't want to be exposed to that again. I guess I should say it. I got my ass kicked at Knowledgefight.com.

Knowledge fight. Knowledge fight. Hey everybody, welcome back to Knowledge Fight I'm Ben. I'm Jordan. We're a couple of bottom feeders who like to sit around, worship the altar of Selene and talk a little bit about Alex Jones. Oh yes we are Dan. Jordan.

Dan. What's your bright spot today buddy? My bright spot is I was on Marty and Sarah Love Wrestling this week, fun podcast, our friends Marty and Sarah do. Best difference. Sarah is in Belgium. Oh yeah. Marty needed someone to fill in and we had a fun conversation about my feelings about

Bray Wyatt. That's excellent. I imagine that would be the main focus. A little bit more about Bray Wyatt. Yeah. And then some talk about how I don't understand what the deal is with Orange Cassidy. Yeah well, that's fair. It was a lot of fun.

People can find that over at, I guess you just searched for Marty and Sarah Love Wrestling. So the podcast. You know how to find podcasts. Yeah I mean if you don't know how to find podcasts that's kind of an interesting thing that you're hearing. Yeah, exactly. Do you come here from Norm Pattis? Do you tell you to check out these dorks and these losers?

Did you download this bootleg from Lime Wire? What's going on here? Yeah, so what's your bright spot? My bright spot is shoes, Dan. My wife, a very beautiful person, lovely, love her very much, she's my favorite, found out recently that my shoes are garbage as they almost always are, got me some new shoes and they're amazing. Nice.

They're amazing. The fastest tennis player maybe there's ever been right now. Well and if you fuck up you can say new shoes. New shoes! Yeah. You know what? All sorts of things can be just completely written off because you have new shoes. Oh, what's even better?

They're a little bit too big. Just a little bit. It's actually very comfortable but when you're running that's an excuse. But also your feet are like goldfish and they will grow to the size of the container. That does sound correct from what I remember in basic biology when I was about eighth grade. That is what they said. Yeah. About Koi feet.

Let me take a look at those shoes. These are different shoes. I'm wearing the old shoes. Old shoes. I don't want to screw up the good shoes. Sure. Sure. Yeah.

One time I got new shoes and they were pretty bright white, you know, like because they're new. Sure. And I wore them to an open mic just because. Oh no. To be fair like my older shoes had fallen apart. Right. Right.

And so I wore them and I walked in and immediately, soaring choxy and John, his buddy John, I John McBride. That was his life. Oh, yeah. Yeah. The two of them were sitting at a table and they saw me and they just started doing a run of jokes about my new shoes like whoa, whoa, what are you doing? I love.

I love being a comedian. I love being comedian. You don't get that. Yeah. It's just my favorite. Yeah. I couldn't stop livin. Anyway, Jordan, today we have an episode to go over.

Oh, we're going to do some fun stuff, but you might have noticed in the intro there, we have a new special intro courtesy of DJ Dan Arkey. Thank you so much. The best. Norm Pattis. Yep. Lawyer extraordinaire. One of the premier lawyers, First Amendment lawyers, constitutional lawyers.

Four shit bags. He has a podcast called Law and Legitimacy. And on a recent episode after the trial, he did a little bit of a breakdown. Bad. Of what happened, how he was wrong. Bad idea. How the appeal is going to go great. I'm sure.

And in it, he decided to bring us up. And what a terrible idea. First of all, I mean, Norm, you didn't get the memo that you're not supposed to talk about us. That's the rule. That's rule number one there. You just accidentally revealed a lot more than you wish. Quite a bit.

Quite a bit. Because I think like, okay, so he mentioned us in a bankruptcy hearing where he called us knowledge first. Right. Which was great. Saying that we have a cottage industry out of making fun of that. Fantastic. And that was just good, clean, fun.

But this mention of us is deeply problematic for Alex and everybody at info wars. Yeah. And in case, you know, you could hear the intro and feel like things are maybe taken a little bit out of context for the sake of the beat. Yeah. Here is the clip of Norm talking about us on his podcast. And afterwards, I think we'll have a lot to celebrate. And if there's one thing I've learned about Alex, it's that these are these were video

depositions. And so the haters would, we had a field day with the corporate reps and the corporate reps. There's not, there's no, they're there. There's no real organization. So they testified about what they knew and their answer to most things is, I don't know. Good question. Really.

And he, that young man was able to persuade a trial judge in Texas that this was willful failure. That the corporation had an obligation to produce a representative that could answer his questions because there had to be answers. And so there was a, another deadline in Texas to produce a corporate rep. We selected, I selected a person from Connecticut because no one else at info wars was willing to do it again. No one wanted to have their deposition placed on video online to the ridicule of all the

Alex haters because, you know what, there are people, there's a, there's a, a website I learned about called knowledge fight. Uh-huh. You know, these are a couple of bottom feeders. Sure. Make their chops. And so they have episodes almost daily and they, you know, they'll call me out. They'll call this one.

I mean, I, I, I don't know if Alex is going to get a percentage of the royalties for the space he runs. Oh, good luck. Their life. And so the Alex haters didn't, you know, the corporate reps didn't want to be exposed to that again. So the Connecticut representative testified. She didn't satisfy the, the, the fireplug or the Texas judge.

She testified in Connecticut three and a half days. I called it the Gilligan's Island direct. The guy had her up there. The lawyer for the plaintiffs. Wait, the Gilligan's that's three hour tour. Yeah. Three and a half day. Yeah.

That doesn't make sense. No, but that's, that's Norm's standup chops coming out. I was going to say, um, so, uh, norm, come on, man, you, you're showing too much here. Yeah. So apparently Brittany pause got hired as the corporate representative because we, everyone else was too worried about being roasted. Here's, here's what's the most important thing. Like, okay, you know what, Dan, you kicked ass and you brought a lot of work into it,

but also the trials where the lawyers did a great job, you know, like your contribution was, was spectacular, but it was limited and it was shared in this case, Dan, you cost personally $30,000. Maybe. Oh, oh, plus more because they had to hire Brittany pause. That 30 grand is all you. Yeah. It might be.

I mean, look, I don't want to break down, quantifying things. What is important is that there is a recognition here of a behavioral change that was made at Infowars, which is prior to this, Rob do was totally fine going in and being a kangaroo and wearing doofus sitting in there. I don't know. How many did he do? A couple actually. Exactly.

And then, you know, Daria was totally fine doing these depositions. I don't actually think she's afraid of me at all. I'm afraid of her anything, anything, but these people were not willing to do this and face the kind of scrutiny in the public eye that our podcast brings that literally only only our podcast brings right. And the other thing that it reveals to is that there are discussions about they know us being a motivating factor in them now wanting so to be the corporate rep, which is fucking hilarious.

That means this conversation happened. We need you to be the corporate rep again. I don't want to do it. Those two guys will be mean to me. Those two guys in Chicago will just just roast the shit out of me. Wow. Two guys in Chicago. Wow.

Good luck. We royalties. Oh, boy. Oh, yeah. Also, Norm is we're commerce based. You really got to stop with this brain landlord joke. Yeah, that's not good. He's been doing this too much in the aftermath of the trial.

Too much like, I live rent free in people's heads. Sure. Sure. I mean, it's fun and all like, I remember the first time I heard it, like when I was maybe like 13. Yeah. Yeah. You were like, whoa.

That's a really interesting turn of phrase. Yeah. Yeah. Now it's a little bit, especially when Norm has said it like a hundred times, it's getting very old. And I think that it's, it's evidence of him either deflecting from reality or not understanding what I and this show is about. Yeah.

Like I don't give a shit. Yeah. Like what? Like he is only serving the purposes of what I hope to achieve. Yeah. Yeah. Alex is a window. Yeah.

Alex is nothing. The sky and everything cool is out there after we get through Alex. Um, not after we get through Alex in terms of like, you know, him going away. Right. You get through in terms of after you understand. Exactly. If you see the window. Yes.

You can see through the window. There's a tree out there. Yes. Yeah. Say a second. Um, and yeah, Norm, I, I mean, like none of this lives free in my head. I think it's hilarious. Yeah.

And I'm, I think. It's even funnier now that you, it's too funny. It's too funny. Oh, so thank you, Norm. You know, it's beyond a bright spot. It's a, it's a revelation. It is. It is.

I, because it is such, it is such an acknowledgement of how much gas lighting they've been doing to us. Like I, I, it's physically impossible for them not to know, right? We've known that for a long time, but what they knew, how much they knew, what it meant to them, all that stuff that we couldn't, we could only guess at that. We could only guess at it. And it kind of drives you mad because you're like, there's no way they put that much thought into it.

And I think it's, I think that's partially because you and I are our self deprecating people by nature. And so it's like, get off your fucking high horse. These people don't care about you. Exactly. No one cares about you. They don't care about you in your head. And obviously you're, you know, gaslighting yourself along with them.

You think you're so important that they care about you is my, is my thought process. That's why it was so shocking that like I'd heard that he mentioned us on the podcast and when I was listening to it, I was like, what the fuck? I, I, that's all I had heard nuts. I had heard the rent free thing. So I was like, oh, but to find out the second part is mind boggling. Oof. Oof.

It is a bad idea to insult somebody when they have a DJ willing to remix that insult. And if you were, if you were in high school and there was a bully bothering you, but you had a DJ who was going to remix their insults, you've won. Right. Yeah. And if you have so little respect for the bully that whatever insult they're saying is funny. Yeah.

Hilarious. Do your best. So good. Good luck. Good luck. Thank you, Norm. We have an episode, like I said, but before we get to it, let's take a little moment. Say hello to some new walks.

Oh, that's a great idea. So first, Wilford Snibble, Snabel of the Gribble Pibble. Thank you so much. You are now a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk. Wait. I thought that was me. You can't donate to you.

Well, now I can't use that as a name at the end because that's somebody else. Now there's a wonk. Oh boy. That name. So I have to come up with a new alias. Yeah. This is like a Twitter handle. They bought it from you.

Maybe mind slumlord. Wait, why did that one show up first in your brain? I don't know. Chef says trans rights. Thank you so much. You are now a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk. Thank you very much.

And we agree. Thanks, next. The Roli Boys. Thank you so much. You are now a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk. Thank you very much. Next Lucy Lawling on the trail.

Thank you so much. You are now a policy onek. I'm a policy wonk. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next. Never expected to learn that Alex Jones thinks our last name is weird. We pronounce it Pat Ingyle.

The Gribble Pibble is silent. Thank you so much. You are now a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next. Angela and Chase of House Gribble Pibble.

Thank you so much. You are now a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk. Here's how far behind. Sometimes you can really get it. This is shortly after the Gribble Pibble episode. Right after the Gribble Pibble. And oops.

All swearing carries. Thank you so much. You are now a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk. Thank you very much. Thank you. Now Jordan. Yes.

As you know, we've talked about this privately. I've been having some insomnia type issues. Yeah. The past week has been really tough with sleep schedule. Traveling. And you know, I think it has a little bit of an effect on, you know, what you want to do, how much you can take on and what have you.

Sure. And I found myself this week definitely having a like, I don't even want to turn on Alex's show. I don't even want to listen to it. It's frustrating. I know I'm going to be bored. I'm already exhausted. I don't really want to do this.

And so I kind of, I've, I've, you know, I can guess what he's saying. Yeah. I feel like I'm just not interested. Not hard. And so I decided, Hey, Norm, talking shit about us covering depositions. No, we're going through his whole show.

No. Oh, no. Oh, all these people are afraid to sit in a deposition room. Oh, no. Today. We have another formulaic objection. Yay. So today, what we're going to be looking at is the deposition

of a Don Salazar. Okay. The long time writer and editor shared info wars. One of the people who wrote some of the articles that were primary in the Sandy Hook conspiracies. Right. Um, someone who has a number of emails around the Sandy Hook conversation.

Yeah. Um, somebody who followed us on Twitter until we mentioned it. And then he unfollowed. Ran away. Goodbye forever. Wee. This is from the Connecticut case.

Gotcha. And a Don is somebody who I've always had a little bit of a fascination with. Because I think he is a soldier, as they say, in the, in the, I don't know what world, but gangland warfare world. Yeah. Gotcha. Sure.

He seems like he strikes me in the same way as someone like Adaria. And that is like, Oh, you believe, right? Or whether or not you believe, you believe in whatever the underlying mission is. You are going to follow orders regardless of whether or not they are sanctioned by the Geneva conventions. A lie.

And, um, you know, you, uh, believing some insane thing. Yeah. Are undistinguishable. Right. Right. Between for you, because whatever is motivating it is more important in its primary. Yeah.

He is somebody who's written a lot of horrible shit over the course of his time. He seems like an asshole. Um, but he's also somebody who I've never heard talk. I've never seen him in front of the camera. He's not, he's not an on camera guy. That's true. Um, and so I had nothing, uh, really to, uh, prepare me to, uh,

to, uh, to see this deposition like what's going to happen here. I'm not as afraid of him anymore. Oh yeah. I'll say that. Uh-huh. Uh, for one thing, he doesn't strike me as, uh, savvy as I imagined him. Uh, so his intelligence is not of the world shaking variety.

He might be a perfectly smart person, but I don't, I don't find him, uh, and the way he answers questions and the way he processes what's going on to be all of that, like remarkable. Okay. And then also he's 37 and that really bummed me out. Right. I, for some reason, I thought he was like 26, uh, or like, I don't know in the Alex Darren McBreen age range.

Right. For some reason, 37 was about the exact age that I was surprised to hear. Yeah. And I was disappointed. You know, it's like, I can kind of whatever the, uh, you know, the landmarks in life, right? They would have been fairly similar.

We would have been the same age at about certain times, experience certain things, uh, world events, uh, you know, from the same presumed level of maturity. Right. And, uh, that kind of makes me sad. Yeah. It would be less sad if he were on the front nine of life, so to speak, you know, like instead of the back nine is where

he's starting, he's starting on the 10th hole and you're going, this is not going to end well for you, man. The other thing too is though, like I realized how delusional that was of me because he's been there since 2012. Yeah. So like the idea that he would be 26 is like what he started at 16. I mean, this is ridiculous.

That seems like the appropriate level of writing he's at though. You're not wrong. Yeah. So this deposition is quite interesting. It's taken by Chris Maddie. Um, and, uh, yeah, let's just jump in, uh, begins with some just sort of formalities and stuff. Um, and, uh, the first question, uh, the first bit, uh, that you

want to get into is how did you prepare for this deposition? Uh, always my favorite question. It's a great way to open. Well, and it always reveals that they didn't really do it at all. Yeah. What did you do to prepare for today's deposition, Mr. Sellathar? I went over a few of the articles that are in question.

Which article? Which article? I did the, I re-read the FBI's Sandy Hook FBI says nobody died at Sandy Hook and, uh, probably the first, uh, how big article that I wrote. The first article. Probably. Sorry.

How big Wolfgang how big article that I wrote. Yeah. And that article was titled something to the effect of, uh, investigator, uh, threatened Sandy Hook investigator threatened something to that effect. Yes, sir. That's it. You reviewed those two articles.

Do you review anything else? I didn't go in depth that I kind of just glossed over them. That's pretty much it. Okay. Um, so other than those two articles, did you review any other materials in advance of your deposition today? Sure. Um, other than, uh, Attorney Wolman, did you discuss, uh,

your deposition with anybody else today? No, sir. Okay. You haven't, uh, communicated with Alex Jones that you're being deposed? No, sir. You haven't communicated that to Rob do? No, sir.

