00:00:02
Speaker 1: Bye.
00:00:04
Speaker 2: Bye.
00:00:16
Speaker 3: Dan and Jordan, I am sweating.
00:00:19
Speaker 4: Knowledgefight.com. It's time to pray. I have great respect for Knowledge Fight. Knowledge Fight. I'm sick of them posing as if they're the good guys, saying we are the bad guys. Knowledge Fight.
00:00:30
Speaker 3: Dan and Jordan.
00:00:31
Speaker 4: Knowledge Fight. Need money.
00:00:33
Speaker 3: We're out of work.
00:00:39
Speaker 4: Andy in Kansas. Andy in Kansas.
00:00:42
Speaker 5: Stop it.
00:00:43
Speaker 2: Andy in Kansas.
00:00:43
Speaker 3: Andy in Kansas.
00:00:45
Speaker 6: Andy in Kansas.
00:00:46
Speaker 7: It's time to pray.
00:00:47
Speaker 4: Andy in Kansas.
00:00:48
Speaker 6: You're on the air.
00:00:48
Speaker 7: Thanks for holding.
00:00:49
Speaker 4: Hello, Alex.
00:00:49
Speaker 2: I'm a first-time caller.
00:00:51
Speaker 4: I'm a huge fan.
00:00:52
Speaker 7: I love your work.
00:00:53
Speaker 6: Knowledge fight.
00:00:54
Speaker 2: Knowledgefight.com. I love you.
00:00:59
Speaker 7: Hey, everybody. Welcome back to Knowledge Fight. I'm Dan.
00:01:01
Speaker 3: I'm Jordan.
00:01:02
Speaker 7: We're a couple dudes. Like to sit around, worship at the altar of Selene, and talk a little bit about Alex Jones.
00:01:07
Speaker 3: Oh, indeed we are, Dan.
00:01:08
Speaker 7: Jordan.
00:01:09
Speaker 8: Dan.
00:01:09
Speaker 2: Jordan.
00:01:09
Speaker 3: I have a quick question for you tonight.
00:01:12
Speaker 7: Yes.
00:01:12
Speaker 3: What's your bright spot today?
00:01:13
Speaker 7: We are recording a little bit later in the evening. It's not night, though.
00:01:18
Speaker 3: Well, it gets dark in Chicago now at 4.
00:01:20
Speaker 7: I'm pushing 40, so maybe 5 o'clock is night. I don't know. But my bright spot, I have dual bright spots.
00:01:26
Speaker 3: You got dual.
00:01:27
Speaker 7: Well, one is just looping back to one of yours, which was the Fire Emblem Engage. I've had a chance to play a bit of it, and I'm hype. Hype?
00:01:35
Speaker 3: You're hype again.
00:01:36
Speaker 7: I'm back to hype.
00:01:37
Speaker 3: Fully hype.
00:01:38
Speaker 7: Yeah, it's fun. It's fun.
00:01:39
Speaker 3: It is fun.
00:01:40
Speaker 7: It's such a high bar that Three Houses set, though. It's very difficult to assess, like, how much am I actually enjoying this? Do I miss those characters?
00:01:49
Speaker 5: Mm-hmm.
00:01:50
Speaker 7: But yeah, when you brought it up, I hadn't really had a chance to break into much of it, and I've been able to, and I enjoy it.
00:01:56
Speaker 2: Yeah.
00:01:57
Speaker 7: But my real bright spot is when this comes out, it's going to be Friday.
00:02:01
Speaker 3: Okay.
00:02:01
Speaker 7: And the day after that is Saturday. That's true. And that's the day of the Royal Rumble.
00:02:04
Speaker 3: That is the day of the Royal Rumble.
00:02:06
Speaker 7: I often, maybe people think that this is inaccurate, but I often say I'm not really that into wrestling.
00:02:12
Speaker 3: You do often say that.
00:02:13
Speaker 7: And I stand by it.
00:02:15
Speaker 3: I respect that.
00:02:17
Speaker 7: Despite how erroneous it seems, it's based on a lot of the things I bring up and things I know a lot about. But I'm not that into it. But I am super into a Royal Rumble.
00:02:27
Speaker 3: Of course.
00:02:27
Speaker 7: It is the greatest of all wrestling pay-per-views. It's just so fun. It's chaos. People come back random.
00:02:37
Speaker 5: Oh, yeah.
00:02:38
Speaker 7: Random appearances and drop-ins. Sometimes you get a Drew Carey showing up. That's right. That's right. But, yeah, it's just fun. Anything can happen. I mean, I know that that's not entirely true. Right, right. But, yeah, there's a lot of fun.
00:02:53
Speaker 6: No, I've watched three Royal Rumbles, all of which were in association with the game that the Hanson brothers used to play.
00:03:01
Speaker 2: Mm-hmm.
00:03:03
Speaker 7: You're talking about Mbop Handsome Brothers.
00:03:05
Speaker 6: Yes, not quite Mbop Handsome Brothers, but the comedians.
00:03:08
Speaker 7: Jeff and Ed.
00:03:09
Speaker 6: Yeah, Jeff and Ed. And they had this game where you'd have to try and guess. Everybody put money on who was coming out when. What's the dumbest one? Who goes out the fastest? All of those things. And you're like, that is why you watch this, because look at all the dumb shit that's going to happen.
00:03:24
Speaker 7: Yeah. I will be watching it with friends, Marty and Sarah of Marty and Sarah Love Wrestling.
00:03:30
Speaker 4: As will I.
00:03:32
Speaker 7: And, yeah, maybe I'll put together a betting pool. Maybe I'll do some dumb shit like that.
00:03:35
Speaker 3: I think that would be fun.
00:03:36
Speaker 7: Yeah. I mean, we'll be there.
00:03:38
Speaker 5: Yeah.
00:03:38
Speaker 7: Do some gambling.
00:03:39
Speaker 3: Let's do it.
00:03:41
Speaker 7: So anyway, I'm very hyped for that as well.
00:03:42
Speaker 3: That sounds great.
00:03:43
Speaker 7: And Bray Wyatt will be in a pitch black match.
00:03:46
Speaker 3: I'm going to tell you something.
00:03:47
Speaker 7: Mountain Dew pitch black.
00:03:48
Speaker 3: I'm a little bit worried about Uncle Howdy.
00:03:50
Speaker 7: I would be too. You know who else would be worried about him? Bray.
00:03:53
Speaker 3: Yeah, that would be a smart move. Anyway, what's your bright spot?
00:03:55
Speaker 6: My bright spot is last night my wife and I stayed up real late watching a documentary on the Pez Outlaw.
00:04:03
Speaker 3: Uh, who is a guy.
00:04:04
Speaker 7: Wait, wait, are you talking about the protocols, the elders of Zion or the candy?
00:04:07
Speaker 3: The literal candy.
00:04:08
Speaker 7: Okay.
00:04:09
Speaker 6: This guy, uh, in the, I, in the like seventies and eighties or whatever, um, He smuggled European Pez dispensers into the United States because the United States Pez.
00:04:21
Speaker 3: Company wouldn't allow the European Pez in here.
00:04:25
Speaker 7: What's the difference?
00:04:26
Speaker 3: Exactly.
00:04:27
Speaker 6: The European Pez company was able to sell all over the world, and they made all kinds of fun Willy Wonka-style Pez dispensers.
00:04:36
Speaker 7: So there were a higher variety of designs? Tons of them. Better flavors, maybe? What's the deal?
00:04:42
Speaker 3: Not the candy. It's all about the design.