You haven't communicated that to David Jones? No, sir. Okay. Um, did you ordinarily be working today? Yes. And you're currently employed by whom? Free speech systems info words.com. As this deposition progresses, you get the sense that maybe a

Don should have done a little more to prepare for this interview. There are basic elements of his timeline and surrounding context of his writing that Maddie can demonstrate, which a Don seems to think are like undiscoverable secrets. Also, I find it very strange and probably difficult to believe that a Don didn't talk to Alex or Rob do about being deposed. They work together. This is in relation to a suit against Alex and the company.

And as a Don says, he was supposed to be at work that day. It seems like he would have to come up with a reason he couldn't make it to work. So I guess he must have just lied to his employer right off the bat. That doesn't inspire confidence in him as a credible witness highlighting his willingness to deceive. Yeah.

I told, I told, no, no, no, listen, I didn't tell Alex or Owen or anything because I told him my grandma died and I had to go to the funeral. So I'm a reliable source. Come on. Let the record show that this guy's a liar. I can understand if a Don doesn't want to say that he spoke with Alex about what he was going to testify as that would probably

or even possibly give the impression that Alex coached him. But I don't understand what issues there would be with him just telling Alex about the existence of this deposition. Alex would have to know that they were interested in talking to a Don since he wrote these articles that are involved in the suit. I could possibly see a scenario where a Don was afraid to tell Alex that he was actually going to show up and talk to the lawyers. But outside of something like that, I have a hard time accepting that

this didn't come up. Yeah. It's possible, but it's just like, it seems very weird. I'm going to throw this out at you. Okay. If I was going to be deposed for anything and they had like six books I had to read and I would be like, okay, I'm going to make it through at least a full two or three of these books.

Right. I've got the time. I've got the work. There's the need to do it. And then maybe I can pass off the other three as being fine. You know, but a Don is only telling me that he skimmed less than 5,000 words. Right.

It's not like the articles are long. Some of them may be longer than you think, but not that long. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It seems, it seems really strange. I mean, you would think that if you really wanted to be an active participant, you would go, you'd read the article, you'd figure out

like where the information that you were working from came from, at least brush up on some of that so you can defend your process. Yep. But yeah, you just skim some stuff. Yeah. So Don started in April, 2012. And as we know, the shooting happened in December, 2012. So he was pretty new there when that happened.

Yeah. But before we get to any of that, we have to talk about what he was doing before April, 2012. When did you start working for free speech systems? April 2012. Where were you? I held three jobs. I wrote for text broker.com.

I also was a contractor for quest diagnostics. And what was that third job? Oh yeah, I was also a Google search engine optimizer. I worked for a contractor for Google called Leap Force. It's somewhat notable that Don began his time at Infor. It was only a short time before Santony Hook occurred. He was a fresh new on the job reporter when this story started. And as you can tell from this resume that Don is giving,

he didn't have previous work experience that would make him well prepared for the role that he found himself in. No, no, no. The job at quest is basically a courier position, shuttling samples from hospitals and doctor's office to a central testing facility. The job he had with text broker is the sort of thing where he would get paid to write little blurbs for websites,

sort of a freelance gig thing. Sure, sure, sure. This is where you might go if you want someone to write a paragraph about a lamp you're selling and you don't want to pay too much. Text broker is also the sort of place you might go to get filler for a website that's designed for gaming affiliate link systems. To give you some sense of the operation in their basic

category of services, you can choose their low rate option, which has this blurb. This is how it describes that service. Did they write their own blurb using their service? They might have. Okay. Quote, I accept mistakes in spelling, grammar, and expression in favor of a lower price.

For writing where you could just write. What? Yeah, you could just write. What? Random misspelled words. You can make about 1.1 cents per word for that. If you have to pay attention to spelling and grammar, you could make up to about like 5.5 cents a word.

Right, right, right. To be clear, I'm not knocking the hustle and there's no shame in this kind of gig. No. It's just not necessarily the sort of writing work you do if you had in-demand skills in that field and it's something that maybe isn't a great thing to be like on the resume for, you know, the job that he ends up in.

Yeah. I think Heinlein got paid 1.1 cents a word at one point, but it was different currency-wise at the time. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I don't think he's on the same level. Right. So. Hemingway got money subtracted for punctuation.

Yeah. Too many commas. The job at Leapforce is described here as an SEO subcontractor for Google. More specifically, the company hires people to work at home and do repetitive searches to evaluate the results, basically to use as information for better ad placement. It's a pain in the ass kind of job and you can find tons of reviews

about the grind and how it's really only worth doing as a side gig for some extra cash. Unless you can just turn off your brain. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The people on like Glassdoor talk about this is miserable. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, no offense to a Don or anybody else working these kinds of jobs.

It actually does show quite a bit of initiative for him to have these three gigs running simultaneously. That's, you know, impressive in a certain sense. He's got a hustle. I just don't think it's the kind of resume I'd be incredibly impressed by if I were running a super important media network and I was looking to hire a reporter slash editor of the news. Yeah.

Maybe you take a chance on this candidate and you get lucky, but a Don's writing a behavior are pretty central to the claims that info wars was disseminating that just lost them a billion dollars. So it doesn't seem like this one worked out great. When I, I worked at the coupon place, right? Yeah. Testing coupons.

That was my whole job as I would go in there and I would test expired coupons. I'd put the code into a website and I'd click, can you buy? And they'd be like, no. And I'd be like, you're goddamn right. No. That was my whole day. Right.

Yeah. At no point in time was I like, okay, now that I've finished this, I'm going to go work for the Tribune as a cub reporter. Like that wasn't the, that's not the jump. Well, let's even, let's even go a step further. It's not a cub reporter. No, that's right. I'm not the features editor at the Tribune today.

Like, yeah. As a Don will go on to describe like his role immediately was essentially, he could write whatever he wanted. There was no oversight. So like, it's going, it's going from coupon cabin to being to write free hand in the newspaper. Exactly. While people are writing it while they're reading it to just

make it up as you go along. It's wild. That's crazy. It's not. It's crazy. Not best practices. It's fucking crazy. Yeah.

So now we get to Don's educational background. Okay. Tell me about your educational background, please. I went to the University of Texas for about a year and a half. And majored in liberal arts. Took several English courses there. And I also did half a semester at Austin Community College. I don't know why you'd even bring up that you did half a

semester at a community college. It's just confusing. And it sounds like you're saying that you signed up for some classes and you just didn't finish them. Austin Community College has 16 week semesters, but they also offer some courses that run eight weeks. So it's entirely possible that Adon is expressing that he finished some of those eight week classes.

But if that's the case, he should have said I took a few classes at ACC. That makes me think that it's more likely that he signed up and then just didn't finish them. Yeah. Also, I don't know how it is at all universities, but typically liberal arts isn't a major. It's sort of a category of majors.

You wouldn't be a liberal arts major. No. You'd be within the liberal arts. I mean, in the early year that he did finish, maybe he'd hadn't chosen a specific major. He was just taking the basic courses in the department. And you were drawn towards the soft sciences of humanities. Yes.

You know, yeah, that's fine. But like, I don't think liberal arts is a major. When I was... I didn't go to UT Austin, though. I went to a community college for a while and I hated it so much that after the second week, I would drive there to avoid telling my parents that I wasn't going to school, but I would sleep in the parking lot in the car.

In case they put like a low jack on your car? Exactly. Just in case. What, am I going to go in and sleep in the class? No, that's disrespectful. I'm going to not go to their class and sleep nearby. That's pretty good. Yeah.

I did not put that on many resumes, though. Smart. I didn't put it on there. Yeah, I don't know. You didn't. When I hired you, it didn't come up. Yeah, exactly. So I'm a huge fan of education and the academic environment

as a whole, but I do try to be as clear as possible that I don't think it's necessary for everyone to partake in. You can be as smart and capable as anyone who went to college without any higher education and many folks I know bear that out. Over here, looking at you, buddy. There are so many hyper-competent people who never went to college and those people aren't folks that I would look at and

say, hey, they should take some classes because they're doing just fine. On the other hand, if you don't have any formal education, then find yourself as a highly-placed reporter at a propaganda where you argue that grieving families are actors and you're discussing your educational background in a deposition that about that shitty work that you did, I might think that your lack of training or familiarity with the field that you're in is a

problem. And it could have helped if you would have taken some classes. Yeah, yeah. To be perfectly blunt, I don't think that any amount of classes would have helped Don. Not that he's dumb or anything, just that I don't think that he's interested in doing the thing that he's doing well. I don't think he needs to get better.

If you have the moral framework necessary to do what you're doing now, then you're fine whether you're an expert at J-School or not. You're going to do what you're doing. Yeah, you might just need a moment of revelation about yourself as opposed to classes, honestly. Yeah. So by this point in the deposition, we have a sense of what

a Don's resume would have probably looked like when he applied to be a writer and editor at Infowars. He had some freelance-style writing experience, but beyond that, if he credentialed, he had no experience in media or journalism and he had no education in the field, but he got hired anyway. And it seems like there might be possibly a reason why. Why did you apply for the free speech systems? I liked Alex Jones and the message.

So before you ever applied to the free speech systems, you were essentially an audience member, correct? Yes. Yeah, he was a fan. I just, you know, every time I learn more about how Infowars operates, I'm like, there's no way. There's just no way. It's usually a contest that people win and they end up working there.

Exactly. But I guess that maybe is for more of the on-air folks. You know, that's the, because given the razzle-dazzle of the contest. Sure, sure. It's hard to have an Infowars contest about writing, because there's like no benchmark. There's no like, oh, here's good writing and here's bad writing. You've just got the same...

Infowars essay contest. Oh, no. I think, I would, I think that's the low rate, not worried about typos and spellings and character. 1.1 cents. Yeah, that's 1.1 cent a word. Yeah. For sure.

So Maddie asks, what, what was it about Infowars that really got you, got you interested? And what attracted you to the Alex Jones show and the written content? Probably they're, you know, they're feasible to believe the narrative behind 9-11. Okay. Did you suspect the narrative that the mainstream media had reported

concerning 9-11? What was that question again? Were you suspicious? Yes. I'm sorry, just let me finish my question. I know you're anticipating what I'm going to say. But did you personally suspect the narrative that the mainstream media had reported concerning 9-11?

Yes, I was suspicious of it. So in 2012, 11 years after 9-11, that's a motivating, I guess maybe, you know, whenever he got interested in Infowars. Sure. It could have been years prior. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. So motivating factor, suspicion about 9-11 and their refusal to

accept the mainstream narrative. What's your career path like if it starts with, I thought 9-11 was an inside job and then the next step is I'm the editor at Infowars.com. That's a career path. I saw employment because I was impressed with these people refusing to believe that 9-11 happened as we're told. That is great.

That is great, you know. Yeah. So I appreciate this instinct on Maddie's part and that is to go from this like, oh, you were suspicious about 9-11. Why? Yeah. Because in a deposition setting, that can lead to some interesting things.

Uh-oh. And what in particular were you suspicious of? I didn't think we were being told the full truth about various parts of that narrative. Like San Diego? Can you go into a little bit more detail about what you thought the gaps were in what the reporting was? I could.

I suppose I didn't think that the planes should have been able to take down the buildings as they were taken down. Yeah. It seemed like a controlled demolition, which a lot of people still believe, actually. Are you one of them? That was probably the biggest one, especially with building 7 falling and, you know, collapsing controlled demolition style when no

plane hit it. So those are the biggest factors. And did the fact that you felt it was implausible that the buildings would have collapsed the way they did cause you to suspect whether the United States government was involved in some way in the attack? Okay. So this is a really interesting clip because there's a couple of

things happening here. Yeah. The first is really transparent, which is how a conspiracy theorist answers a question. Adon has asked why he was suspicious about 9-11, but it's a conspiracy he hasn't focused on in a while. So a lot of the talking points are a bit foggy in his memory. So he tries to give a vague non-answer.

Then Maddy asks for something more specific and Adon basically just got like, it doesn't seem right in building 7 as his response, which is pretty soft. Yeah. The second thing is something that will become important later is some of Maddy's questions develop. This is something that Adon is suspicious about. He has some inconclusive things to point to that he can use to

justify these suspicions. And based on having those suspicions, he just testified to Maddy that led him to suspect the U.S. government was involved. Yeah. This provides a clear example of Adon's thought process where he's willing to take things that look weird and make him suspicious and use them to build up baseless explanatory

narratives. Hold on to this for later because it will become clear how relevant this is to the matter at hand and how much of a mistake this was on Adon's part in reflection. Yeah. Maybe it doesn't, you know, lead to any direct consequences. But if you're analyzing this and looking at the way he describes his process and how he interacts with information,

it's very damning. And that will become clearer later. Yeah. I mean, that's, it's hard to, it's hard. I do appreciate one thing about Info Wars employees that will never not be hilarious to me is that at some point, doesn't the lawyer have to go in and be like, before you answer the question, look at me to see whether or not I'm going to object or not.

Well, you can't, you, in a deposition, it's a different setting. Yeah. In this setting, you still have to answer the question. Totally. Unless it's some other kind of objection, but these objectives are just, yeah, you still have to, you can't, you can't be like, but I think you could just still say like, I don't know or not answer.

Sure. You know, just always look at your lawyer before you're answering quite, it's not hard, right? Isn't that if that's what I would do? I'd be like, I'm going to listen to my lawyer. Exactly. And then I'd be like, oh, my answer is, oh. So when a dog got hired, he got some training.

Sure. But it wasn't what you think. Yeah. Okay. It's not really, it's not really training. Okay. When you started at Info Wars in April of 2012, did you receive any training of any kind?

Just to like learn the back end systems, like WordPress and things of that nature. So that training basically involved, you know, learning how to use the software programs that you were going to be using every day as an employee, correct? Yes. Did you receive any training concerning the writing function of your job?

No. Did you ever? Objection of form? Did I ever? Did you ever receive any training during your tenure at free speech systems concerning the writing function of your job? No. Wow.

Have you ever received any training during the course of your employment concerning investigative journalistic practice? No. They train you more at like a fast food restaurant. Yeah. Like I remember when I went to, I worked at J.C. Pennies for a cup of coffee.

Yeah. When I was younger and like there was an entire like hours long thing about like the corporate culture, the rules and like harassment policies. Absolutely. You had to sit in a room and watch videos. At the very least you had to sign something saying that you understood the rules of what they told you.

Yeah. It seems like there's less oversight at Infowars than J.C. Pennies. Man, if they, if you had walked into any newspaper in the world and they didn't tell you first things first about the quote in-house style, if they were just like, right away, my dude. Also, I would, I would say that every single job that I've ever had, at least the first like half a week, maybe even the first

week, you're working with somebody else. Yeah. Absolutely. That's your, you know, your training. Your shadowing. Yeah. Because you can't be trusted just to do, just to know exactly how to do your job.

Yeah. It's wild. That does not seem to be the case here. It is wild to not receive training on the job you were ostensibly doing, you know, like they, they taught him how to post things on the internet through WordPress. Yeah. That was it.

You know what? It kind of makes me think of like some temp gigs I've had. Yeah. You know where it's just like, all right, here's how you enter this data. Go do it. I don't give a shit. I got other work to do.

I think that first six months, right? He had to have been walking around like they, they know, right? They know I have no idea what I'm doing. They, they have to look at me and know. Maybe that's part of the test though. Do you have the psychopathic confidence to just be like, there's no such thing as imposter syndrome.

Exactly. Because I'm the greatest. Yeah. So you also got no training about like what news to cover. What? You understood when you applied to Info Wars that you would be, that you were applying for an editor and writer position. When you first started, um, it sounds like one of the things

that you needed to do was update news items on the info wars.com website. Correct? Yes. And what do you mean by update? Um, kind of like fine news items and, uh, publish them on the info wars with a link back to the original source.