00:04:44
Speaker 6: It's all about the designs for all the collectors.
00:04:46
Speaker 7: The IP. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
00:04:47
Speaker 3: All the collectors want that.
00:04:49
Speaker 6: And in America, you couldn't get it because there was some asshole executive in the American one who's like, I don't like those.
00:04:56
Speaker 3: So you can't have them.
00:04:57
Speaker 2: Right.
00:04:57
Speaker 7: Well, I think there's probably also a disconnect between like, who the fuck is this?
00:05:01
Speaker 3: Yes, exactly.
00:05:03
Speaker 7: This European celebrity. Americans aren't going to buy this. Why do you have a hundred different Gerard Depardews?
00:05:10
Speaker 3: So fun. So fun.
00:05:12
Speaker 6: But yeah, and he did it and he made tons of money and he's like, it's illegal and shit. And he was smuggling things across borders and he's got a plane and they hired people to follow him around.
00:05:23
Speaker 2: Wow.
00:05:24
Speaker 3: All of this about the Pez dispensers.
00:05:26
Speaker 7: That's a fascinating, that sounds like a great documentary.
00:05:28
Speaker 3: Fantastic documentary.
00:05:30
Speaker 7: I do love a candy smuggler.
00:05:32
Speaker 2: Yeah.
00:05:33
Speaker 7: I know that when I was younger, me and my friends loved Kinder Eggs. You know, those were illegal because the toys inside them were so small.
00:05:41
Speaker 3: They'll kill you.
00:05:42
Speaker 7: Kids will swallow them. Those are murder weapons, essentially. But we had a couple places we knew we could get bootleg Kinder Eggs. That was always so fun.
00:05:51
Speaker 3: It's just so funny.
00:05:52
Speaker 6: Whatever you have to have bootlegs of the dumbest possible thing.
00:05:56
Speaker 3: You know, that's the best.
00:05:58
Speaker 7: Yeah, for sure.
00:05:59
Speaker 4: Oh, man.
00:05:59
Speaker 6: And about halfway through the documentary, this will not surprise you. After they've described his exploits in great detail, he goes, and then later on, I was diagnosed as bipolar.
00:06:09
Speaker 7: I was like, buddy. You know it. You are seen.
00:06:14
Speaker 3: I've been there, man. I called it before you did.
00:06:18
Speaker 7: You've got to find an illegal candy and get to bootlegging, man.
00:06:21
Speaker 3: You're telling me.
00:06:21
Speaker 7: Live your destiny.
00:06:22
Speaker 3: And he's got a full ZZ Top beard? Incredible. That's... God among men.
00:06:28
Speaker 7: So, Jordan, today we have an episode to go over. Indeed. We're going to be talking about something. And that thing is, well, okay. So I teased that I had Rob do depositions. You did. I can't sit on that for a while. Okay. I can't sit on that for even a week.
00:06:43
Speaker 2: Nope.
00:06:43
Speaker 7: So we're doing some depositions of Rob do.
00:06:45
Speaker 3: We're doing do positions.
00:06:46
Speaker 7: Absolutely. So that debatably is where the formulaic objection series really started. I don't think it was the first one.
00:06:57
Speaker 6: No.
00:06:58
Speaker 7: I think Alex's was the first one. And then Rob was on one that we did also with Paul Joseph Watson, I believe.
00:07:06
Speaker 6: Right.
00:07:06
Speaker 7: But it was the one that crystallized this was ridiculous.
00:07:10
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:07:11
Speaker 7: He's wearing his Kangol hat. Yep. He's the corporate representative, doesn't know what the fuck is going on.
00:07:17
Speaker 4: Yep.
00:07:17
Speaker 7: So this, that one, the Kangol hat depot, as we're going to call it.
00:07:23
Speaker 2: Yeah.
00:07:23
Speaker 7: That was from November 26th, 2019.
00:07:24
Speaker 2: Okay.
00:07:24
Speaker 4: Okay.
00:07:27
Speaker 7: These two depositions that we're going to be listening to today are when Rob was the corporate representative for InfoWars LLC.
00:07:36
Speaker 4: Oh, no.
00:07:37
Speaker 7: And the second one is Free Speech Systems on March 15th, 2019.
00:07:43
Speaker 3: Okay, so we're five months... Okay.
00:07:46
Speaker 7: This is before. Right, right, right, right.
00:07:48
Speaker 4: Yeah.
00:07:48
Speaker 7: Oh, okay. Yeah, my bad. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
00:07:51
Speaker 6: I got the months going the other direction instead of the backwards.
00:07:54
Speaker 3: I went the forwards. Yeah, now I got you.
00:07:56
Speaker 7: So this is... When we heard him be such a shitty corporate representative, that was the second volley.
00:08:04
Speaker 2: Wow.
00:08:04
Speaker 7: This predates that.
00:08:06
Speaker 2: So.
00:08:07
Speaker 3: I don't know what to expect.
00:08:10
Speaker 7: This did get them sanctioned, I will say.
00:08:14
Speaker 3: That I expect. I do know what to expect in a certain sense.
00:08:17
Speaker 7: We can say that ahead of time. This got them sanctioned, and then in response to that, they decided to send Rob do again, and that got us the Kangal Hat Depot. Let's send them out one more time. So that's pretty interesting strategically.
00:08:33
Speaker 6: It was a shock whenever we were talking about that one because it is the corporate representative.
00:08:38
Speaker 7: You're right.
00:08:39
Speaker 6: That's what started the real, why are we doing depositions? Because these corporate representatives have no idea what's going on.
00:08:46
Speaker 7: Right. And it's not just a.
00:08:50
Speaker 7: I think a deposition where people answer questions sincerely is not really that entertaining, but when it's complete liars who are unprepared and are shady as hell and working across purposes, there's something fascinating about that.
00:09:06
Speaker 3: It is a little bit like.
00:09:09
Speaker 6: It feels like you're watching children from a glass dome, and you know that they've been cheating somebody and stealing cookies all over the place, but they're trying to argue their way out of it, and you're like, what are we doing?
00:09:22
Speaker 3: Guys, this is insane!
00:09:23
Speaker 7: Yeah, and the kid's lawyer is Barnes. Yeah, exactly! Um, so I also need to make a little correction and that is, um, on the Rob Jacobson deposition that we talked about, I said that was in 2018. I believe it was actually in 2019. Okay. Uh, because as, as, as I can tell, these are, uh, these March 15th, 2019, uh, due depositions are, uh, around the same time as the Jacobson one. So I apologize. I got that year wrong.
00:09:50
Speaker 4: Okay.
00:09:52
Speaker 7: So this is going to be a mess and we'll get into it. But first, let's say hello to some new ones oh that's a great idea so first a veritable tsunami of cantankerous badgers thank you so much you are now a policy wonk i'm a policy wonk thank you very much thank you next i just want to scribble thank you so much you are now a policy wonk.
00:10:09
Speaker 3: I'm a policy wonk thank you very much.
00:10:10
Speaker 7: Thank you next alex jones's gayest frog also known as paco thank you so much you are now a policy wonk I'm a policy wonk.
00:10:17
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Thank you.
00:10:18
Speaker 7: Next, proud, gribble, pibble of old. Thank you so much. You are now a policy wonk.
00:10:22
Speaker 4: I'm a policy wonk.
00:10:23
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Thank you.
00:10:24
Speaker 7: Next, help. My diamond gusset jeans don't fit. Thank you so much. You are now a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk.
00:10:30
Speaker 3: Thank you very much.