Okay. I would find news items that appeared elsewhere on the internet and then put a link to that, um, news item on the info wars.com website. Correct? Um, and how would you determine which, uh, news items to highlight on the info wars.com website? Uh, that was subjective.

So, um, basically whatever I thought would be good on the website. Did you receive any guidance or training on that in any way? No, that's wild. I, I, I mean, I know words fail. I, I just don't know how it's so nuts that like you have to think like that can't be true. That can't be true. But it could be.

It's the only place in the world where it could be true. It could be true here. Right. And like the, the opening of a we work, you know, like these are the only two scams where you can pull off having no clue what you're doing and just be like, yeah, fuck it. Wow. I think I'm just making noises.

Yeah. I don't know how to deal with that information. I would have straight up quit so fast. This is a scam. Yeah. This is a scam. I would have just been like this or at least this is trouble. This is a recipe for leaving.

Yes. Leaving aside anything about the ideology or anything about info wars, a business that runs like this, like, I don't know if payroll works like this. What are we doing? What is going on? Yeah. That is, that is the roommate scam.

Like that, if I was interviewing for that job, I would view it the same way as the roommate scam, you know, where it's like Person selling magazines. Oh, I've got, no, no, no. I've got, I'll move in with you and be your roommate, but I need $1,000 up front to move here and then I'll give you $2,000 whenever or whatever it is, you know. I didn't know about that scam.

Yeah. It's a great scam. It works for, I don't know, somebody, but it is, it is the job equivalent of that. It's like, hey man, come on in. You're a new editor. No, I don't believe you for a fucking second. You are trying to make me the CEO and then blame me for

something. Yeah, this has got to be, yeah. Yeah. I'm the fall guy, right? This is a bait and switch here for sure. It's got to be on the, yeah. Um, so also, um, Adon didn't need to get anybody's sign off on posting.

What? Before posting news items that you had clipped from other sources, did you have to get approval from anybody to actually publish? Um, no. Okay. You should. You probably, uh, and it was like, thanks a little less.

It was more loose back in 2012. And now, uh, we've learned our lessons and we're kind of stricter about what we republish. And I'll ask you some questions about that. But at the time you started, uh, you could go to any website, select a news item that you thought your audience might be interested in and publish it to info wars.com. Correct.

Yes. Wild. So, uh, the, we've learned our lesson thing. Yeah. I think that that's about like, like content like Sandy Hook stuff, uh, but it's not, it's a, he explains later, uh, in a clip that I didn't cut that, um, basically there are some websites that are litigious about repurposing their content.

Yeah. It did sound like he was trained on stealing. Yeah. And so he was like, basically by trial and error, you learned that like the AP doesn't like it when you just steal their articles. Right. Right.

And so like you just avoid AP articles. Right. That's pretty. Sad. Like in terms of the lessons you've learned are the respecting intellectual property, I guess. I, I mean, it is, it is analogous to learning about which dumpsters are good to get food from, you know, there's,

there's definitely certainly something along those lines. They are nothing if not info records. Exactly. We info scavenge in the info war. So, um, I think that if you're in a position like a Don, you always have to, whether you believe it or not, put on the front facing facade company line that you are reporting facts. Yes.

You're doing factual reporting. You're doing the God's work. Yeah. Do you consider yourself, um, to be reporting facts or do you consider yourself to be, you know, writing your opinion? How do you consider the type of writing you're doing? Objection to farm. Uh, I believe it's probably.

You write the facts with a, maybe like a right leaning slant instead of the left leaning slant, the mainstream media. Okay. Um, so if I understand you correctly. In your writing, you are reporting facts, but to the extent there's any sort of, um, editorializing of those facts, you put a right leaning slant on them. Yes.

And it's usually, yes, I think so. And is that because you know that your audience is used, uh, to the right of the political spectrum? My audience and me. I mean, yes. Right. I mean, if you started writing, uh, you know, left wing main festos, your audience would wonder what the heck happened.

Right. Yeah. Well, uh, I think the journalistic outfits, like the AP and stuff, but they pretend to be objective, but they're not. And we don't pretend to be objective. I'm sorry. What? Um, when you say you shouldn't be objective, I assume you don't mean that, um, you, we wear our bias on our sleeves. Sorry. Not really. No, absolutely not. Alex's entire brand is,

he's above the left, right paradigm. The whole thing. Yeah. The, the right leaning slant of this is, is like absolutely a betrayal of the central premise of info wars. Yeah. Yeah. But also quite obvious. Uh, so not, not revelatory. It's just embarrassing that Adon would phrase it this way in a under oath setting because, uh, Alex probably disagrees. Yeah. I mean, I'm not right-wing. The hard part about these depositions is I always feel like

we should really, really, you know, no matter how basic a concept you think you're dealing with, you need to go further and further down, you know, like just what do you think a journalist does? Well, they tried to do that with Kit Daniels. Right. That didn't go well. That was weird. Yeah. Um, good point. And to be fair, I think that you could probably, uh, find some fertile ground in there. Right. But this is already four hours long. This deposition. That's true. Probably don't

need to get down to like first principles. That's true. Basic core concept. I mean, I would really like to get down to the very nitty gritty and be like, let's go with a glossary of words, my man. I would love that too. What do you think this means? There's nobody in the world who would love if like every one of these depositions was a Ken Burns documentary more than me. Right. Naturally. That's what I want. Of course. But yeah. Can't do it. Other humans have other things

to do. I understand. I understand. So Adon gets to talking about his research methods. They're good. They're good. They're good. They're good. So when you are, um, reporting facts to your audience, I take it that it is important for you to accurately report what those facts are. Correct. Yes. And when you're waiting about a particular topic, what do you do to educate yourself about the topic and the facts that you're

going to convey? Before I jump into an article. Where do the sources of information come from that you read? I do a Google search on Google news and also we'll look back at anything that Infowars has written and maybe look at a YouTube video or two, try to find, you know, I look at various different data points to try to formulate

facts and opinions on the subject. And so when you are doing research for a piece you're writing, you are doing that research exclusively from internet sources, correct? Yes. Yes. Including Infowars own previous material. Yes, sir. That's not, that doesn't inspire confidence. Wow. My research methods are Googling things, looking at Infowars articles from the past and maybe some YouTube videos.

Yeah. I mean, if he weren't, this is the dream, you know, like he's living the dream. Isn't that what he's doing? Well, it's easy. He doesn't have to do anything but occasionally Google stuff and then steal it. I imagine that there's a lot of like, you got to get this out fast because it's going to be interesting to people in six hours. Sure, sure, sure. You know, so some of that is probably a hectic, frustrating schedule. I'm sure there's emails flying around

Did you see this? Did you see that? Sure. Yeah. And then I also don't know how much he's getting paid because that doesn't come up. So it could also be 1.1 cents a word. And if that's the case, then maybe this isn't such a good gig. But if he's making as much as some of the other Infowars employees, then holy shit, holy shit. Get the fuck out of here. Yeah, I wouldn't go back to Google Analytics either or whatever it was he was fucking doing. Nope. Also, he didn't even read these 5,000 words that he needed to read for this deposition.

What confidence does that give you that he actually does any fucking research? Well, this deposition isn't an article that he needs to read. It takes that very seriously. I read everything I can on Google. Yeah. So he has an editor now. Right. Sort of. Not really. Okay. He has a copy editor. Who reviews your work now before it's published? I send my work to editor Jamie White and if he's not there, I'll just

I reread it. I'll reread my own work and edit myself. Whenever Jamie White is available, he reviews your work. Yes. And for what purpose does he review it? Typos pretty much the end and make sure I got my eyes and tees crossed and stuff. So, so type of eyes and tees you're referring to like no typographical errors. Yeah, or

words and stuff. Yes, exactly. He's essentially just proofreading, correct? Yeah, proofreading. Okay. Amazing. He's not checking for the accuracy of what you've written. Technically no. No. Technically no. Well, certainly it's technically no. Technically no. There's no way you could say technically. They have like a whole conversation about whether or not anybody has ever done that in his time at Infowars. And he mentions only one person. There's this guy, Mikhail Thalen, who isn't with the company anymore.

He now writes for the Daily Dot. I don't know what the fuck his deal is, but he has managed to transition out of the Infowars stink into somewhat legitimacy. Like he's actually writing somewhere. I bet he has an editor. I don't know what his deal is, but he was there and apparently when he was there, he would point out things like they're like. No wonder he got fired. Well, maybe. But Adon doesn't understand

that action. Right. Like he experiences it as like, oh, he was just doing that because he wanted to. Yeah. Like it was just it was just, you know, kind of fun for Mikhail. It was like, you know, we were having a little game between us. I would lie and he would be like, you can't do this. And I would be like, haha. And then post it. You get the strong sense that he didn't listen to the advice that Thalen was given. Wild. Yeah. So he can just write about whatever he wants and apparently has never been told not to write something. Have you ever been instructed that you couldn't write about a particular

topic? No. Have you ever had a request to publish an article turned down? No, I don't think so. This is directly contradictory to Alex's entire thing about how he told people not to write about Sandy Hook. We're done with this topic. Got it. So that's that's interesting. And because that I believe that that email from Paul to Buckley. Yep. It mentions a Don. A Don wrote something

about this. Yeah. And so he would be the person who was told don't write about this. That would be the only person. And so someone someone has their picture wrong. Oh, that's not good. So I don't know how you picture the workplace environment at Infowars, the kind of like co-worker. Just after I find out that nobody's even like, does a Don Salazar even live in the country? Like I live in Austin. Right. But I mean, there's no way to know based on what he's describing of his job.

He could be in fucking South America right now and nobody would have any different. I think that's probably part of why like it's so easy for Paul to have worked there the entire time living in England. Yeah. But yeah, the workplace environment seems really cold and this bums me out. During the course of your employment at Infowars has your contact level with Mr. Jones changed at all? No.

How often are you in communication with Mr. Jones? In communication, I would say maybe I pass him going to the bathroom or something say hi. So once a week or something. How often are you in communication to him about the substance of your work at Infowars? Southern, if ever. This is bizarre. Living the dream. No boss. Going into a cubicle every day. I mean

he's worked there for a decade. And Alex still doesn't know his name. A Don who? Oh my god. It's inconceivable. I don't believe this. But if that is true, so rude. Totally. There aren't that many people who work there. How do you ignore one that close to you? That's bananas. And somebody who's responsible for creating so much of the content that you use

to lie on air. Wild. That is impersonal to the point of being hostile. There's no way to experience that except as like this is a clear rejection. I feel like I was being iced out or something. It's been there 10 years. It would feel like oh, Alex is clearly trying to get rid of me. Wow. And then it just never happens. I guess. So yeah, use hideout in your cubicle and just wait until someone notices you're there. Yeah, you know, I mean I go back to the

music financial analyst and he's like a competently run business should have this to this amount of money. And when you hear shit like this, you're like either they've got an absurd amount of money hidden in gold somewhere because they are hiding it from everyone or this place just doesn't even know where money comes from. Like they just don't. Yeah. Well, they do have a very serious distrust of fiat currency. Exactly. Yeah, I don't know. It's a weird, weird picture. And if it wasn't Info Wars, it would be like

Wonka factory nonsense. Absolutely. It would be like everyone's running around like in costumes and like. No, no, no. Like what the fuck is this place? When do you when do you see Alex? Well, occasionally he calls the entire staff out. We have to put on our elf costumes and we have to do a little dance for him. And then we go back to work. I mean, that question wasn't asked. That could be what happens. Do you have to wear a little dance? You never know. So we finally get to Sandy Hook coming up and the question that's opposed is when did you

find out about the shooting? Mr. Salazar, do you recall how you first learned about the Sandy Hook shooting? I believe I was at work when it happened. So it was kind of playing everywhere on CNN, in the break room. Then it was everywhere on the Internet. And so giving your job as a writer, I take it that you started following that coverage very closely as soon as it broke?

Yes. And you knew immediately that the Sandy Hook shooting was going to be a subject of Info Wars reporting, correct? I didn't know that immediately now. You weren't able to leave you into it that this was going to be a major news story that Info Wars was going to cover. Objection. No, I didn't immediately realize that now until days after. What came off of the news. So at that time, like two days after the event happened, I was like, okay, this is

a big news event. Yeah, this is something to keep an eye on here because Don is testifying that like in this first month, he was unaware of an intent to cover the shooting at Sandy Hook as being fake. And that timeline is going to be in trouble as information is revealed. Yeah. But yeah, your response to that is, I think, very appropriate. Like it's very bizarre to imagine that you could see this shooting happen. You work it in for us. You know how they've covered shootings in the past. You were there for Aurora, which just happened pretty recently.

And like a couple days later, you realize, oh, this is a big story. What? I mean, very weird. Either he's lying or he's insane. Like there's no other explanation. I think it's lying or just trying to give a softer appearance to Yeah, yeah, yeah. Like we weren't taking this as seriously as we could or maybe thought we would have something along those lines, but there's no way. You don't want to give the impression that you're like seeing this and getting excited for the coverage that you're going to get. Yeah, yeah. And so I can understand how that isn't the

perception you would want to give. Like I saw this and I immediately knew this was going to lead the news. Right. Right. Right. Okay. Fine. Wow. Whatever. There's going to be a problem. Yeah. But a couple of days I would I would even be like, oh, it was a few hours after where it was when I realized it was going to be what it was. A couple of days makes you sound like you're hiding underneath rocks. Oh, true. And like this, like the timeline is just completely fucked. You'd say then about two days after the event is when you first realized that you would be writing about

Sandy Hook, correct? I didn't think I'd be writing about it yet. I was looking at a different anomalies and stuff. So I hadn't really like put my foot down that I'd be writing about it yet. So I think the first time I did was when I heard the halving interview, which was I don't think it was immediately after the shooting. No, it was in 2014. Yeah. So there was a interview that Hal Big did and we'll talk about that a little more later with the American Free Press.

And that was in like February, I think. I think it was February. Maybe not. Maybe December. No, I don't know. It was in 2014. Two days, two years, same bit, same difference. Right. And so Don wrote an article about Wolfgang's interview and that is true. But that amount of time is like that. If you're pitching that as your timeline until 2014, I didn't know who's going to be writing about this. Well, I didn't think it was a big story. That is outrageous and you don't want this to be

like the sort of the foundation that you're laying in terms of explaining what happened in a deposition setting because you're going to directly contradict yourself repeatedly. You know that authority experiment where they've got somebody in the doctor's like, press the button and it increases. Yeah, that whole thing. Like this is one of the few situations where if you did that experience here, that experiment here, it'd be like five minutes max. Press the button every time he lies and be like, ah, ah! And they're like, it's going to get larger and he might die on this when you're like, listen,

I think I know how electricity works, buddy. Press that button. I mean, look, I don't know any, I don't know. I don't know if that's one of those experiments that has been debunked. Yeah, is that one real? I'm not sure. I know the prison experiment wasn't that one debunked. It was more like there's problems with it. But leaving all that aside, there is such a frustrating way that the path that this goes down like it is like Adon is such a bad stone wall. There is it's

we'll get to it. Okay, it is so frustrating. Alright. What you need to know for now is that after the shooting, Adon thought it was real. I'm just trying to understand, you know, in the immediate aftermath, what your perspective was. I'm sorry. Go ahead. No, no, please. I was going to say in the immediate aftermath, my perspective was a school shooting happened. So I was on board with the shooting. I'm sorry, what? When you say on board

in the immediate aftermath that let's and let's try and time this out within two days of the shooting, it was your own view at that time that children and educators were killed at Sandy Hook, correct? Yes. I would have phrased that differently, but yeah, I was what it is. I was like, I'm on board with this shooting. Oh, man, strange. I met he almost even gave him a chance to rephrase it. He gave you another go at it, man. So Adon, his perspective on this is like he was

going to report on Sandy Hook if there were anomalies. Sure. I take it from your testimony earlier that you anticipated that you would likely only write about it. To the extent you thought that there were anomalies associated with the shooting worth writing about, right? Something that I found interesting and I thought with the readership would find interesting. Yes. And that eventually happened, correct? Where you felt that

you wanted to report on anomalies around Sandy Hook because you found them interesting and you thought the audience would find them interesting, correct? Yes. Yes. So we come to this idea of anomaly and it's one of the words that Alex uses to sort of rationalize a lot of his coverage, but it is kind of a vague term. There isn't really a concrete definition of this. And so in order to move forward, we try to get a definition of what is an anomaly. That's a great idea. Yeah, it's helpful.