00:10:30
Speaker 7: Impossible.
00:10:31
Speaker 3: I think that one was from three years ago. That's how long we've been holding that one for a while.
00:10:36
Speaker 7: We got a backlog. We got a backlog. Next, Todd in Tennessee. Thank you so much. You are now a policy wonk.
00:10:40
Speaker 4: I'm a policy wonk.
00:10:41
Speaker 5: Thank you very much.
00:10:42
Speaker 6: Thank you.
00:10:42
Speaker 7: And we got a technocrat in the mix, Jordan. So a bucket of poop sent me a sodomite. Thank you so much. You are now a technocrat.
00:10:49
Speaker 3: I'm a policy wonk.
00:10:50
Speaker 2: Four stars. Go home to your mother and.
00:10:52
Speaker 4: Tell her you're brilliant. Someone sodomite sent me a bucket of poop. Daddy shark. Jar Jar Binks has a Caribbean black accent. He's a loser little, little titty baby.
00:11:05
Speaker 7: I don't want to hate black people. I renounce Jesus Christ. Thank you. Yeah. So we're going to listen to these two depositions. Do deposition to do our to do list. T.W.O.D.W. So here's the thing. The first one is he's the corporate representative for- Just stop. I tried to. I was going along here. I'm sorry.
00:11:28
Speaker 3: You got me. I'm sorry. You got me with that one. Okay, go for it.
00:11:33
Speaker 7: So the first one's the Infowars LLC corporate rep deposition. And there's not that much really to say about that. There was never going to be much gold in those hills.
00:11:44
Speaker 2: Sure.
00:11:45
Speaker 7: And the reason for that is that InfoWars LLC is essentially a non-existent company that primarily exists to hold the property to InfoWars.com. And so there's not a whole lot that anyone knows about it because it's not a business that does transactions necessarily. Right, right, right. They don't hold meetings. Free speech systems is essentially... the real company of all of these companies, if there is a real company.
00:12:10
Speaker 6: No, InfoWars LLC exists on paper and within the minds of the people who like to pretend it's something, but it is not anything.
00:12:18
Speaker 7: Right. And so for Rob to answer any questions about that is tough, and to know exactly where the questions would need to go is kind of tough. Because I think at this phase, in even the plaintiff's attorney's case, sort of figuring out where the case is. I don't know if they fully understood the extent to which like a lot of these companies only exist to either like take in a payment or to be a holding company for this intellectual property or whatever. So this is Bill Ogden. I don't know if he has gummy bears or gummy worms, but there are a couple of occasions where you can hear him eating something very probably aggressively.
00:13:03
Speaker 3: He's got it.
00:13:04
Speaker 7: Um, and, uh, yeah, we'll jump in. Here's, uh, the beginning of the, uh, the info wars, LLC, corporate representative desk testimony of Rob do songs. Kangal hat.
00:13:16
Speaker 4: Can you please say your name for me?
00:13:18
Speaker 2: Rob do.
00:13:19
Speaker 4: What is your, uh, employment status with info wars, LLC?
00:13:26
Speaker 2: Uh, as far as I know, there is no employment status with the fours LLC. Okay.
00:13:32
Speaker 4: What is your understanding as to why you are here today?
00:13:42
Speaker 2: To give a deposition?
00:13:43
Speaker 3: Sure.
00:13:43
Speaker 4: About what?
00:13:46
Speaker 2: About, well, a couple things, I guess.
00:13:48
Speaker 4: You can put your mic on. Just clip it to your lapel or button.
00:14:00
Speaker 2: Good. I don't touch other people's equipment. Sure.
00:14:04
Speaker 4: Yeah.
00:14:06
Speaker 7: He's a man of principle. So, yeah, he doesn't seem very prepared.
00:14:11
Speaker 8: Right.
00:14:11
Speaker 7: He is as bewildered as one might be in this circumstance.
00:14:17
Speaker 6: Once again, we have come to the ultimate impasse with an InfoWars employee.
00:14:21
Speaker 3: What do you do? Who do you work for? And why are you here? Are all unanswerable questions.
00:14:26
Speaker 7: But in this case, like with InfoWars LLC, like he doesn't work for them. He's never worked for them.
00:14:31
Speaker 2: So.
00:14:32
Speaker 7: I can understand a little more confusion, but also maybe prepare a little bit.
00:14:38
Speaker 6: Well, at least we know on the second crack at it, he's going to do a much better job.
00:14:42
Speaker 7: Well, yes. And it does also put that Kangal Hat deposition into a bit of a different context in that you realize that that was the second time.
00:14:54
Speaker 3: Oh, I got some mistakes to fix. I got it.
00:14:57
Speaker 7: Didn't do anything. Nope. Anyway, as is tradition in depositions, Bill asks, what did you do to prepare? Rob's a little befuddled.
00:15:11
Speaker 4: Exhibit one is in front of you. It is the notice of deposition. I assume prior to today you'd seen that before. On page two, there are six topics listed. Do you see those? Yes. Topic number one says the organizational structure... business purpose and method of generating revenue for InfoWars LLC. What did you, and none of my questions today are going to be eliciting answers that you've had conversations with either of your attorneys. But what did you do to prepare yourself for topic number one?
00:15:54
Speaker 3: Oh my God.
00:16:03
Speaker 2: As far as I know, InfoWars LLC does not have any of this. This does not pertain to InfoWars LLC.
00:16:12
Speaker 4: As far as you're aware.
00:16:13
Speaker 2: As far as I'm aware.
00:16:13
Speaker 4: What steps did you take to become aware or unaware of that?
00:16:24
Speaker 2: Um... I just don't know if there's any information that I have.
00:16:36
Speaker 4: And you didn't go look for it and try to figure it out? No.
00:16:40
Speaker 2: I don't think there's any information is what I'm saying.
00:16:42
Speaker 4: Did you look for it?
00:16:44
Speaker 2: I would not know where to look for this information. Okay.
00:16:47
Speaker 7: So that's a no. You can already sort of get the sense of this. Get ready for some pauses because Rob, for better or worse, I mean, I think if you were a more thoughtful person and maybe a little bit less of a dum-dum, long pauses could be an indication of trying to get your thoughts together, trying to answer concisely and coherently. For Rob, I think he's confused and trying to figure out what is being said to me. And also, what do I say to not implicate myself or anybody else in anything? What's the slipperiest answer I can give here?
00:17:21
Speaker 4: Yes.
00:17:22
Speaker 7: And there are a couple points where it is, whew, if you think pauses on Alex's show are long, some of these are.
00:17:30
Speaker 3: A minute long.
00:17:32
Speaker 6: It does feel like he is being interrogated in like a Spanish prison, and he doesn't understand what any of the questions are.
00:17:39
Speaker 3: So he's just like, I didn't do it. I didn't. Me didn't do it.
00:17:44
Speaker 6: I don't know how to say I didn't do it more.
00:17:46
Speaker 7: I don't know how to conjugate verbs in saying people talk. So he didn't prepare.
00:17:55
Speaker 3: No, of course not.
00:17:57
Speaker 7: But he's reviewed some documents. Okay.
00:18:00
Speaker 4: So as far as, do you know what an interrogatory is?
00:18:04
Speaker 2: What are you, can you explain it for your purposes?
00:18:08
Speaker 3: Of course I do, but could you explain it for the audience?
00:18:13
Speaker 4: Opponents in a lawsuit and they answer those questions and then they swear to them. You understand that?
00:18:18
Speaker 2: Okay.
00:18:19
Speaker 3: Okay.