We're talking about anomalies. I just want to go back. Can you give me your definition of anomaly? Maybe something that doesn't really jive with the story. So some fact that you believe exists that calls into question other facts surrounding the shooting, correct? Objection. I would say that it's something that calls into question everything else. It's just something peculiar or odd that you really don't know what it is,

what its purpose is, like I said, until you have more pieces. Okay. And in considering those anomalies when it came time to report on them I take it that it was important to you for anything you publish concerning Sandy Hook to be true and accurate, correct? Yes, to the best of my knowledge. Right. And you'd agree with me that the shooting of 20 children and six educators is a horrible

atrocity, correct? Yes, sir. And so if you're going to be reporting facts about that situation it's incredibly important to you that they be accurate, correct? Yes. And your audience relies on you to provide them with truthful and accurate information, correct? Yes, sir. And you understood at the time of the Sandy Hook shooting and your coverage of that shooting that the Info Wars audience included millions of people across different platforms,

correct? Yes. And so you considered it a tremendous responsibility of yours to make sure that they were well and accurately informed, correct? Injection. Yes, I would say so. You take that responsibility seriously, don't you? Yes. And so it was important to you that the sources of information you had concerning Sandy Hook be credible, correct?

Yes. So Don has repeatedly now said yes, I take this very seriously. It's very important to me that the facts are informed. And that's fun. But yeah, we have a sort of vague definition of anomaly, but at least it's something you can kind of work with. Right, right. I was surprised that the lawyer objected to really doing a really good job of rephrasing anomaly is something that doesn't jive. Doesn't jive with the story. I appreciate his dictionary. Anomaly

doesn't jive, anteater, groovy tongue, like I like the way this man thinks. Yeah, he's got it. Don calls Matty Dadio later. He's hip. He smokes a jazz cigarette in between. So there's a phenomenon called motivated reasoning wherein you try and create an argument for something based on a conclusion that you already have. You go looking for information check. You succumb to confirmation by a defined information

that supports your conclusion that you're going to have already. Now this conversation here with Don and how he was approaching questioning the shooting has some of the hallmarks of that you might think. Okay. The immediate aftermath and I'm talking about when I say immediate aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting. Let's talk about a month. Okay, so December 14 2012 to January

14 2013 you with me during that period. Did you develop a concern that the shooting at Sandy Hook could be used as a pretext for gun confiscation legislation? I'm not sure if it was specifically gun confiscation but yeah, it was going to be used to curtail gun rights. I believe yes. That was a concern you developed within

the month after the shooting that the fact of the shooting could be used as a pretext for curtailing gun rights, correct? Yes. Was that a concern to your knowledge that Alex Jones shared? I believe so, yeah. Maybe if you go back and see some of the episodes following the incident, Alex might have been mentioning that concern. I can't recall that it was a specific concern or not but it might have been.

Was that a principal reason that it was important to you to question whether or not the shooting in fact occurred? Yeah, that was one of several reasons, yeah. What were some of the others? Just trying to keep the media honest and trying to sift through actual news and not fake news. That is a shocking admission.

I can't understand how Don wouldn't recognize what he just said. He said that principally one of the reasons it was important for him to question whether or not Sandy Hook happened was because he was worried they were going to use it to take guns. That has nothing to do with the reality or falsity of an event. That is a fucked up thought process. Right, so here's what I thought. I thought that people would exploit this tragedy to pass gun grabbing legislation.

I went out and I looked for the truth. Everybody who said that it wasn't, I called fake news. Everybody who said that it was, I called true news. Obviously, it's true, my man. Thinking about it this way, you're worried about them exploiting this tragedy in order to push a political goal that you are opposed to. Instead of supporting the political point that you are in favor of and engaging in the argument

about it, where people are like, hey, there's this cool shooting. We should probably get better gun regulations in place and common sense reform. Instead of responding to that with like, well, no, I don't believe that that is an appropriate thing to do and here are the reasons why. Instead you're like, well, they wouldn't have any argument if the shooting didn't happen. So maybe I should try and prove that. Or maybe I should try and get people to insist that. Because that's a shortcut that I don't have to make my argument. Right. Right. And that's basically

the way you could interpret what Adon is saying. And obviously on some level, I am fully aware that this is part of it. Yeah, totally. Sort of ideological and information model. Yeah. But to hear Adon not try and mask that in some way is very shocking and it strikes me as somebody who doesn't realize what he's saying. Yeah. I mean, how do you say it out loud? Yeah. Because you'd hear it then. You'd hear it spoken into the world. You know, maybe he's got one of those. I can't believe his lawyer didn't just like

spill water on the computer or something. Yeah, 100%. That's a revelatory thing. The lawyer should have a shock collar for these people. Like that is an insane thing to say. How can you say that out loud and not be like, oh, I get where we went wrong now. Thanks, guys. Listen, we had a great deposition. I'm in the 100% of the wrong. Whatever it is you say is true. I'm going to get out of here. I'm supposed to give the presentation that we're just looking for the truth and asking hard questions that no one else

will. And right. Exposing cover ups and whatever you know, you're just trying to take shortcuts and push your political agenda in a different way because you know that if you did it on the merits, no one would be interested. Right. If I argued with you about the thing you want to argue about, I would lose because you're right and I'm wrong. So instead, what if I pretended that you don't exist and neither does anybody else? And it's just me and everything I think is true. So that's good. Good way to live. The day

of the shooting or the around there within the 24 hours. Don got an email and this is an email where we get an appearance from an old friend of ours who likes to hide in the bushes. Oh, no. You know the guy. Oh, Batman. That's the guy. Oh boy. John Rappaport Hang up that picture Rappaport. He has sent an email to John Bowne who then has forwarded to a Don Salazar. Okay. Exhibit number one. It should be coming up on your screen. Do you see an email before you? Mr. Salazar

in the from line is Jonathan John at infowars.com to you. Oh, yes. And do you see the date that that this is Mr. Whoever Jonathan is and your testimonies that you don't know who that is? That's probably John Bowne. How do you spell his last name? B-O-W-N-E. And who is that? He's a video producer.

He's still there. I think he works offsite but I think he's still employed by free speech. Okay. And you knew who Mr. Rappaport was at the time, correct? I was barely becoming familiar with him. Yes. My first year there. Okay. And Mr. Bowne is forwarding you an email and an attached document that he received from Mr. Rappaport on the day of the shooting, correct?

It appears so, yes. And if we scroll down the document that was attached to the email is dated December 15, 2012 and it says here come the grief counselors over the hill pouring into Newtown Connecticut. Do you recall reading this piece by Mr. Rappaport? No. Okay. Do you have any understanding as you see here today without going through it what it says? No.

Do you have an understanding of what Mr. Rappaport's view was concerning the Sandy Hook shooting in the immediate aftermath? No, I don't know what Mr. Rappaport's view was. Do you know why Mr. Bowne formed this email? Probably because he thought it was interesting and thought I might find it interesting maybe to republish. And do you know if this was republished by Infowars.com? I don't know.

It's a little weird. It's a little weird. I mean Rappaport's unhinged weirdo. So like the idea that he's writing blogs questioning Sandy Hook the day of or the next day. Regular. Yeah, that's to be expected. Part for the course. But the idea that John Bowne has found this and thought hey you know who will enjoy this? A Don Salazar. That is a little weird. Definitely if someone were to email me that I would take a fence. That would be a problem.

That would be a problem. There's something about a Don that people know. It's totally cool to send him weird shit about Sandy Hook. Yeah man I just feel like if I were in being deposed by anyone and they asked me a question and I gave my response and then they were like okay do you see this on your screen? Point to exhibit one. My first response would be like fuck! Something went wrong with my answer. How does that not your response? The moment they go did you say this? Bring this up. You'd be like well

obviously I didn't say that now. Now I know that. I didn't know that just a moment ago. Oh no. Yeah something. But not a Don. He sticks to his guns and is presenting the idea that he did not know the immediate aftermath that they were going to cover it. Of course. Really trying. Really trying. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting that is the month following the shooting is it fair to say that you understood

that your coverage was going to frame Sandy Hook as a staged event? I wouldn't say. I didn't know that in the immediate aftermath now. So your testimony was that in that first month it was not your, you were not aware at that time or you did not have a view at that time. That Info Wars coverage of the event would frame it as a staged event. Correct. Yes. So that is important

in as much as we've now sort of laid the framework of what we're talking about when you say the immediate aftermath. Yeah. We're talking about that month. Yeah. And I think that's helpful. Yeah. I don't believe it on here but I'm going to throw this out there. Sure. Don earlier in the deposition says why did I join Info Wars? Aha. 9 11 was an inside job. Right. So your very first moment of joining Info Wars is based entirely Yeah. It's based entirely around something being a false flag.

True. You knew exactly how they were going to fucking cover it. You know that they're the false flag They're the false flag people. Yeah. Yeah. They're the one stop shop for false flag. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I mean you've just done Aurora. Yeah. Like they have just done all of their coverage about how that was fake. And you were listening. We know. No you were working there. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. That's right. That was oh my god. Yeah. Yeah. So it's a little bit tough to a pill to swallow. Yeah. I'm not going to buy that one. And especially because you know obviously he said that

the interest they would have in reporting on this is based on seeing anomalies of course. And he started to see anomalies pretty fast. Well in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. Am I correct that you did become aware of what you consider to be certain anomalies fair to say yes. Okay. How is it that you became aware of those anomalies. What did you do to discover that. Jackson. I'm not sure if I receive tips on emails or found videos on

YouTube but it was maybe a combination of the two. In order to find videos on YouTube you would have to search for something that you were looking for correct. Or a link is provided somehow by a social media or email. Yeah. Okay. Do you recall doing any affirmative work on your own to search YouTube or any other sites for anomalies. Yeah. I didn't search the site. I was probably provided with links to videos about it. And you think those links may have come either through

you viewing social media or through the writer's email. Correct. On Reddit. Yeah. Various places you can find links to YouTube. Yes. Were you looking for those things. I wouldn't say I was looking for them now. Okay. Everything just fell into my lap man. All this information. These anomalies just kept popping up. I wasn't doing anything looking for them. They just I don't know where tips. Yeah. Social media. Yeah. I think this is who am I to not follow the

story. This is the first. This is the only episode I think of our show where if you just put Liz in my chair based on his descriptions of her job she would be making. She would be screaming. I can't imagine anybody who works in media or journalism hearing this and not being offended. Not being like I will kill this world. Nothing means anything anymore. Right. I ripped my hair out. There's so many people who have worked so hard. So hard. And just on the in the trenches grinding. For one story. Right. Months.

Months of research. They've got people who actually go out. They're fact checkers. Everything. Everything. Yeah. Or even people who do like a lot of the behind the scenes. Totally. Facilitates good journalism stuff. And I just kind of like I don't know. Maybe I saw just falls. Somebody emailed me on Reddit. I don't know. Be a link so I get paid six figures. But there's also emails that come out. That's true. Like from Rapaport. Naturally. Or this other email from Rapaport. Uh oh. Do you see that this is an eight page document and

page one is an email from Jonathan to you with an indication that there is a attachment entitled Adam lands a mask. Yes I see that. And you see that the email from Jonathan is a forwarded email again from Mr. Rapaport. Yeah looks like it was sent from John Rapaport to John Bown and then John Bown forwarded to me. Correct. And the date that Mr. Bown received it. I'm sorry the date that Mr. Rapaport

sent it to Mr. Bown was December 16th 2012 correct? I see that yes. Okay that would that would have been two days after the shooting. I believe so yes. And if you scroll down in the document again similar to the last email we looked at there is an attachment with a written piece that appears to be authored by Mr. Rapaport correct? Yes sir. And the title is Two Movies, Two Mass Murders.

Yes I see that. With a subtitle that says The Dark Knight Rises in the Hunger Games. Okay yeah Correct. It doesn't look like it's the subtitle looks like it's the lead sentence in this. Okay. Okay. Alright fine. The Rapaport has sent this to John Bown and again it seems like there's sort of a tunnel. Yeah. The sort of pipeline. Yes it does seem like there's a very clear pipeline. Yeah I mean like the first one that John Bown sends me and maybe if I'm not interested I say don't send me shit like that.

Yeah. Weird there's another one. Yeah. The next day. Kind of sounds like maybe this happens regularly. Yeah but look you know Don doesn't know if he actually even read this. Okay you're not sure if you've read this. Fair to say. Right yes. You eventually did develop an interest in the nexus between the movie The Dark Knight Rises and the Sandy Hook Sheet and correct? Yes that was an interest in it yes. And it's possible that that interest may have been sparked

by this particular piece which I can scroll down draws a connection between the Batman movie, the Aurora shooting and Sandy Hook. My question to you is it's possible that this particular email which you received sparked your interest in the nexus between the movie The Dark Knight Rises and Sandy the Sandy Hook shooting correct? It's possible I can't say for sure

I don't know if I read this article at the time. But in any event it appears that you received this email shortly after the shooting correct? Yes. It's honestly too bad for a Don that he didn't read this article because if he had he could defend himself here. The conspiracy that a Don spread about Sandy Hook and Batman had to do with the name Sandy Hook appearing on the map in the movie Dark Knight Rises. That was in an article Rappaport wrote on December 18th but the one from the 16th which is being discussed here since it was forwarded to a Don is actually about something

else. The Batman part of this has to do with the Aurora shooting happening at a screening of Batman and the theories about James Holmes thinking he was the Joker. In this article Sandy Hook relates to the Hunger Games. I'm just going to read you here some of John Rappaport's brilliant work. We now have the boggling connection to the Hunger Games. In that sci-fi novel and film 24 Children are picked to take part in a competitive national blood sacrifice killing ritual. One child survives at the end and 23 die. 20 died in New Town

and the author of the Hunger Games, Suzanne Collins, lives in Sandy Hook next to New Town. And this means this is just the kind of bizarre and insane op secret societies are reputed to enjoy. Ordinarily I would ignore this sort of thing and just call it a coincidence but it's too improbable. I can't prove the killings in New Town were part of a kind of op but I can't disregard it either. This coincidence is just too stunning and if the Hunger Games connection is real here then all bets are off.