00:18:19
Speaker 4: Did you review the interrogatories that were submitted in this case by Infowars LLC?
00:18:24
Speaker 2: I did. Okay.
00:18:27
Speaker 4: That would be considered a document. So when I asked... the last few questions I've asked, did you review any documents? Now that we know you did review the interrogatories, was there anything else that you reviewed?
00:18:45
Speaker 6: No.
00:18:45
Speaker 2: I believe the interrogatories were the only thing. Okay.
00:18:48
Speaker 4: You didn't see any requests for production or any documents that were produced?
00:18:52
Speaker 2: No.
00:18:53
Speaker 4: Are you prepared to testify as to answers to requests for production or any documents that have been produced by InfoWars LLC in this case. Are you prepared to testify today as to documents that have been produced by InfoWars LLC in this case?
00:19:15
Speaker 2: I'm not sure what testimony I can provide with relationship to InfoWars LLC.
00:19:21
Speaker 4: I'm specifically speaking to the documents that have been produced. Do you know what documents have been produced by Infowars LLC?
00:19:32
Speaker 2: I've looked at a lot of documents, and I'm not sure they all look the same.
00:19:37
Speaker 7: Okay.
00:19:37
Speaker 2: All right.
00:19:38
Speaker 4: Sure.
00:19:38
Speaker 3: Okay.
00:19:39
Speaker 7: The documents all look the same.
00:19:41
Speaker 6: I've looked at a lot of documents in my day. There's white papers, and they have little scribbles on them.
00:19:46
Speaker 7: They are all the same. They all look just the same.
00:19:50
Speaker 2: That.
00:19:50
Speaker 7: So yeah, we're not in good territory. I feel like there is a fundamental tension in that There isn't much that Rob can say, but he doesn't know how to articulate that in an appropriate way that would answer the questions that are being asked. He's unprepared to answer correctly things that he would be able to express, like that this is not really a functioning company that does business or anything.
00:20:24
Speaker 3: He can't tell the truth.
00:20:27
Speaker 7: Or he doesn't know.
00:20:28
Speaker 3: Well, I mean... He had no preparation to know the truth. Right, right, right. But I mean, in his mind.
00:20:33
Speaker 6: Here's a good shot of what I would assume that Rob Du is thinking about InfoWars LLC.
00:20:38
Speaker 3: He's thinking, that's a dummy company. In his mind, you know.
00:20:41
Speaker 6: I don't know if that's true or not. I don't know anything about it. But in his mind, that's my guess. It doesn't do anything, and I'm important to it somehow. So in that case, he can't just.
00:20:53
Speaker 3: Be like, hey, uh... If you wanted to look further into our finances, I wouldn't look here. It's a lie.
00:20:59
Speaker 7: You know, I think that there's a possibility that he knows that it's kind of a dummy company, but that like, That's the extent of his knowledge. And if he knew more, maybe he would know something that people would want to know about.
00:21:12
Speaker 2: Right.
00:21:12
Speaker 7: Exactly.
00:21:13
Speaker 6: Yeah.
00:21:13
Speaker 9: Yeah.
00:21:14
Speaker 7: I could see that.
00:21:14
Speaker 3: Yeah.
00:21:16
Speaker 6: I would love to tell you the truth, but honestly, I don't know anything. And they told me never to find out.
00:21:22
Speaker 7: It's in my best interest not to know all that much.
00:21:24
Speaker 3: It's so good to not know.
00:21:25
Speaker 7: So we know from the Kangal Hat Depot that Rob didn't understand the corporate representative thing, what that meant, that he was testifying as the company.
00:21:36
Speaker 6: He does not understand that he is not testifying as Rob do. He is testifying to what the company itself is supposed to know. Yes.
00:21:44
Speaker 2: Yeah.
00:21:44
Speaker 7: And he still, I mean, this is before that, so of course he doesn't really know that either.
00:21:49
Speaker 6: It's almost like an origin story. This is the beginning of not understanding what a corporate representative is.
00:21:54
Speaker 7: Yeah.
00:21:54
Speaker 4: Yeah.
00:21:55
Speaker 7: And then in this clip, we get an appearance from noted asshole attorney Enoch. Oh, boy. He jumps in and Bill yells at him. This is intense.
00:22:09
Speaker 4: When was InfoWars LLC registered?
00:22:17
Speaker 2: I believe in 2008.
00:22:17
Speaker 4: How do you know that?
00:22:21
Speaker 2: It was on one of these documents. Okay.
00:22:25
Speaker 4: And who registered it?
00:22:29
Speaker 2: That I don't know.
00:22:30
Speaker 3: Okay.
00:22:33
Speaker 4: Do you know any of the original officers that were listed on the LLC registration through the Secretary of State of Texas?
00:22:41
Speaker 2: I believe there's only one.
00:22:43
Speaker 4: Why do you believe that?
00:22:45
Speaker 2: Because it's listed as there's one listed. Okay.
00:22:49
Speaker 4: Who is that?
00:22:50
Speaker 2: It's Alex Jones.
00:22:54
Speaker 4: Has InfoWars LLC ever had any other officers?
00:23:02
Speaker 2: Not to my knowledge.
00:23:06
Speaker 4: When you say your knowledge, you're sitting here as InfoWars LLC.
00:23:10
Speaker 2: You understand that, correct? I've been asked to sit here as a representative of InfoWars LLC.
00:23:17
Speaker 4: And as a representative, you are sitting in the chair as the company. Do you realize that?
00:23:24
Speaker 6: No.
00:23:25
Speaker 2: I'm not sure. Right.
00:23:27
Speaker 4: You're not here as Rob do. You're here as InfoWars LLC. Has anybody explained that to you? Time out. Time out. You cannot make hand gestures, Mr.
00:23:45
Speaker 5: Enoch.
00:23:47
Speaker 4: I just saw you go. And the witness looked directly at you. You asked a question. I did. Would you please not interrupt me? Sir, I haven't interrupted you. You asked a question that was so broad that it would encompass attorney-fying communications. That's a great opinion for you to have. Are you defending this deposition? We had this yesterday, and unfortunately, Mr. Bankston's the nice one of us. So I'm not going to put up with it. You can leave. If you are going to do that, if you're going to be an obstruction in this deposition, leave.
00:24:19
Speaker 2: Now.
00:24:21
Speaker 4: Otherwise, sit there quietly and don't make gestures and don't share your opinions with anybody but whispering into Mr. Barnes' ear because he is defending this deposition.
00:24:31
Speaker 2: I can appreciate your opinion.
00:24:32
Speaker 4: Please continue the deposition, Mr. Ogden.
00:24:36
Speaker 7: Ugly ugly ugly so yeah apparently he's making enoch's making hand gestures at rob do and uh that's that is not good.
00:24:47
Speaker 6: Shady assholes yeah they just they just can't they just can't not well they have to be assholes it.
00:24:54
Speaker 7: Would be just as easy conceivably to whisper to Barnes and have Barnes say, objection, I don't answer that question or, you know, whatever.
00:25:03
Speaker 6: It would be, but you would have to have respect for the people that you are working against.
00:25:07
Speaker 7: .
00:25:09
Speaker 6: .
00:25:12
Speaker 7: I just picture Enoch like pulling on his collar.
00:25:17
Speaker 3: He's got like a little noose. Yeah.
00:25:19
Speaker 5: Yeah.
00:25:20
Speaker 7: Oh, boy. So, yeah, that's one of a couple of outbursts that happen throughout both of these depositions.
00:25:27
Speaker 3: Love it.
00:25:28
Speaker 7: There's a little bit of non-civility that happens.
00:25:33
Speaker 3: I just.
00:25:36
Speaker 6: You can only push people so far. You just can. You can only push people so far.
00:25:41
Speaker 7: I hear you. And honestly, I'm surprised these don't end up turning into fights. Like actual fist fights.
00:25:46
Speaker 3: Well, that's why at the trial we almost had an actual fist fight.
00:25:50
Speaker 7: Right. I mean, it's... What do you do at a certain point if people are obfuscating so hard And being such dicks.
00:25:57
Speaker 3: I know.
00:25:58
Speaker 6: It's like, I don't know at what point we graduate from adults to we're fine, fine.
00:26:06
Speaker 3: We're on the playground.
00:26:07
Speaker 2: Fine.
00:26:07
Speaker 7: Yeah, we're throwing hands.
00:26:08
Speaker 3: That's what we're doing.
00:26:09
Speaker 5: Fine.
00:26:10
Speaker 7: Well, I think it's a testament to the patience that you need to have to be a lawyer. Yeah. And particularly a lawyer in this kind of a situation. Like, you have to be able to put that, like, personal... desire to throw hands aside.
00:26:25
Speaker 6: But I would say that it would suggest to me that it's come in handy for Enoch. I'm sure that you pulling this bullshit has been useful to him.
00:26:36
Speaker 7: It almost feels like someone like him, that's the job of someone who's an older brother. who's really good at pushing those buttons and getting the younger brother to do something that gets them in trouble. You're not wrong. It has that vibe. He's trolling a little. Yeah, he does poke. He does like to poke. He knows damn well that what he's doing is inappropriate. And then when Bill is telling him, you can stop this or you can leave, the response of like, I think you should get back to your deposition, is that's the poke.
00:27:11
Speaker 3: That's another poke. I'm not touching you.
00:27:12
Speaker 6: I'm not touching you. I wasn't touching you. I didn't touch him. I didn't touch anybody. I'm just waving my hand.
00:27:17
Speaker 7: It's some shit. So anyway, Rob gets back to some questions, and it turns out he doesn't know why InfoWars LLC even exists.
00:27:24
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's what I thought.
00:27:25
Speaker 4: The business purpose of InfoWars LLC, what is it?
00:27:28
Speaker 2: I don't know.
00:27:37
Speaker 4: Why was it created? And by it, why was InfoWars LLC created?
00:27:43
Speaker 2: I don't know.
00:27:47
Speaker 7: Man, fuck if I know.
00:27:49
Speaker 2: Wow.
00:27:50
Speaker 3: Okay.
00:27:51
Speaker 2: All right.
00:27:51
Speaker 3: Rob, I'm sure that I'll only have to explain this to you one time.
00:27:57
Speaker 6: As the corporate representative, imagine the building we're supposed to be here. Imagine an anthropomorphic building with all the knowledge of InfoWars business practices.
00:28:10
Speaker 3: That is what you are.
00:28:11
Speaker 7: A business can't speak for itself. And as such, in order to get questions about the business itself, we need somebody to be able to take on... The accumulated awareness and knowledge of the business. And that is you right now.
00:28:27
Speaker 3: Yeah, that is your job. And we gave you time to do it.
00:28:30
Speaker 7: This business is in a crisis of identity, apparently. Does not know why it exists or why it was created.
00:28:35
Speaker 3: I don't know who I am. I don't know what I'm meant to do.
00:28:37
Speaker 7: I mean, look, I definitely have periods where I'm like, why did my parents have me? Sure, it's existential angst that I get sometimes.
00:28:45
Speaker 3: What is InfoWars for? I didn't ask it to be born. You know, I don't know.
00:28:51
Speaker 7: So Bill produces a bit of the terms of service for InfoWars.com's website. And in it, the we, whenever it says we, the agreement that the user is entering into, the person that they're entering into it with is InfoWars LLC.
00:29:09
Speaker 3: Aha, so?
00:29:10
Speaker 7: It does exist as a business.
00:29:12
Speaker 8: Right.
00:29:12
Speaker 7: Now this becomes a little bit of a conflict because Rob is saying that it's an inactive business.
00:29:20
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:29:20
Speaker 7: And then this is brought up and it's like, well, they're keeping cookies and all this stuff. Like, is that inactivity? And then it's just.
00:29:34
Speaker 6: I mean, I'm not doing anything. So it is inactivity in my mind.
00:29:38
Speaker 7: Yeah. it's just a mess. It is absolutely bizarre.
00:29:43
Speaker 2: I believe Infowars LLC is an inactive entity.
00:29:47
Speaker 4: You said inactive earlier. What do you mean inactive?
00:29:52
Speaker 2: That it doesn't play, that it would not be actively involved in any.
00:30:00
Speaker 2: With reference to what you're asking here, it doesn't have anything to do with creation licensing and marketing, staffing, programming, management development.
00:30:15
Speaker 4: You skipped over distribution.
00:30:17
Speaker 2: Distribution.
00:30:20
Speaker 4: Have you read the terms and conditions that InfoWars LLC lists as the controlling entity for the terms and conditions for InfoWars.com? Text has deformed.
00:30:29
Speaker 2: I'm not sure I understand that question.
00:30:31
Speaker 3: Have you read it? Can you read? Can you read? Can you read?
00:30:35
Speaker 4: The terms of use for Infowars.com. What are they? Excuse me. What do they do?
00:30:51
Speaker 2: Are you referring to these?
00:30:53
Speaker 4: Those are just some of the definitions. 48 pages. I was saving a little bit of paper just to show you that In the terms of use, when it's an agreement with anyone saying we, which is used throughout the entire terms and conditions, they're defined as InfoWars LLC, not free speech systems. You understand that?
00:31:22
Speaker 2: Well, I see a comma between InfoWars and LLC, so I'm not sure that That is correct.
00:31:27
Speaker 4: If you look at the notice and any filings of any business entities formerly named, you'll realize that the comma is always there.
00:31:38
Speaker 7: Okay. Good stuff.
00:31:42
Speaker 3: Your Honor, there is a comma there. I rest my case.
00:31:46
Speaker 7: It's so cool. That he's sitting there and he's trying to find ways to wiggle out. He tries the comma. So you need to tell me that this means that you're entering into a terms of service agreement with InfoWars and something called LLC. Okay.
00:32:08
Speaker 5: Great.
00:32:10
Speaker 6: Or is it like the LLC who you're addressing? You know, it's InfoWars, right, LLC?
00:32:16
Speaker 3: You know what I'm saying?
00:32:16
Speaker 2: Right.
00:32:17
Speaker 7: Isn't that Chris Gethard's house band? Right. You're entering into the Chris Gethard Show house band and InfoWars. Run the terms of service for InfoWars.com.
00:32:28
Speaker 6: You understand, of all things, of all things, for a corporate representative to not know that there comes a comma before LLC.
00:32:36
Speaker 3: Always seems high on the list. You should just know that.
00:32:40
Speaker 7: Yeah.
00:32:41
Speaker 3: You're the corporate representative.
00:32:42
Speaker 4: Yeah.
00:32:43
Speaker 7: You should know the standards of.
00:32:46
Speaker 3: Just regular. Just business.
00:32:48
Speaker 7: Yeah. So they talk a little bit here about inactivity, what it means to be an inactive business, according to Rob. Take a little nap. That leads to Barnes getting all up in Bill's business.
00:33:00
Speaker 3: Let's figure out what inactive means.