The coincidence that Rappaport finds too stunning is that Suzanne Collins lives nearby and the number of children who are killed in the Hunger Games doesn't match the number dead at Sandy Hook but it's kind of close. Plus or minus five. Plus or minus five. There's a margin of error. This is the kind of dumb shit that Rappaport was writing two days after the shooting that John Bound thought it was worth sending to a Don who I almost guarantee did read it. He may think it's in his best interest to not know anything about the article in this deposition but the idea that he wasn't interested in this, it just flies right

in the face of everything I've been able to tell about him from his work. It's ridiculous. Fuck out of here. I think I would have made it two sentences into that email before I would have thrown my computer out the window. I'd have been like, get this away from me! I think the computer is scary now! Stop sending me bullshit. Look, if it says John Rappaport on it, I'm not interested. How about that? No thank you. Pass. Do better, Bound. Where's Thaylin at? Let's get him back in here. So, Don, he apparently is not only a receiver of emails, he's a

sender of emails. He sent an email to Melissa Melton, who is a former employee of Info Wars. On December 19th, it's a little interesting. Do you have this email before you, sir, which is an email from you to Melissa Melton on December 19th, 2012? I see that here. Who is Melissa Melton? She was a previous employee. What was her role in Info Wars at the time? Video producer slash, I guess she wrote some

articles, so she was a partial editor. Can you read the subject line, please? It says, forward, Connecticut police radio, purple band, mask men, one dressed as none. And can you read the text that you emailed to Miss Melton? Look at this, sent in from a reader. Don't know if you caught the show that day, but a caller said a none gained entry to the school. And why did you

share that information with Miss Melton? It looks like I was going off the email before it. Well, which is probably interested in the anomalies. So you were sending this to Miss Melton because you were interested in the possibility that someone dressed as a none had gained entry to the school on the day of the shooting?

More of the sharing of weird, weird tail. It's a weird tail. It's a weird tail. I mean, sure, I thought it was true, but then when you said it out loud back to me, now I think it was a weird tail. It's a weird tail. It's a weird tail. It's like that publication where Lovecraft's stories were originally published. Submitted to the secret society. So you sent a weird tail to Melissa Melton about a none, some address a none gaining access to the school. Obviously, this is because there was another

shooter. And that same day, something else happened at Info Wars. This exhibit does it appear to you, Mr. Salazar, to be a headline in the text of an article that was published on InfoWars.com on December 19th, 2012? Yes. This is the article I referenced earlier that I believe you attributed to a particular staffer, Aaron Dykes, correct?

Yeah, I think it was he that read this document. Were you aware of this article at the time it was published? Only when it went up on the website. I was aware when the readers were. And you read it at the time? Pretty sure I did. So here's something that Maddie might not know or just isn't bringing up that makes this all a bit suspicious. These these two clips that we just heard. On the same day December 19th, Don is emailing Melissa Melton about a Sandy Hook conspiracy

theory. And Aaron Dykes is posting this article defaming Robbie Parker. The connective tissue that's missing is that Aaron Dykes and Melissa Melton were a couple. They ended up leaving InfoWars together and they started their own outlet called Truthstream Media and now have spoken pretty poorly about Alex, but are still lunatic conspiracy theorists. They're married now and Melissa has taken on Aaron's surname. It seems difficult for me to imagine that you have Aaron actively posting this Sandy Hook conspiracy shit and Don emailing his girlfriend other Sandy Hook conspiracy shit

and that doesn't translate to a group of people intensely interested in Sandy Hook conspiracy shit. Yeah, that's that to me is something that doesn't doesn't pass the smell test. I used to be pretty good at pool. I used to be pretty good at pool and one time I was watching these two really, really good hustlers who accidentally wound up playing against each other like they fucked up and they were they were so good like after the first couple of games they realized what was going on and then they would just move so fast. It'd be

like they if there were four balls left on the table that they think you could run those out. They just rip them off the table and they'd be like next game next game like that. If we were in this kind of high level situation I think a Don would have been like alright you got me on this one. Next questions. Let's go. Next one. We'll swipe these off the table. I'm going to punt. You've won. You've won this one. I got to play the next game though. I'm down a lot of money. Yeah, I think that I would be very interested in that piece of information being brought as a rebuttal

like you know there are a couple right. These two people that you're communicating with on the same day about conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook. I guess Don doesn't necessarily have like a concrete proof that he was talking to Aaron Dykes about his article about Robbie Parker but how many writers are there at the time. Not many. They all work in the same office. Right. Like I find it unbelievable that the two of them wouldn't have been at least in some kind of contact. I would go so far as to call that an anomaly. It is anomalous. Should that be the case

that's anomalous. Ironically it sort of has the hint of a conspiracy. Listen I'll tell you what that's a fact that doesn't jive. That's for the truth. So Don also sent Paul Joseph Watson an email looking for tips about Sandy Hook conspiracy article he was writing. Do you have an email before you serve from you to call Joseph Watson. Can I see that? Okay. Next question. You got me.

Paul if you have the time can you take a look at the article I have pending publishing on the back end of InfoWars. I did a little bit of research into Sandy Hook Batman Coincidence and I've come to the conclusion that Sandy Hook was substituted for another name on the map. Maybe you've got some tips or something you'd like to add. Or I think I should mention to the article or a better headline thanks. Do you have a question for the article that you were referencing? I think it's the one about Sandy Hook maps and stuff. I mean Batman

maps. Yeah. Okay. This is an article that you wrote in which you reported that a map that appears in the movie The Dark Knight Rises had a location that had been changed from South Hinckley to Sandy Hook, correct? Yes. Okay. Do you know if Paul Watson would get back to you on this? I don't think he did. He wasn't as interested in this story as I was. Because we were pretty interested in this.

Yeah. That's revealing. I mean we already knew that Paul wasn't down with this shit but like for you to say he wasn't as interested in it as I was it belies like a real interest on your part which doesn't look great. Yeah. So this is about December 20th. Now here's where things got a little bit confusing for me because there was an article posted on the 17th on Infowars about the map in The Dark Knight Rises. And then there's another article

that's an update of it that's the one Adon is talking about I believe. I'm not sure if he wrote the original one on the 17th because they both have Infowars.com as the writer. There's no attribution. But he's said that he wrote the one and obviously he's emailing Paul about it. So he wrote that one. Presumably I would think he wrote the first one too but who knows. I mean that could have been just a fuck. They could have stolen that one too. Who knows. Can't nail it down. Who knows. But what we do know

is that when it did get published the 20th one someone else got a little update about that. Uh oh. This is an email from you to the Drudge Report correct? Oh no. Yes Drudge Report. And the subject line that you wrote was Bizarre Sandy Hook Dark Knight Rises Connection correct? Yes. And you wrote Infowars has exposed that a section of Gotham City was renamed Sandy Hook in the latest Dark Knight release

and you include a link to the story correct? Yes. And that was a story that you wrote. That's the one I wrote I believe yes. Okay. And that story was written and published six days after the Sandy Hook shooting correct? Yes. Okay. And you then ask Drudge will help us spread the news of this very strange coincidence correct? Yes. So at this point we have at very least Infowars has a story about this Batman thing three days after the

attack. Yeah. Then six days after the shooting there's another one that Adon has written. Yeah. Now he's trying to enlist the Drudge Report to disseminate it more widely. The argument that like they weren't pushing a lot of this stuff and they weren't responsible for the spread of it especially in the early days it flies very out the window in terms of the size of the reach that Infowars has at this time. Their active courting of Drudge the largest link aggregator in the right wing

maybe all of. Yeah. At the time it was like the biggest one. Yeah. The internet and then so that to me is like really damning. That email is pretty it's a bad look. Yeah. Yeah. I do. I could not be deposed this way that if you listen to the video of me being deposed if this was me it would just be like don't read it. Come on. Don't come on man. I know I sent it. You know I sent it. It's also fucked up because it's not like an interrogation where you can just confess.

Exactly. You can't just be like I did it. Yeah. Let's just move on. Make the trial fast. Let's make it over. Charge me whatever you want. I did it. No. No. No. No. We have more questions. No. No. Can't we be done. Can I just go to jail instead of talk to you anymore. So the reason that this is something that would be interesting to a Don Salazar. Now you might imagine that the obvious answer is because if somebody who worked on Batman that had already come out

had changed the name of this place on the map to Sandy Hook as some kind of a message and then later Sandy Hook happens. It would lead one to think maybe they did that as a message. There's this whole idea of predictive programming that is really big in Alex's coverage of stuff. So the argument here the shorthand is very clear that it's trying to argue for foreknowledge. There's no other way to unless you're a Don you could argue that it's not. Is he going to argue that there was a psychic power. No. Just a coincidence man.

Oh well then yeah. Yes. Mr. Salazar that the reason you were reporting on this is because the fact that a map location in the Dark Knight and the surprises had been changed to Sandy Hook caused you to suspect whether there had been some sort of advanced knowledge by somebody that the Sandy Hook shooting was going to take place. Correct? Conjection. I don't know if that was my belief at the time. I just thought it was a very bizarre strange coincidence that I thought needed to be highlighted.

Why did you think it needed to be highlighted and what relevance was it to your coverage. I think it's because if the name of a map changes on a movie you know when it's supposed to be something else and then Sandy Hook it changes to Sandy Hook and then something happens at a place called Sandy Hook in the same year that the movie is released. Right. It's a very bizarre coincidence. And so help me explain why that is relevant. It seems and correct me if I'm wrong

that what you are inviting your audience to consider is at all. Correct? Conjection to form. I wasn't inviting the audience to consider that. I was asking if maybe they perhaps thought the coincidence was bizarre too. I think I point out the fact that the prop manager of the movie lived in Sandy Hook maybe in one of the articles in Newtown Connecticut

and I thought that was all bizarre coincidence yes. I wasn't trying to tell the readers that it was a stage false flag. I was just trying to point out a bizarre coincidence. Just so we're clear here's the second paragraph of the article Adon wrote and sent to Drudge. Quote since that quote minor coincidence we've scoured the Batman movies and poured over various Gotham city maps to find anything that could support the theory that the movies may have had hints of foreknowledge of the tragic massacre that occurred last week because where there's smoke there's usually fire. Oh my god. What we found

is interesting to say the least. It seems like this isn't quite how he's describing his writing in this deposition. Jesus Christ. From the article it sounds like they were studying these maps searching for clues to prove that there was foreknowledge and that they found interesting stuff and where there's smoke there's usually fire. It seems pretty overt in its point I would say. Yeah. And Adon doesn't point out that the prop master was from Sandy Hook. He does bring up that there's a Sandy Hook in New Jersey but it's kind of a non sequitur between heavy insinuation of a conspiracy and then this quote for those who are left asking

why would someone do this. Okay. Alfred Pennyworth butler to Bruce Wayne says of an evil force in the Dark Knight movie some men aren't looking for anything logical like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with some men just want to watch the world burn. The article ends with this quote if you're enjoying spotting these bizarre coincidences and traveling down the road of curiosity with us stay tuned for tomorrow's scintillating revelation that some are saying is the smoking gun needed to tie the Dark Knight rises the Aurora massacre and the Sandy Hook tragedy

we guarantee it will leave you wondering exactly WTF is going on. Oh my god. That doesn't really seem like someone who's just saying hey isn't this weird? Just anytime I'm in a deposition I just want to make sure that I've never written the word guarantee. It's such a fucking shithead. That moment you say guarantee you're fucking up. I think that it's an interesting approach that Adon is taking and it's like because Maddie is asking like why is this relevant? Right. It's just something kind of interesting

it's a weird coincidence. Right. But it's only a meaningful coincidence if you're trying to argue X, Y or Z. Nope. And this when I told you about like this being like an incredibly frustrating kind of thing. Are we going to be here for a while? This seems to be a stumbling block. There are difficulties in getting Adon to admit at all that he was making a point. Okay. Adon what do you do as a writer? I just throw words out. I just say isn't this weird?

Whoa. Wackadoodleoo. But then you read the article and I say we have a scintillating revelation of a smoking gun tomorrow. I guarantee. So anyway, it's just coincidence stuff though. It's really just the pointing out coincidence. Oh, okay. I mean that really is like to the extent there would be any salience to the coincidence. It's that right. Define say that the fact that a map location in a movie had been changed to the name of a place where a shooting later occurred

could potentially be evidence that somebody involved in that movie had awareness that a shooting would later occur there, correct? Objection. I don't know what it signified. I just thought it was a bizarre coincidence that people should maybe look into. Okay. I highlighted it for the audience because I thought it was interesting and I thought they'd find it interesting as well. It's just a bizarre coincidence. It doesn't mean anything. I didn't know any suspicions about this. I wasn't trying to make a point. Adon, come on. Uh-oh. Come on, man. Unfortunately

he also had a Facebook account and this happened. I'm going to show you exhibit 8a. You actually posted your article to Facebook and that's exhibit 8a before you, correct? I see that, yes. Contrary to the testimony you just gave, which is you were just pointing out the coincidence you included commentary there that called the coincidence very fishy, correct?

Objection. It looks like it says that. Can you zoom in a little more? Yeah, that's the problem. Yeah, I put very fishy. Which you meant to so doubt about whether there was in fact foreknowledge on somebody's part of the shooting, correct? I'm just pointing out that it's a bizarre coincidence. I'm not trying to so doubt. Really? Pointing out that it's fishy?

Yeah, it seems like I'm pointing out that it's a bizarre coincidence. I don't know if I'm trying to so doubt. I think that Chris Maddie's delivery of that it seems fishy is just right on point because like that is the kind of thing that you could just repeat to somebody and you're shaming them. Yeah, it seems fishy. I wasn't trying to so doubt or make this look suspicious. When you said it seems fishy.

Yeah, I think that's one of the moments where a doll probably didn't think like well, you know, I didn't post anything. They don't have my Facebook. It is such like, of course, you're constantly surprised that they're bringing this up to you. You didn't research the things you did. Right. And you're used to working with a bunch of ding-dongs. You don't do anything. You don't understand like how the process of actual exploration might work. I mean, it really does feel like he's like, how did you get that?

No, it's public, man. You can find it anytime you want. Right. Crazy. It was fishy mean. It's more of an anomalous word, really. Have you seen fish? There's a lot of anomalous fish. I'll tell you what, that fish doesn't jive. So the next day after this, Don is working on another Sandy Hook conspiracy theory. On December 21st and this will be exhibit

number 11, you latched on to a different anomaly. Do you recall becoming aware that an online movie review of a movie entitled Sandy Hook lingerie party massacre had been published in the days prior to the shooting? Do you recall that? Yes. And you referenced an exhibit 11 but have not shown it. Correct.

You recall as you're sitting here without looking at an exhibit becoming aware of and interested in the fact that somebody had published an online review of this movie before the Sandy Hook shooting. Correct. I don't know about the review, but I was aware of the movie or something somehow across my path. Probably some dumb John Rappaport email, some dumb shit you saw on Reddit.

That lawyer should have been like when he was like, objection, you haven't shown exhibit 11. And he's like, correct. Oh, fuck. That means exhibit 11 is going to make my client look real dumb. Oh, no. Shit. Did you think that this movie was fishy? Yeah. So yeah, Don's working on this article about the lingerie party massacre and there's some emails. These have come up in other depositions where Don is emailing the guy who wrote the review, I believe. Sure. And discussing how like, hey,

you know, there's a bunch of people who are spreading a rumor that, you know, you were maybe at four knowledge of the attack. Sure. And we think that's dumb. Yeah. But we're going to write it anyway. Oh, no, that's a bad idea. Yeah. So it's always fun when in a deposition setting you get to make someone read their own email. Oh, don't make me read it. And here's how it goes. Don't make me read it. And I'm going to scroll down to the beginning of the email and I'll just go down so everybody can see this one page. And am I correct, sir, that you sent an email

on December 21st, seven days after the shooting to a Miss Gonzalez. Is that correct? Mr. Gonzalez. Yeah. Mr. Gonzalez. I'm sorry. Mr. Gonzalez. And your email reads actually, can you read it for me? There is an ambitious rumor that the date you posted your review of the Sandy Hook Laundry party massacre on your site, a slash above.com shows four knowledge or prior planning of the events that have taken place as of late

at first. And I include two links. At first we thought this was surely ridiculous. However, we're going to point it out in an article and we would like to give you the opportunity to provide a comment. I'm sorry. I think you missed a word there. You said you're going to point it out in an article anyway, right? Yes. I'm sorry. Wonder if that's an intentional omission on this part of reading it because the anyway there really is. The anyway is the darkest word. Yeah. Yeah. It is a word that it shows like

you're sending this person's an admission that you don't even believe the shit you're going to post. You're going to do it anyway. Yeah. The anyway is a shiv to your gut. Like that is what the anyway is for. But I don't understand the goal would be of not reading the word. I mean, it's there. Well, because you don't want to read it because the anyway really makes you sound like you just shiv to somebody in the gut. Maybe. It's a weird instinct. Don't make me read my own e-mail. I mean, again, I can't be deposed to the whiny voice. Don't make me read it. I would just say no, probably. Yeah.