00:33:04
Speaker 4: If InfoWars LLC is listed as the entity that is in agreement with all users of InfoWars.com for things like using cookies and log files to create profiles for other users. That wouldn't necessarily make them inactive, correct?
00:33:24
Speaker 2: Objection is due form.
00:33:26
Speaker 4: What's the form?
00:33:27
Speaker 2: In other words, it basically calls for a legal conclusion.
00:33:33
Speaker 4: Which legal conclusion?
00:33:34
Speaker 1: In other words, defining what constitutes an active or inactive entity.
00:33:39
Speaker 4: I'm using inactive that I had him define it. Right, and that's where... So we're using his definition. What's the legal conclusion? He's complying with the rule. Not you, Mr. Enoch. I'm not raising my voice. No, this is just my voice when someone's obstructing a deposition that they shouldn't be talking in. I'm asking you not to raise your voice at council. And I'm asking you not to speak any further. Bill, we can be civil with each other. Please just don't raise your voice at council.
00:34:07
Speaker 2: Mr.
00:34:07
Speaker 4: Barnes doesn't deserve that. I'm not raising it to Mr.
00:34:09
Speaker 2: Barnes. Mr.
00:34:10
Speaker 4: Barnes, have I raised my voice towards you? Let's move forward.
00:34:13
Speaker 1: I mean, I get that there's a mistake here, but I'm just saying that in terms of what is incorrectly listed in the.
00:34:23
Speaker 4: Terms of service.
00:34:25
Speaker 2: Mr.
00:34:25
Speaker 4: Barnes, hold on. What do you mean it's incorrectly listed?
00:34:29
Speaker 2: I was about to say free speech systems.
00:34:32
Speaker 3: I'm sorry?
00:34:32
Speaker 4: How is any of that a legal objection during a deposition? And how are you not kind of coaching the witness right now? No, I'm just trying to answer your question.
00:34:41
Speaker 1: In other words, I interpreted your question as calling for a legal conclusion.
00:34:46
Speaker 3: Barnes!
00:34:46
Speaker 4: Whether this.
00:34:49
Speaker 9: Designation constituted ownership of the site and admission of ownership of the site.
00:34:56
Speaker 4: But that wasn't my question.
00:34:57
Speaker 8: That's how I interpreted the question, is calling for that legal conclusion.
00:35:00
Speaker 4: But I asked him what is his understanding of the word that he used, and then I had him define.
00:35:06
Speaker 8: I know, but it was followed up by a question that presumed and I took as asking for a legal conclusion about whether this statement means X.
00:35:17
Speaker 4: What was my question?
00:35:18
Speaker 9: My recollection is that this statement means, do you agree that this statement means that Infowars owns something or is active? And I was saying that that would call for a legal conclusion.
00:35:29
Speaker 2: Okay.
00:35:30
Speaker 4: Well, I will make sure that in no way will my questions be interpreted to be asking that.
00:35:36
Speaker 2: Okay, thank you.
00:35:38
Speaker 4: Sitting here today, are you aware that InfoWars LLC is listed in the terms and services on InfoWars.com as the controlling entity?
00:35:57
Speaker 2: Seeing it here listed on the terms of service is the first time I've seen it.
00:36:06
Speaker 4: Now that you're seeing it, and let's presume that it's still there right now. When you said inactive earlier and you told me what you meant by inactive, do you still believe it's inactive?
00:36:28
Speaker 6: Yes.
00:36:31
Speaker 4: What would a company have to do?
00:36:44
Speaker 7: Careful, careful.
00:37:00
Speaker 2: I'm not sure I understand your question.
00:37:06
Speaker 7: Worth the wait.
00:37:07
Speaker 3: What a fucking punchline that was.
00:37:09
Speaker 7: Worth the wait.
00:37:11
Speaker 2: Come on.
00:37:12
Speaker 5: What?
00:37:14
Speaker 7: So one of the things that is a little bit meh about this deposition itself is that a lot of it is just Rob not knowing shit and not being able to answer any questions and Barnes being a shithead.
00:37:27
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, yeah.
00:37:28
Speaker 7: That's kind of a lot of this, whereas- Where Rob shines is when he accidentally says stuff that is implicating.
00:37:36
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's the game.
00:37:37
Speaker 7: And we'll get to that more in the free speech systems deposition. Okay, good. But yeah, this is just sort of like he's just a... This is a moose boosh for her. Just a hopeless man sitting there being asked questions, seeing if he can run out the clock.
00:37:51
Speaker 6: It does feel like he's waiting there just like, will they forget they asked me the question if I just stay silent?
00:37:57
Speaker 7: I feel like I've done that in school before. Okay.
00:38:02
Speaker 3: I saw Jurassic Park last night. What was it about lawyers? If you don't move, they can't see you. That's what it was.
00:38:07
Speaker 7: I swear. Look, the bell is going to ring at 2.45. They have to let me leave. They have to let me go.
00:38:13
Speaker 3: They can't detain me.
00:38:14
Speaker 7: Yeah. So there's another thing that comes up that is a bit of an issue, and that is that Alex is not the only person who's ever been listed as a controlling manager of InfoWars LLC.
00:38:30
Speaker 6: Why would I expect the question that he answered to have been the correct answer?
00:38:34
Speaker 3: Of course it wasn't.
00:38:35
Speaker 7: Well, he said to the best of his knowledge Alex was the only one. But again, he's the company, and you'd think he'd know if there were other officers. That's the rule. And it turns out, prior, the controlling officer was Magnolia Holdings. And we know that Magnolia Holdings was the company that was based off of Alex's dad's bank account.
00:38:53
Speaker 2: Right.
00:38:53
Speaker 7: That he made so he would have a business line of credit. Exactly. And that is where a lot of these businesses were able to be created and housed in a way that allowed him to. Probably get credit in a way that other people wouldn't have access to. Yeah. Real, real shortcut kind of shit.
00:39:13
Speaker 3: Hold himself up by the bootstraps.
00:39:15
Speaker 7: Bootstraps.
00:39:16
Speaker 3: With those bootstraps gilded by his daddy.
00:39:19
Speaker 7: And his dad's dental practice.
00:39:20
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly.
00:39:21
Speaker 7: So it turns out that is the prior controlling interest in Infowars LLC.
00:39:29
Speaker 4: Right.
00:39:30
Speaker 7: But there's another wrinkle to this.
00:39:32
Speaker 3: Of course there is.
00:39:33
Speaker 7: That is mind-blowing.
00:39:35
Speaker 4: Who is Magnolia Holdings Limited Partnerships?
00:39:55
Speaker 2: I've heard that name. I believe they're involved with free speech systems in some way. Okay.
00:40:04
Speaker 4: How did you come across that name?
00:40:15
Speaker 2: I don't recall exactly because I've been there for so long, so a lot of things just kind of run together. But I couldn't tell you exactly when. but I think I saw the name at some point. Do you.
00:40:30
Speaker 4: Have any idea who it is?
00:40:31
Speaker 2: I don't have a definitive answer for you, but I'm imagining Alex Jones has something to do with Magnolia. Okay.
00:40:50
Speaker 4: Were you aware that the original manager of Infowars LLC was Magnolia Holdings, L.P.
00:40:56
Speaker 2: Was I aware of what?
00:40:57
Speaker 4: Were you aware that the original manager of InfoWars LLC was Magnolia Holdings LP?
00:41:06
Speaker 2: I was not aware.
00:41:11
Speaker 4: What's the address... Excuse me. Yeah, what's the address at InfoWars?