You read it. Yeah. You do it. The arrest me. The email that he's sending involves a notion of foreknowledge because that's literally what he says in the email. So you might think that covering this story as a Don does is an attempt for him to cast dispersions on the reality of the shooting and imply that the audience maybe should consider that there's foreplaning foreknowledge. Yeah. Yeah. Nah, man. He wasn't making a point at all. I'm sorry. What?

He wasn't making a point. I'm sorry. What? But the rumor that you were informing Mr. Gonzalez of was that the fact that he had posted the review sometime in advance of the Sandy Hook shooting could be evidence that he was aware the shooting would take place, correct? I believe that's what I was questioning. And you thought that it was surely ridiculous at first, right? Yes. Yes. Why then if it was ridiculous, were you going to include it

in an article anyway? Because of just another bizarre coincidence that I found interesting that I thought our readership would find interesting. And the reason that you thought they would find interesting is because you were trying to highlight evidence for them suggesting that this was an event of which certain people had foreknowledge, correct? Objection. I wasn't particularly trying to highlight that there was an event that people had

foreknowledge of more so that I thought this was a weird anomaly that people should keep their eye on and maybe read about. Keep their eye on. This isn't furiating. That is wow. Yeah. Fuck you. This is kind of it reminds me a little bit of a child being like I'm not hitting you. I'm not hitting you like getting right in your face. I mean Jesus Christ. At a certain point just be like if you're going to play dumb

you're playing the wrong amount of dumb. This is dumb enough where I'm like you're fucking playing. You're an asshole. You've got to go way too far if you're going to try. You've got to be like holy shit that is the first time that I have thought of that connection. I can't believe I didn't consider that. Are you kidding me? You know what honestly now that you've brought that up to me that sounds like a crazy thing I did. Oh sorry. Now you know what it's weird that I completely unknowingly and accidentally speculated about that in the articles that you're asking me about. It is crazy. It is crazy. That's wild. Or like just

I don't know. Have like an entirely open mind and be like oh yeah that is what I was you're right that doesn't make sense. Yeah. I don't know maybe that's a bad road to go but there's no way to go. This one's just a very dumb. There's no good way to go but this is bad. So Maddie asks like these anomalies and stuff and actually this moment it actually it was revelatory for me because it was something that I'd never really thought about. You yourself weren't convinced at this point that the evidence you were collecting

established that somebody other than Mr. Lanz I had foreknowledge of the event. Correct? At the time I was still kind of I think I guess trying to convince myself to put the pieces together. Sorry what? For any of your coincidences to law enforcement did you? Yeah. I'd never thought about that. Wow. That if they took this stuff seriously why wouldn't they tell somebody in law enforcement? Why wouldn't they try to I mean obviously they don't believe any of this stuff. Right. But like

you know that would be something that you'd probably have some kind of at least moral obligation to do if you took any of this seriously. That's one of those things that when you're too close to stuff you can't see it but if you step back and you look at that it's so simple and it demolishes everything. Yeah. It's so simple. It's so taken for granted by us because of the like how long we've been doing this how much it's been repetitively borne out. Right. Like they don't take this seriously. Yeah we just know. Yeah. And so that isn't even like

a consideration. Yeah you're right. It just does like. What a great question. Yeah. If you really thought this wouldn't you at least talk to somebody. Yeah because it's very very serious. Well the implications of this are earth shattering so wouldn't you at least try. Right. And you can be like well no because the whole system is going to be like well that's not an excuse to not try. Especially not if you're using somebody who's a former cop or whatever as your person. Find somebody who's a former cop to like ease it into them or whatever. Rob do's uncle is a former FBI agent allegedly. Are you guys

that stupid. Yeah. Come on. Come on. Come on. Come on. Come on. Come on. So this next clip I really enjoyed this clip. Okay. It's a little longer but it has to be. And you were at this time aware that of allegations that one or more of the parents of Sandy Hook children were crisis actors. Correct. Yes. That's I heard the rumor at that point.

Yes. You heard the rumor. Did you believe it yourself at that point. I didn't really go into that so much as everybody else did could have been a factor but I wasn't really interested in trying to figure out whether they were crisis actors or not. You weren't interested in that. Not really. I didn't really matter to the case we were trying to make or prove or you know like

to any of the bizarre anomalies that I was writing about. Okay. Can you let me know and this will be exhibit number 12. Why on January 6, 2013 crisisactors.org I'm not sure why people listed on the site or something. Okay. You agree that exhibit number 12 is an

email from crisis actors that is a website to you asking for you to verify your address so you can sign into the crisis actors website. Correct. Okay. Get the balls off the table. Exactly. About three weeks. Yes. But your testimony here today is that you don't know why you did that. It looks like I was trying to investigate see if maybe one or maybe if they're listed as crisis actors on there. I don't know what

I was just trying to you know any avenue I can possibly investigate. I wanted to do my due diligence. I see you were. Wow. Your assumption is that you were trying to gain access to the site in the hope that you might be able to see if any of the crisis actors appearing on the website were the same as individuals who were family members of Sandy Hook victims. Correct.

At the time it looks like I was trying to figure out if any of the people involved in the Sandy Hook event were crisis actors. That's what appears. Yes. Including those correct. I'm not sure could have been anybody. I might have been looking into some guy that was you know just interviewed and you know what and what were the results of your query of the crisis actors website

honestly I cannot tell you because I do not remember. Okay. Really important information I got. Yeah. Got some expose level stuff and Maddie makes another great point after that and that is like well I mean if you'd gone on there and found somebody that was one of the Sandy Hook people you probably would have reported that right. Would have. Kind of the fact that you didn't kind of shows that maybe you didn't and you didn't report to your audience that you didn't find it did you know. Nope. Nope. It appears that do you

you said earlier today that you did not know why that assassin killed your wife. Now do you know why the day before you signed up for can an assassin kill my wife.org. I don't I don't know I mean look it was a long time ago I don't know I think I was just looking to see how assassins are doing these days. Are they making good money. What's their world like. Yeah. I've always wanted to interview an assassin. And as far as the day before it goes I think that's just a bizarre coincidence. Totally. Yeah

I gotta go. Oh my god. That's so fucking terrible. Yeah but that's that's a like pure comedy moment. The like I wasn't really that interested in the crisis actors stuff. Three weeks after the shooting you tried to join crisis actors. Yeah well I guess I did do that. There's just so many so many stepping on a rake moments. It's a bananas. Wow. So there's another conspiracy that was going around

that has to do with the idea that there was a fundraiser for Sandy Hook that was published before the shoot. Right. Right. Right. And so Don has to address this. On January 13th . Well you agree that you are the recipient of this email. Yes. And the sender Sean Knowles you know who that is.

I do not. Okay. The sender Sean Knowles in this email is encouraging you to go to a link where the link a Sandy Hook relief fund page appeared three days before the shooting. Correct. Yeah that's what Mr. Knowles seems to be pointing out in this email. Did you do anything

to investigate that. I might have clicked the link I can't recall you. Okay. And showing you exhibit number 13 a . Fair to say that this is an image of your Facebook account in which you shared the post concerning this issue of a Sandy Hook fundraising page being created three days before the shooting

. Yes sir. And you did that on January 11th 2013 right. Yes. Oh boy. Again. Oh boy. You didn't do anything to investigate whether in fact a relief fund had been created three days before the shooting. You just posted the link right. I posted a link to natural news on my Facebook. Yes. Okay. And you did that . This was another coincidence right. Is that how

you felt. The Google thing I wasn't too sure about since I knew how a little bit about how Google worked I wasn't so ready to you know follow that. How much do you know about how Google works. Anomaly. You were prepared to post about it but you weren't going to write an article about it. I was prepared to post it on Facebook for other people that might find it interesting. Yeah. So that's interesting because he's willing to spread this bullshit that he knows his bullshit. Yeah. He knows that this is nonsense but he's still more than willing to put it out as if it is.

Now the interesting thing is that was a fun trap because you've got this email where this guy is sending him an email on January 13th. Yeah. And he's like did you research this at all. Maybe I clicked the link. I don't know. He posted about it on Facebook two days prior. Oh that's so. That's not good. No Oh that's bad. There's a decent chance that this guy is emailing him about the article that Adon had posted on his Facebook. That same article might have been what spurred this email. Jesus. And he'd already admitted that

he didn't look into it. He didn't research it. I mean for one of the little pet peeves that I have and especially in situations like this is whenever it's like you can't say it seems like that's what he's doing. I'm giving you a thing that happened in the past that cannot be changed anymore. It is done. So this does not seem like he says this. He said this. Correct. Seems like it. So when they were talking about the Batman article that Adon had written, he said that he thought he mentioned

that the prop master was from Newtown. Right. And that was not true. He had mentioned that the New Jersey there's an island Sandy Hook. The reason that Adon thought that he brought up the prop master is because this became another big conspiracy for him. Oh. So basically the argument or the theory that goes around is that this guy Scott Getzinger is the name of the prop master. He died in a car wreck

prior to the release of the movie and prior to Sandy Hook. Right. So the theory that people had was that he was responsible for changing the name to Sandy Hook. And that's why they killed him. Exactly. Right. Because he knew too much. Right. Right. Which sort of raises the question of why he was still in the movie. Yeah. I mean if they knew that he did it but they also killed him for it and then they left it in anyways. Right. That seems silly. And it appears that Adon was pretty into this conspiracy. Right.

And so this is discussed a little bit here and boo. I don't know. You just can't. Adon is boring as a dodger. Yeah. Let's say this is am I correct Mr. Salazar another email that you sent this one to Elliott Brown. Yes sir. And you see that it's dated there January 28th 2013. Yes. And in this email you are

asking him if he's free for an honest journalist's question. Correct. Yes. And you're referring to yourself there. Correct. Even he laughed at that. Exactly. Even he laughed at that. Exactly. Fuck you. Yeah. Fuck you. And in the body of the email you ask him about the change in the title of the map in Dark Night Rises. And

you ask him about this gentleman Scott Getzinger who was the prop master according to you who passed away in a car accident. Correct. Yes. And so does this situate you in time that the time when you were inquiring about the death of Scott Getzinger was in January of 2013. Yes it looks like.

And the coincidence that you were referring to and we'll go back to your we'll go back to exhibit number 14. This is the email to Health or Interdirect was that Mr. Getzinger was associated with the movie The Dark Night Rises and he was killed in a car crash and lived in Newtown Connecticut. Correct. Yes. And you say what struck me as extremely odd is that

this dude hailed from you guessed it Newtown Connecticut. Right. Right. And then you say at the end definitely something fishy about it all. What was fishy about that somebody associated in the props department with The Dark Night Rises was from Newtown and it died in a car accident. Injection to form. I thought it was very odd

same year that this movie is put out and Sandy Hook has changed on a map something happens at a place called Sandy Hook. And what you were suggesting was that Mr. Getzinger's death was somehow due to the fact that he had knowledge about why the map had been changed. Objection. Honestly I did not have like a theory as to why Getzinger was if he was murdered or killed or why he died in the car accident.

I didn't really have an answer but it did seem like a strange anomaly worth pointing out. So there is this infuriating thing where it's just the way that Adon is presenting what Info Wars does is like I guess we're just a journalistic or media outlet where we post weird coincidences that mean nothing. That's I find to be an offensive characterization. It's silly. It's fishy.

You're done. You are theoretically a writer and you're trying to insist to me that words don't have meaning. This is a problem. More or less. And so Maddie makes this point and I think that this is important and that is that coincidences don't mean anything unless there's a point to them. No! You'd agree with me that if something is a mere coincidence meaning just happenstance then there's nothing

to note about it, correct? There's no relevance to noting it, right? Objection. Well there are big coincidences and little coincidences and I think some of the big coincidences deserve to be noted. Small ones probably not. And the reason they deserve what? Noted or investigated is because they signify that it may not be a coincidence at all, correct? Objection. I'm not sure what the coincidence would point to honestly.

It's just something that people have to look into on their own. What? It is relevant if it points to something. Right? Objection. Not necessarily. I think coincidences can be highlighted without them having a point to them. So your testimony is that when you're highlighting what you refer to as these coincidences you are not intending to suggest anything about what they signify. That's your

testimony? I'm trying to tell the reader that this is going on and it's kind of weird. What do you think about it? I think at the bottom of one of my articles I'm like, what do you think? Sound off in the comments below. So it's just kind of bringing this to people's attention. It's just what value is there to coincidence? That's the question you have to ask yourself. I think at that point I'd be like, Mr. Salazar, I am now going to bounce a tennis ball off your forehead every time you say something about your job that's

pants-shittingly insane. What are you talking about? Just coincidences, man. What are you talking about? You know that time that Info Wars ran a huge expose about how Carmen Electra's birth name was Terra Patrick and she couldn't use that name because it was already a porn star's name. Isn't that a interesting coincidence? That's a big coincidence. So we investigate that one. Not one of those little coincidences. Do you really think maybe you would run an article about how

some people have the same middle name? That's a coincidence? What do you understand the word coincidence to mean? No, I understand what you mean by big coincidences and little coincidences but that is not a description of their meaningfulness. That's insane. Yeah, I'm not sure you do know what he means by big or little coincidence because I'm not sure I do. Now that you say it like that, I know what I would mean by saying that but what he means I do not know. And I certainly feel for Chris Matty quite a bit because

there is just a real attempt to be like, come on, you're making a point. There's a point that you're trying to make. Words have to have meaning. And Adon will not go for it. Isn't it true, Mr. Salazar, that the reason you're highlighting what you claim are coincidences is because you want your audience to suspect that something like Sandy Hook, in fact, did not occur as has been reported. Isn't that your purpose?

My purpose is to point out the coincidences and let the reader make up their own minds. You have no interest then in suggesting to the reader what the relevance of the coincidence might be. That's your testimony? I think I present the evidence I gather for them and allow the reader to make up their own mind. We have one sort of coda here of the

Sandy Hook prop portion. We'll ride this out here. Exhibit number 16, this is your Facebook page correct, Mr. Salazar, in which you are posting on February 6, 2013 less than two months from the shooting something from Intel Hub concerning Sandy Hook and you post Google Scott Getzinger, correct?

And that's because you wanted people to discover the same nexus that you believed you had discovered between Mr. Getzinger's death, the map in the Dark Knight Rises and the Sandy Hook shooting, correct? Yes, I was pointing people to the anomaly. The anomaly which you've testified had absolutely no significance to you, correct? Objection.

I don't think I said it had no significance. I think I said it was a bizarre coincidence that people should be aware of. But that did not signify anything to you, correct? Well, it didn't signify that it was a staged mass shooting, but it did signify something very bizarre coincidence. What did it signify? It was just a bizarre coincidence that needed to be found. For what purpose? I'm not going to let this go, man. Look into it so they can investigate it on their own.