00:41:20
Speaker 3: Is this a trick question?
00:41:21
Speaker 4: Where you work.
00:41:24
Speaker 2: That would be... Free speech systems.
00:41:26
Speaker 4: Free speech, excuse me. I say Infowars, I was encompassing them all.
00:41:30
Speaker 2: Okay.
00:41:30
Speaker 4: What's the address of free speech systems?
00:41:33
Speaker 2: The physical or the mailing address?
00:41:35
Speaker 4: We can start with physical.
00:41:37
Speaker 7: Oh my God.
00:41:38
Speaker 2: The physical address of free speech systems is 3019 Alvin Devane, suite. There's a couple of suites. The direct mailing address is suite 230. Okay.
00:41:53
Speaker 4: But same street number and street name?
00:41:55
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's different suite numbers.
00:41:57
Speaker 6: Okay.
00:41:58
Speaker 4: Have you ever been to 100 Congress Avenue on the 22nd floor?
00:42:06
Speaker 2: No. Are we here at 100 Congress Avenue? Okay. I know where this building is, but I don't know. No. Okay. The 22nd floor is what you're asking?
00:42:15
Speaker 1: Yeah.
00:42:16
Speaker 4: No. Were you aware that Magnolia Holdings is four floors above us right now?
00:42:21
Speaker 2: No.
00:42:21
Speaker 3: No, I was not aware of that.
00:42:44
Speaker 4: It was an extremely long pause.
00:42:47
Speaker 3: Thank God he said it. That is too long for that answer. That is too long.
00:42:52
Speaker 7: Extremely long pause.
00:42:55
Speaker 3: Extremely long pause.
00:42:56
Speaker 7: Yeah. So it turns out four floors above them in the building that they're having this deposition in is where- The address of Magnolia Holdings Limited Partnership is.
00:43:07
Speaker 3: Of course.
00:43:08
Speaker 7: And I don't know if that even means anything.
00:43:10
Speaker 3: I don't think it means anything. It's a fun little reveal.
00:43:12
Speaker 7: Yeah.
00:43:13
Speaker 5: It's great.
00:43:13
Speaker 3: It threw me for a loop.
00:43:15
Speaker 7: So it was a long, long pause.
00:43:17
Speaker 4: Yes.
00:43:17
Speaker 7: And Rob explains why he had such a pause.
00:43:20
Speaker 4: It was an extremely long pause.
00:43:24
Speaker 2: Well, I'll tell you why. Would you like a... Please, go ahead.
00:43:27
Speaker 8: Yeah.
00:43:28
Speaker 2: There's a lot of... I guess people put a lot of stuff out on the internet and sometimes you look and it's different. Oh, who runs Alex Jones type stuff. Okay. And it goes into, you know, this company was formed here. So I have seen, and that's where I'm thinking I saw the name Magnolia Holdings.
00:43:59
Speaker 3: When somebody did an expose on us.
00:44:02
Speaker 2: Documents but i was not aware it was on this in this.
00:44:05
Speaker 7: Bill yeah so rob was worried because a lot of people post a lot of stuff online and they say who controls alex and maybe he heard the name because somebody had accurately reported that it was a company that uh infowars uh was associated with.
00:44:20
Speaker 6: Early on i feel like i feel like rob should just answer every question with like hey man okay You ever see that scene in The Wire where Stringer Bell was like, are you writing notes on a criminal fucking conspiracy?
00:44:32
Speaker 3: Imagine that's all of our paperwork. Of course I don't know any of it. It's against the law.
00:44:37
Speaker 9: Right.
00:44:38
Speaker 7: But there is a certain delicious irony of Rob being like, yeah, there's a lot of bullshit online.
00:44:43
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yes.
00:44:44
Speaker 7: A lot of people say a lot of shit.
00:44:46
Speaker 6: Hey, man, a lot of people out there, they'll lie about you. They'll even try and ruin your life. Don't even mess with that stuff. I tell you, the internet's a scary place.
00:44:53
Speaker 3: Yeah.
00:44:54
Speaker 7: So we have one last clip here, and it's a discussion of whether or not Rob knows if InfoWars LLC has an office.
00:45:02
Speaker 4: Does InfoWars LLC have an office?
00:45:10
Speaker 2: Not to my knowledge.
00:45:15
Speaker 4: And in the corporate documents, it lists the governing authority as Alex Jones is the manager and has it at 100 Congress Avenue, 22nd floor. Is there an office there?
00:45:31
Speaker 2: I don't know. I've never been to the 22nd floor.
00:45:38
Speaker 4: Did you ask anyone preparing for this deposition whether or not Infowars LLC had an office?
00:45:55
Speaker 2: I don't believe I did.
00:45:57
Speaker 3: Yeah, no shit.
00:45:58
Speaker 7: Why would you?
00:45:58
Speaker 3: No shit.
00:45:59
Speaker 7: So yeah, that's the same address as Magnolia. I could not be happier.
00:46:04
Speaker 6: Because again, I'm trying to visualize this in my mind as an actual corporate representative. I'm trying to anthropomorphize the company itself. And so the idea of you asking a company, do.
00:46:19
Speaker 3: You have an office? And then the company going... Not that I know. I didn't ask. Yeah, like what? What are you talking about? And then they just disappear into thin air.
00:46:27
Speaker 7: Yeah, yeah. So the reason that some of this is relevant, even if it is kind of like blah, is that there is a clear indication that no effort has gone into... making sure that these businesses are legally distinct from each other or legally distinct from Alex Jones himself. The fact that InfoWars LLC has the same address, apparently, as Magnolia Partnership, and they were originally in charge of it. Now Alex is in charge of InfoWars LLC. It's all just like, okay, this might as well all just be the same shit. Yeah. And it is.
00:47:03
Speaker 3: Yeah, it is.
00:47:04
Speaker 2: Yeah.
00:47:04
Speaker 6: I mean, it's almost kind of funny that, to me, what I'm seeing in my mind is these people being like, we're not going to open an LLC in Delaware like the rest of everybody who wants to cheat.
00:47:17
Speaker 7: Not until years later.
00:47:19
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly. We're going to do it when it's too late.
00:47:21
Speaker 7: Alex is proud of Texas. He's the Texan.
00:47:23
Speaker 3: Exactly.
00:47:23
Speaker 7: That's what Trump called him.
00:47:24
Speaker 6: It's his both greatest attribute and apparently his downfall.
00:47:29
Speaker 7: Alamo. Yeah. So we go to the free speech systems, corporate representative testimony deposition. And this is from the same day. And so you take a little break, come back.
00:47:41
Speaker 3: Rob has a different hat on.
00:47:43
Speaker 7: There's no hats. But this is fun.
00:47:46
Speaker 4: Where does the majority of revenue come from? Supplements or... Or does it come from ad buys?
00:48:03
Speaker 2: I would say it's listener supported. So I would say most of that is coming from people either donating or buying products. Okay.
00:48:17
Speaker 4: And speaking of, are you... on any of the products from InfoWars right now?
00:48:22
Speaker 2: Am I on them?
00:48:23
Speaker 4: Have you taken any of them? Supplements, anything like that?
00:48:29
Speaker 9: Ever?
00:48:30
Speaker 4: Today.
00:48:30
Speaker 2: Oh, today. I have not taken any today.
00:48:33
Speaker 4: Do you regularly take any of them?
00:48:44
Speaker 2: I would say there's a turmeric product I take.
00:48:47
Speaker 7: Okay, so there's two things that are really fun here. The first is that, like, it's almost as if, like, are you impaired by.