So they could investigate it on their own and potentially discover that in fact it wasn't a coincidence at all, but that Mr. Getzinger had been killed so as to silence him because he was aware that the change in the Sandy Hook map signified some advanced knowledge of the shooting, correct? Objection. I'm not sure what they would discover. Honestly, it was very strange that I was putting it out there. I wanted them to Google Scott Getzinger and

see all the anomalies, yes. It happens. Just Google it. See what you find. Maybe you'll find some of his other work from his storied career in other movies like the Truman Show. Maybe that's a good reason to Google him to see the work that he's done over the course of his career. What's his IMD page? Oh boy. I mean, it's infuriating. I don't know Chris Maddie personally as I know some of the Texas

attorneys, but I get the sense that maybe he enjoys that back and forth a little bit. It does seem a little bit like that. There is a like, aha. How about this one? How about we try these words? Right. So there is a meaning to this for you. Right. It's a coincidence that people should look into. Look into and find what? What? Come on, man. Alright, you're not going to. Okay, frontal assault isn't going to work for you. I'm going to go around the back. Let's see about this one. No. Okay. Alright. So a lot of this stuff is fairly

annoying, certainly. Yes. But there is some like positivity that comes in. Unfortunately, it's positivity in the worst possible way. Sure. You received an email. Did you not in March or March 7th of 2013 from Daniel Dupont? Okay. And Mr. Dupont wrote to you, please stand top of the story. No names of deceased to be released, etc. The attack appears to be completely staged. The public knows that they are being lied to.

And you wrote back to him. Thank you for the encouragement. Jesus Christ. Come on, man. And you point to a YouTube video that Info Wars had published in January, correct? Yeah, it looks that way. Boy, I would regret responding to a random email like that at this point. That would be like, I didn't have to write back to that. He didn't give us a true moment, though. A true moment of comedy where he was like, yeah, I don't think I read that one. And he's like,

let's see the reply that you sent to them. Yeah. Wow. Wow. So now we finally get to conversation about Wolfgang Halbig and his role in all of this and how Adon first learned about him. One of the articles you wrote introduced the Info Wars audience to Wolfgang Halbig, correct? Yes. How did you first learn of Mr. Halbig? I heard he was interviewed

and I went and listened to the interview on American Free Press. You were interviewed on American Free Press? Not sure. Did you recall when that was? No, I'd have to look at the date on the article. Let me show you what has been marked as exhibit 19B. You see an email from Tom Bastion

to you? Tom Bastion. Could you bet this guy? And yes, it's legit. Ask Alex to bring him on as a guest. Okay. I have no idea. And you understood Mr. Bastion to be asking you to vet Wolfgang Halbig, correct? Yes, it looks like that. Some February of 2014. Yes, sir.

But you don't know who Bastion is. No. So this interview on the American Free Press was released on February 11, 2014. So the email from Bastion asking Adon to vet him came the next day. It's probably not unreasonable to assume that Adon heard about the interview from this email unless he was closely monitoring everything put out by the AFP. Yeah. It's really good that Adon seems to not know who did that interview because if he did, he'd have to say that it was Dave Gehry, friend of David Dukes, who actually was the publisher of Jim Fetzer's

book, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook. Ooh, Nazi shit. Well, and the guy who published that book that you're not supposed to really know all that much about. He was the guy who was interviewing Wolfgang Halbig that brought Halbig to the attention of Infowars. Actually, I was looking around on Gehry and he recently has made some comments about like, I think I might be responsible for Alex and Wolfgang Halbig getting sued. Yeah, maybe. Yeah, that's possible.

It could be you. So even leaving aside who this interviewer was, American Free Press is a rag that was founded by Nazi and general white supremacist Willis Carter, which has a strange trend of Holocaust deniers as writers. So it's not a great sign that this is where Adon was cruising to get new guests, particularly ones he's going to use to inflict severe trauma on the parents of murdered children. Yeah, maybe do better. Yeah, that's not good. I would tip for depositions, ask how many exhibits there are, like get as much information as you can beforehand.

And in fact, I would say even prepare, because then when you go in see this goes back to the first clip. Yeah, prepare a little more. You don't run into this and now let's go to exhibit 19 shit, you know, you know what exhibits are coming. That's what's important. That's what my pro tip. Sure. Pro tip. Sure. Yeah. Oh, yeah, or like just be aware that you tried to sign up for crisisactors.org before you say I wasn't interested in crisis actors. You really got to know what websites you signed up for that are exactly the thing that you shouldn't have. Yeah.

So, Adon, having heard this American Free Press interview, you felt the need to vet Wolfgang. Sure. Showing you exhibit 19 again. Um, where Mr. Halbig says down here in this paragraph, I think it's a scripted event that took place. I think it was in planning for maybe two, two and a half years. Yes.

Okay. And that was Mr. Halbig's allegation, correct? Yes. Now the idea that a mass shooting at which 20 children were killed and six educators were killed have been scripted and planned for two and a half years in advance is a serious charge, correct? Correct. And you knew it was a serious charge at the time. A serious charge, yes. And that's why you felt like you needed to

establish Mr. Halbig's credentials, right? Objection. I think it's good to establish anyone's credentials if you're writing about them. But you agree with me that you did not do that in every article in which you reported what somebody else was saying, correct? I don't check credentials for everybody I write about, yes. But you did for Mr. Halbig? Yes. And the reason you did it is because you knew that these allegations were particularly serious. Objection.

I thought he was bringing to the table some important information that only a school safety consultant could provide. Did it occur to you? How families who had lost loved ones at Sandy Hook would react to an allegation that in fact their children were murdered in an event that was scripted and planned over two and a half years? Did that occur to you? Objection. I didn't

think about that. Why would you? Yeah, I mean, they're not real. They're not real people. See, I am in Austin, Texas working for Infowars and they are not there. Right. It's solipsism. Yep. Also, people might have heard what sounded like a gasp. That was you hiccuping. You did not have... I did not gasp. I hiccup. Yeah. So the vetting process pretty light. Almost like the vetting process to get hired at Infowars. It turns out there's parallels here. You googled it?

Other than visiting the website, which you acknowledge Mr. Halbig may have put up himself and reviewing the interview, did you do anything further to investigate the claims that he made relating to the threatening conduct of law enforcement officers and the scripted nature of the Sandy Hook event? No, I didn't. I just published what he said in the interview. Why? And you're aware that shortly after you published this article,

Mr. Halbig appeared on the Infowars broadcast. You're aware of that? I think I recall yet. Probably a coincidence. Yeah. Bizarre. Yeah. So he did a little looking around. Yep. He looked at a website that maybe Halbig put up himself. Yeah. Well, I mean... Listen to that interview. If it's on the internet, you can trust it unless it's the mainstream media. He said bingo. Let's go. Looks good. Yeah. And then a guy named Robert

Heath sent an email to Infowars that said, hey, this guy looks shady. Maybe check into his credentials a little bit. Maybe don't do this. And Adon wrote back to him and said, hey man, it looks like he's got plenty of credentials. Oh my God. You're being too unspecific. Oh my God. And so Heath wrote him back and had a long list of things that were of concern. Right. We've talked about this on a bunch of the deposition episodes because it's come up in the corporate reps and with Alex. And so he didn't want to do like play it

all over again. But we got this discussion about the email here. So Mr. Heath followed up in his email to you with the results of inquiry he had made online about Mr. Halbig's past, correct? Here's that way, yes. Okay. And it seems as though he did according to his email quite a bit more than you did to investigate Mr. Halbig's background, correct?

I wouldn't say he did more, but it looks like he did ample research. Well, all you did was visit one website that Mr. Halbig himself may have created, correct? He may have created it. I think I did a little bit more searching, but I think it was mainly based off of that one website. Okay. Your testimony earlier today was that it was just the website. Are you expanding that now to testify that you think you may have done other searches? Objection. I don't recall what kind of searches I did for Mr. Halbig's information other than that website, but it's possible

that I did do more research other than what I stated I did. I'd like to stipulate that I might have done something. Yeah, that makes you look way better. Yeah. I did this bad thing, but I might have done... I will say if I were in a Don's position and the lawyer asks is it fair to say that this guy, random guy emailing you did more work than you on the story you're doing? Yeah. If my lawyer didn't then object, I'd be furious. Yeah. That would be a position where I would... you're getting fired. You're getting hanging out to dry. That's what's happening

if your lawyer's like, yeah, answer that question, buddy. So these emails come in warning about Halbig's credentials, right? And as it turns out, I mean Halbig just kept coming back on the show. Yeah. Did Mr. Heath's email to you in which he expressed concern that he was not able to find information concerning Halbig's activities, professional activities caused you to question whether Mr. Halbig could be

relied upon? I think the point he's bringing up are valid. And yeah, I think it probably maybe made me question. I can't recall how I felt at the time. Okay. In fact, you don't even recall receiving this email, correct? It's been so long. It's been nine years. So no, I definitely don't recall receiving this email. And you don't recall whether you raised Mr. Heath's concerns with anybody else it enforced. Is that correct?

I don't recall doing that either. Yeah. If you had, do you suspect you would have forwarded Mr. Heath's email along to whoever you wanted to notify about it? Yes, I probably would have, yes. Okay. And whatever you may have done or not done in response to this email, Mr. Halbig continued to appear on InfoWars after March 15, 2014, correct?

I believe that's the case, yes. And you don't recall whether you did any additional vetting of Mr. Halbig yourself in response to receiving this email, correct? I don't believe I did any vetting after this email now. Wow, that certainly shows that you care. Ah, Mr. Medi, I think you misunderstood our process here. You see, what we did was we used him because his narrative bolstered our own credibility and that was so we could make money. Oh no, now I see why we're in trouble. And honestly, at the time, we kind of figured that if anybody was going to get in

trouble, it would be him. Yeah, we thought we were off the hook. Yeah, we kind of thought we were going to be able to throw him under the bus. I'm going to throw this out here. Screwed up. We're not good at law. I mean, based on their choice of lawyers. Yeah. They real bad at law. Yeah, fine. Yeah. So there is clear evidence that there were people who are raising concerns that Don had heard because he did respond to that email. Yeah, that's an issue about Wolfgang Halbig's credibility. But there

were other people, maybe even in fours employees who were saying you gotta gotta be careful here. Other than Mr. Heath, did anybody else ever warn you about relying on Mr. Halbig in your reporting on Sandy Hook? Maybe. I can't recall possibly. Do you know an individual named Robert Jacobson? Yes, Robert Jacobson. How do you know Mr. Jacobson? He was a video producer for Alex.

Okay. Did your work intersect at InfoWorst? He was down the hall for me once in a while, we'd chat. When did he leave InfoWorst? Do you recall? Maybe 2017 or 2018? And was he at InfoWorst when you started in 2012? Yes. Okay, so you were colleagues for five, six years? Yes, sir.

Did you have a friendly relationship with Mr. Jacobson? Yes, I did. Are you in touch with him today? I mean, not really, but do you communicate with him? I don't. Did Mr. Jacobson ever advise you with his concerns about relying on Mr. Halbig as a source for reporting that Sandy Hook was a scripted event? Mr. Jacobson I think did raise concerns, but I didn't really regard them because Mr. Jacobson has some wild theories about a lot of things.

Oh, he does. He has wild theories. Amazing. Wild theories. That's amazing. Truly an incredible thing for a human being to say in the context within which he's telling it. Yeah, he's telling me that maybe I shouldn't listen to this wacko about Sandy Hook being fake, but I don't listen because he's got weird theories. He's a wacko. Mike down for this because we get into what those theories are. Oh, no. And this is really unfortunate for Adon. Your testimony is that Mr. Jacobson raised concerns about Mr. Halbig's credibility, but that you

ignored those concerns because he has he tends to have wild ideas. Yeah, he thinks Michelle Obama is a man, so I mean, for one. So. And you've actually posted on your own social media suggesting that Michelle Obama is a man having you. I've gone along with that conspiracy theory, yes. You've actually posted a picture of Mr. and Mrs. Obama kissing and saying essentially Happy Gay Pride Day, correct?

I might have done that. I don't remember. So I guess you don't think that Mr. Jacobson's view of that is quite as wild, right? You share it. I think I entertained the theory, but I don't I don't espouse the theory. In any event, you discounted Mr. Jacobson's warning because you believe he held views like that. Mr. Jacobson wasn't completely credible in my opinion,

but he did give the warning and I didn't think much of it, honestly. So the best way you can really interpret this and I mean, otherwise it's something that I couldn't even imagine translating. But the best way I can figure is what Adon is saying is that Rob actually believes this thing. Whereas I'm willing to post this like trolling shitpost meme about it in order to push my transphobic and homophobic ideology.

I'm willing to use something that I don't even come close to believing because it spreads the hate that I want to spread. Whereas Rob is crazy because he actually believes this. That's as close to making sense of this as I can. Yeah, it does appear that he is saying that Rob is crazy for believing the things that I say. Yeah, the things that we promote and make money off of. You might actually believe this stuff and that's worrying. So see, the thing is, the thing is you got to see Mr. Maddie. The thing you got to know is none of us actually believe the

shit that we say and Rob does. So that guy's crazy. I was invested in spreading Sandy Hook conspiracy theories and implying that it's fake because I needed to attack the event as a way to get around the obligation to make arguments in favor of guns being everywhere. Because of the liberals. I have a kind of second order interest in it. Whereas I'm actually just manipulating the audience into thinking these things are real. These concerns are real. Again, in order to make money, Rob kind of believes this stuff. Wow.

It seems like that's one of the readings you could make of this. Well, there's another one, I think, and that is that it's another rake in the face. And you're just sort of punch drunk from the rake. You're like, I don't fucking know. How am I supposed to respond to this? What am I going to say? Why didn't I listen to this guy's warning? Because I didn't. What do you want? Well, no. And like, how would Adon expect that Maddie has knowledge of this thing he posted on Facebook? Right. Right. He didn't expect that. No, of course not. He thought he was going to get away with

saying something that would be offensive to most people. This belief that Rob allegedly has. And then they'd be like, Oh, that is a crazy idea that Rob has. Maybe you have demonstrated that he is not trustworthy. But instead he gets confronted with you believe the same thing. I mean, it's just it is just amazing. Yeah, it's just amazing for a human being to be. Yeah. Yeah. And it's even more amazing because Rob, when he was there raising these concerns about Wolfgang, Adon decided that

the best course of action would be to make fun of him. Oh my God. Your general recollection that he raised concerns about relying on Mr. Halbig as a source for the claim that that Sandy Hook was scripted. I believe I brushed it off. I might have poked fun at him for saying that. Did you report his concerns to anybody else at Info Wars? No.

Do you recall saying in his presence that you wanted to have t-shirts and bumper stickers made and have printed on those t-shirts and bumper stickers? Halbig was right. Did you want to take any steps to have those t-shirts or bumper stickers made? No. Did you say that because you believed in fact Mr. Halbig was right? I tend not to like throw my beliefs behind everything fully so

it's potential that he could have been correct and I just know that it was getting under Jacobson's craw to say that he was right so I kind of threw that in there as a joke but also half serious. See, it's a joke but it's also kind of serious. Oh my God. I'm kind of making this point but it's also a joke. I want to have entire plausible deniability about this stuff but I also really want the benefits of people thinking that I'm serious about it when they're available. How is it that a human being

can lay out this clear a pattern of behavior that you engaged in that is so obviously everything wrong and not be like now I get it? Right. Well because you know going in that what you're doing is full of shit. Yeah, exactly. I think that that moment of the constant banging your head against the wall of you had these things that you were bringing up about anomalies

but you weren't making a point. You didn't have a conclusion of the foreknowledge. If he realized the thing that was laid out about 9-11 at the beginning of the like I had anomalies and it made me think that the government did it. Totally. You know like there should be a moment where it's like ah fuck. Yeah, absolutely. That's what I want. I just want that moment. Like with Norm dropping his bullshit. To me that's the moment that I really want is when you have to finally admit that you're an idiot. And I have boxed myself in. Exactly.

I can't exist in this space and make any sense. Totally. You did this to yourself. A decade of working at Info Wars causes no problems because no one gives a shit. No one is monitoring your work. I've never been asked to follow up question in my life. Integrity and the point doesn't matter. Nope. But yeah when you're when you're asked follow up questions when you're in a place where people don't believe you're nonsense. You can't do it. It's hard. Yeah. Also this was really funny. I mean it's not funny because the result

of it but being said to Adon is very funny. Okay. Up until we recently you had a pinned tweet to the top of your Twitter account which was a link to your first ever article about Wolfgang Halbig introducing him to the Info Wars all right it's correct. I don't recall a pinned tweet about Halbig but maybe I don't I don't know why I'd be publishing that on Twitter in 2018 or 2019. Okay. Good question. Showing you exhibit number 19a.

Oh my god. This is the page of your Twitter account correct? Yes. Okay. And you joined in September 2017 right? Okay. Yes. And then you have a pinned tweet at the top of your account which according to the page was posted on April 17th 2018 correct? Oh my god. Yes. Okay. And you can

see the partial headline there school shooting expert threatened over Sandy Hook that's the first article you ever wrote concerning Mr. Halbig correct? Yes that's it. So at least as of 2018 you were leading your Twitter landing page with an article in which Mr. Halbig referred to Sandy Hook as a scripted event correct? Objection. It appears I pinned the tweet to the top of my Twitter account

on April 17th 2018. And the pinned tweet linked to an article in which Mr. Halbig referred to Sandy Hook as a scripted event correct? Yes the article is about it's the one we covered earlier. Well I guess I did do that. Why did I post that article in 2018 and pin it as my top tweet on my

account? Mr. Maddy I'm starting to see a pattern of behavior here so you ask me a question then I answer it and then whenever I answer it you pull out an exhibit proving the opposite or at least something different from what I said. Is it too late for me to blame this on them not training me? How have you considered telling me what your exhibits are before you ask the question? Then I will be able to answer truthfully. So you have one last thing that comes up one last line of

questioning that has to do with Adon writing the FBI says no one was killed at Sandy Hook. An article that was one of the most popular stories ever drove a massive spike in traffic went all over social media. It was a huge thing for Infowars. And yeah it was all just based on a one table from a report that Adon found somehow I guess. In your article in which you reported that the FBI

had reported zero murders in Newtown for 2012. You cited a table eight from that report correct? Do you recall that? It might have been table eight. Okay and I'm going to pull that up for you that's 25B. And I'll acknowledge Mr. Salazar that because of the way this was PDFed

is kind of partly cut off on the left side but we'll be able to see what we need to see. You recall this the look of this graphic header you included that in your article did you not? Yes. And if you go down to page to the Newtown row now I can see that the N is cut off but if we can just accept for purposes of this that this is the Newtown row you see that zero

are reported in that particular row for murders and non-negligent manslaughter for that year correct? Yes I see that. And that was the quote anomaly you were reporting on right? Yes. But you didn't look in any other part of the report to see if the deaths that occurred in Newtown at the Sandy Hook shooting were in fact reported in another section did you? Injection. I didn't think there would be another term for

what happened at Sandy Hook. A murder would encompass the whole thing so no any further for other definitions or other places and you didn't look any further to see whether those murders were reported under a different law enforcement organization that had jurisdiction to investigate them correct? Injection. I only was reporting on what the FBI was saying in this report. Well that's what I'm asking. Good question. This report

wasn't just table eight correct there were other parts of the report. Did you know that? Injection. I figure there's one through seven at least of you know table eight so we're on one through seven and exist probably somewhere. And you didn't think to look for table nine or table ten or any other tables right? Injection. I think my story was mainly about table eight so I didn't go through the entire list of tables that the FBI has.

So I was listening to this and it just kind of struck me how clearly this demonstrates that there's no curiosity because curiosity isn't useful for someone like Adon. Like when your job is to write a story about a predetermined thing curiosity is just going to get in the way. In order to do the work that he has done and is doing you have to actively not ask questions. You have to actively not question events. You're branding yourself

in some way as like we're out there you know we're questioning things. But this is literally not asking questions. It's stopping yourself from asking natural questions that one would have upon finding information. It's wild. I don't understand how they can't understand not that they don't understand it but I don't understand how they can't see how transparent that is. Well what's interesting to me about that is I feel like it's very similar to why they're so susceptible

to being trapped in these depositions is because the way their brain thinks is they go into the forest they get their apple and then they go back home. You know like you could put an apple underneath a box and I'm talking about this now in real life. You could put an apple underneath the cardboard box with a little thing attached and they be trapped every time. They go in there they grab the apple they be like ooh good apple and then they be trapped. It wouldn't be hard. They don't think clearly well words all of the things they don't think them.

Yeah I just I wonder if it is just the thing of like no one cares in their lives so why would they think that anybody else would see through the fake game that they're playing. Yeah if he did have curiosity somewhere deep within him I really feel like his answer to those would be like oh that would be a good idea to look for a table nine. Right ironically I'm curious about this lack of curiosity and that

is absolutely not a healthy place to be. Where does it come from? Yeah but he really only was interested in that table because it made his argument. He got an apple. Yeah. You only went to the one table that a tipster pointed out to you correct? I'm Jackson. I only went to the table that showed there were zero deaths in Utah. Right but you had to have a reason to know that that's what that table showed and I think your testimony was that a tipster had provided it to you correct? It was either a tip or something I found on social media yet. Okay

and you only wanted to go to that table because that's the table that reported zero deaths right? That's the only table that pertained to the story I was writing. Yes. Well the story you were writing reported that the FBI reported zero deaths in Newtown correct? Yes and that's why the point is a table eight showing that it showed zero deaths in Newtown. And what you were conveying to your audience was this is an anomaly. If there had been

deaths in Newtown you would expect the FBI to have reported them correct? We're trying. Yes. Back down. What you didn't point out was that the FBI did in fact report them in a separate table in the same report correct? Objection. Mischaracterized with the evidence. You didn't point that out did you? I wasn't aware that the FBI had reported the deaths elsewhere I don't know why they would not list the deaths where it says murders in Newtown zero. You don't know why they might do that correct? It seemed like it should all be listed in the table eight. And where

did you ask or make any inquiry about whether those deaths may have reported elsewhere in the same report correct? I didn't ask the FBI if that's what you're asking. You didn't ask anybody? No. This is a dangerously uncurious and unserious person. That's insane. Yeah. That's bananas. I feel like he's now a completely unique person to me. I don't know how this person exists. Like how do you tie your shoes? My god!

Did you think that there could be a table nine or they could report it anywhere else? I don't know why they would. You can answer that question. You can go be like why would you and then find the answer. Things that you don't know if they aren't necessarily in your interest, it's a dead end. There's no reason to explore this because the only thing you could possibly find ruins the ability to use this for your purposes. Which is what they won't just come out and say. But it's pretty obvious.

If I looked any further I would find out that I'm lying and I don't want to do that because I want to plausibly deny that I'm lying. I would get past the point of plausible deniability and then we're in trouble. Like these emails you keep reading back to me. So speaking of emails, I'm going to skip this next clip because it's long and honestly I only kept it in for one reason and it's because there's an email that he sent to his cousin that was about these cyclists who were going from town to Washington to bring attention to gun legislation. And he sent an article about it and the subject

headline was fuck these cyclists. That's pretty good. I'll take that one. But it's a long clip. We can skip it. So the subject comes up as we're dismounting here of a documentary that Infowars had promoted called We Need to Talk About Sandy Hook. And here is Adon's sense of what happened there. Are you familiar with the documentary We Need to Talk About Sandy Hook?

I believe I tried to get through it. It was so long that I probably just got through 30 minutes worth of it or something. Yeah. Fair. I'm familiar with the documentary. Okay. And anything to do with making that documentary? Did you? No, sir. Did you promote that documentary on your social media platforms? I might have. I can't recall.

Do you know what Infowars ever promoted that documentary? I believe I wrote an article about it when it was taken off of Fimeo or something. Other than that, I don't think we promoted it. I just read about why it was censored. Okay. Did you express your own disagreement with the fact that

certain platforms had chosen not to publish it? Well, I did write an article about it. I don't know if I expressed a personal opinion on that article. Did you know at the time that We Need to Talk About Sandy Hook documentary presented the view that Sandy Hook did not in fact occur? I figured that was a central tenet of the documentary, but I didn't watch it in its entirety.

So I kind of had to just guess that that was what they were going for. Okay. And you reported that in your coverage of the band? I believe so. Okay. On December 2nd, 2014, Infowars posted the video of this documentary on their site with the sub-headline quote, documentary blows the lid off suspected Sandy Hook cover-up. The article includes this, which sounds pretty laudatory. Quote, a loose coalition of concerned citizen journalists known as the Independent Media Solidarity have produced an in-depth, well-researched documentary

regarding the countless anomalies, inconsistencies, and discrepancies evident in the Sandy Hook School shooting investigation. The video is a tell-all leave-no-stone, unturned work that coalesces hundreds of data points which researchers laboriously spent countless hours compiling. That certainly sounds like what you might write if the video was too long, you couldn't even make it through the whole thing, and you can't even really nail down what the point of it was. Also, the article includes this update. Quote, a previous version of this video was removed from YouTube due to a copyright claim by Lenny Posner.

Posner is reportedly the parent of one of the children supposedly killed at Sandy Hook. Reportedly and supposedly, both in that sentence. It's pretty over. Pretty over. Go fuck yourself. Wow. The article that a Don wrote makes himself look quite a bit worse. Yeah, man. He should have watched the last 10 minutes of that documentary because they go ha ha ha ha ha. Fooled ya. We were just doing this to fuck with Rob Jacobson. Yeah, this is all to fuck with Rob. Maddie is done with his questioning, and unlike some of the other depositions

here at the end, the defense lawyer asks a couple questions. The first one has to do with that only using table eight of the FBI's stats. There were some questions about this table eight. At the time you reviewed table eight back in 2014, did you have any reason to doubt that the number for Newtown as zero was accurate? Yeah, that's bullshit.

Don absolutely had reason to question the interpretation of the table given here because the rest of the world was saying that these kids it did in fact die. There is a direct contradiction here and any curious person would see that table and it wouldn't even really be a choice to question things. It would just be a reaction. You'd start asking yourself things like how is this possible? Is there information I'm missing? What's the context here? Is it possible for both this table to be accurate and the shooting happened as was reported? The not questioning is actually a choice Don is

making and he does that because if he scratched even an inch below the surface he couldn't make the insane claims that he does make for a living. He's woefully unqualified and doesn't have the tools to be in the role he pretends to be in which is that of a writer and reporter. That ability to turn off the instinct to question things when something conforms to your narrative while simultaneously yelling at your audience about how you're the people who question things, that ability actually makes him perfectly qualified to be an in-house liar at InfoWars. So he better hope they don't go out of business because there's not many other games in town. Yeah, that's the way

they are, but they don't pay well. No, no. See, see, see, the problem is, alright, I just misread it. I didn't know it was table 8. I thought it was table infinity. So of course I didn't think there were 1 through 7. This is all the tables. Yeah, I didn't think there were imaginary number tables. Yeah, come on man. So here's the last clip. The defense lawyer also has a question about his research that he did about the qualifications presented by Wolfgang Halbig. Yeah, let's hear this. Switching over to Mr. Halbig, there was some, you don't have to have that open anymore.

There was some discussion of an email you received questioning his credentials. Do you recall that? Yes, I recall that. Now, when you first wrote about Mr. Halbig, you referenced one website, but was that necessarily the entirety of your research? I can't recall how much research I did. I know that one website did probably provide a majority of the credentials that I accredited to him.

But is it possible you could have come across say Orlando Sentinel articles from the 90s referring to him as a director of security for seminal schools? Could you have come across in the L.A. Times mentioning him in the late 90s, early 2000s? Objection. It's possible, sir. This is fishy. Oh man. This sort of behavior. I love it. Is it possible that you could testify better here, use this?

Okay. Excuse me, my own witness, could you do a better job? Let me give you an up. Jesus Christ. You would be a better answer for you. Wow. If you had prepared for that, then you would have had that in the can. Maybe. If your lawyer knows that, then you should know that. Oh, you'd hope. Why is this hard? I feel like this is not that hard. Yeah. So we reached the end of this deposition of Adan Salazar. And like I said, this

peeled away a bit of the mystique around him and sort of I don't know, a sense of menace that I felt about his body of work. Certainly, I think he's defanged a little bit in my mind. Yeah. It's like if the Wizard of Oz was revealed to be a puddle of manace that could handle a lever. Yeah. Maybe part of it was just because he was the one who was following us and then maybe that is kind of part of the menace that I felt. I mean, whatever the case, I feel like the way

he answers questions, the way this is all processed is very sad. Transparent and I think unnecessary. He didn't have to answer any of these questions this way. Nope. Nope. Nope. He clearly has an interest in the company. Like he's a company guy. Like Paul I think, you know, we covered his deposition and certainly I hate Paul Joseph Watson but we weren't as cruel about that because he comported himself decently. Yep. This was

you know, there's, there is obviously more actions that a Don Salazar took in the past that are relevant to this case and that is unique for his position as some being deposed. But there is such a refusal to accept reality. Yeah. In the like, no, I wasn't making a point. It's just a weird coincidence. Stop it. Stop it. Like that stuff is a come on man. You're a child. It makes you lose a little bit of respect even as a villain. Yeah. In my mind that you

can't, you can't just be like, yeah, this is what I was thinking at the time. I found out I was wrong and you know, whatever. Right. There's a way to do this that isn't like completely disqualifying and he failed to reach that standard. It is like he was trying to half lie about everything. Like I'm going to try and obfuscate just enough. Like, yeah, I'll say yes or no, but whenever they want to get me on something, I'll be like, I don't recall or something like that. But then there's the accidental revelations of like it was my vested interest in questioning the reality of Sandy Hook had to do with my fear of

them using it against the guns. Yep. Like there's stuff like that that's just like, damn. You can't be real. How can you be so slippery about a bunch of these other things and then just give that one? Give it away. Give it all away. It's very weird. Wild. Anyway, we have a bit more where this came from. Oh yeah. There's some more depositions that'll be coming up in the future because that's bottom feeders. We gotta do it. We love feeding on the bottom. Yeah. I mean, there isn't quite, I mean, immediately after being called a bottom feeder to then talk about a Don Salazar, Salazar doesn't

make me feel great, but you know, there are worse things. Sure. Anyway, I mean, we'll be back with another episode in the near future. Indeed. But until then, we have a website. We do. It's KnowledgeFight.com. Yep. We're also on Twitter. We are on Twitter. It's at knowledge underscore fight. And someone's been fighting. No. I hate him so much. I hate him. We'll be back. But until then, I'm Neo. I'm Leo. I'm DZX Clark. I run a cooperative in my brain

where people are free to squat. You know, it's an artist space. Sure. Rent is not really so much a thing where I charge rent. Right. Barter is acceptable. Right. I don't know what I'm saying. And now here comes the sex robots Andy in Kansas. You're on the air. Thanks for holding. Hello, Alex. I'm a first time caller. I'm a huge fan. I love your work. I love you.