00:48:53
Speaker 3: Taking- Yes, yeah, totally. Are you, are you, have you taken any drugs or alcohol today?
00:48:58
Speaker 7: Or InfraWars supplements.
00:48:59
Speaker 3: Yeah, or InfraWars supplements, totally.
00:49:00
Speaker 7: Which is fun. Yeah, it's always great. And then the second thing is that, like, Hey, if all of the claims about how you need this to fight off the 5G and all the stuff in the food, it's the good halogen, you need the iodine or else your IQ will be lowered. You'd think you'd be taking it, not just some turmeric.
00:49:19
Speaker 3: You'd think you'd be crammed to the gills with that crap.
00:49:21
Speaker 6: Right.
00:49:21
Speaker 7: Apparently not. Apparently the people who are on the inside kind of get it and know that it's all bullshit.
00:49:26
Speaker 6: I could not be happier with the length of time necessary to understand whether or not you take a product regularly.
00:49:33
Speaker 7: Well, he's probably thinking about, like, should I tell him that my wife won't let me take Supermail Vitality?
00:49:38
Speaker 3: No, like, remember that time that my wife was like, you're fucking hard.
00:49:41
Speaker 7: You're too hard.
00:49:42
Speaker 3: Too hard.
00:49:43
Speaker 7: Can't take that Supermail anymore. Stop it. So they talk about the coverage of Sandy Hook, and the day of, Rob admits... They were talking about it as a situation where people were going to take guns because.
00:50:01
Speaker 3: Of this shooting. That's wise.
00:50:03
Speaker 7: Which is, oof.
00:50:05
Speaker 4: What's the first video or article that was produced on InfoWars.com regarding Sandy Hook and it being a hoax and or false flag?
00:50:20
Speaker 3: Where's that Wikipedia printout when you need it?
00:50:35
Speaker 2: Can you explain what you mean by hoax?
00:50:40
Speaker 4: Do you know what the word hoax means?
00:50:44
Speaker 2: I know what the word hoax means.
00:50:45
Speaker 4: What does it mean?
00:50:50
Speaker 2: Something that was... A hoax is an event or a.
00:50:59
Speaker 7: Oh, boy.
00:51:02
Speaker 2: A hoax is meant to fool people.
00:51:08
Speaker 3: Oh boy, Bill.
00:51:10
Speaker 7: That's gross.
00:51:11
Speaker 4: What is the factual basis that free speech systems relied on when it first reported Sandy Hook Elementary might be a hoax?
00:51:28
Speaker 2: I believe most of our reporting was involved with looking at how this event will be used to take people's Second Amendment rights.
00:51:40
Speaker 4: When did that conversation start?
00:51:43
Speaker 2: I believe that conversation started the day of the event.
00:51:50
Speaker 4: Why would you... What made free speech systems start having that conversation?
00:51:58
Speaker 2: Because we have seen past events where a gun is used and when a gun is used.
00:52:09
Speaker 2: The gun becomes the cause. And then they look at gun owners as being people that need to be stripped of their rights and gun ownership.
00:52:21
Speaker 7: This is, I mean, even hearing him explain this, which you obviously already know, this is what he thinks.
00:52:25
Speaker 4: Yeah.
00:52:26
Speaker 7: He sounds dumb. He's not able to articulate this in a way that like sounds compelling. And he, Like, this would not be necessarily a great thing to be expressing.
00:52:39
Speaker 3: Yeah.
00:52:39
Speaker 7: Like, there's a mass shooting where a bunch of children were murdered at a school. And your first thought is, won't you think of the guns? Like, that's really bizarre to be, like... that's your head space, you're testifying that that's your head space. This is where we're at, this is our priorities, very consistent, and it's strange.
00:53:01
Speaker 5: It's strange.
00:53:01
Speaker 6: Yeah, I saw all those victims and heroes tragically murdered, gunned down, mowed down, and I was like, man, I hope that gun's okay.
00:53:10
Speaker 3: It probably fired a little too much for my taste.
00:53:13
Speaker 7: Well, even putting it on a more realistic framing, it's like, how am I gonna be defensive about this? And that's weird.
00:53:22
Speaker 3: It is weird. It's almost deflated.
00:53:25
Speaker 6: It's like he's realized that no matter what answer he gives, I think he's already, after the first morning deposition, I think he's realized that he's not going to get anything right.
00:53:35
Speaker 2: Maybe.
00:53:35
Speaker 3: So all he's doing is trying to think of the right thing to say to get.
00:53:39
Speaker 7: Out of it. Well, see, I'm trying to put myself in the position of this gun-loving guy. Lovin's too weak of a word. Yeah, yeah. This sort of mindset. And I think that having that kind of a response of they're going to use this tragedy to push gun legislation, that would make sense in opposition to gun legislation.
00:54:03
Speaker 4: Right.
00:54:03
Speaker 7: So let's say two months after Sandy Hook, there's a bill that is being introduced and expressing something to the effect of my heart goes out as much as it possibly can to the victims and the surviving family members. but we can't allow sentimentality or over emotion to erode our freedoms or something like that. In the context of discussing a bill, an actual bill that is being introduced, that makes sense. To see a shooting and then immediately imagine a future bill. and then get defensive about it, get defensive about something that doesn't exist, it seems fucked up. It seems like a them problem.
00:54:45
Speaker 2: It is.
00:54:46
Speaker 6: But that's what happens whenever you don't see other people as people.
00:54:50
Speaker 2: True.
00:54:50
Speaker 3: They're not humans. Why would you bother?
00:54:52
Speaker 6: Who cares about whether or not they introduce the bill now or 100 years from now? I know they're evil.
00:54:59
Speaker 7: Yeah, it's silly.
00:55:01
Speaker 2: Yeah.
00:55:02
Speaker 7: Anyway, so there needs to be a factual basis for his belief, or at least the question is, what's your factual basis?
00:55:10
Speaker 3: Yeah, there doesn't need to be.
00:55:11
Speaker 7: And it turns out it's Operation Northwood. Oh, God. But Rob doesn't seem to even understand this.
00:55:18
Speaker 4: The day of the Sandy Hook shooting, Mr. Jones went on his show and suggested that this was all staged by the government.
00:55:30
Speaker 2: Correct? Correct. You'd have to show me the video. Okay.
00:55:34
Speaker 4: I'm asking you, what's the factual basis for Mr. Jones' theory the day of as it relates to number four listed in the piece of paper in front of you? Mm-hmm. What was the factual basis for him saying the government staged this?
00:55:49
Speaker 2: I think the factual basis goes back to a document that was declassified in the late 1990s, and it was called Operation Northwoods. And in that, it describes situations where the government would create events and stage, one of which was bombing airlines, also staging mass shootings, they say, in theaters. I believe schools is also listed in that. I haven't looked at that document in a while. But that document became declassified. And it was signed by.
00:56:33
Speaker 2: The heads of the military and given to President Kennedy.
00:56:38
Speaker 4: Okay. So, because that document was declassified in the 90s, every single mass shooting, immediately Mr. Jones goes on Infowars.com and on his radio show and suggests that this is staged. I just want to make sure that I have my factual basis clear.
00:56:57
Speaker 2: You're getting arrested for what?
00:57:02
Speaker 3: Well, we can say it like that.
00:57:03
Speaker 2: I think what we do is.
00:57:05
Speaker 4: Not what you do, what you did.
00:57:06
Speaker 2: What we did? We remind people.
00:57:17
Speaker 3: I'm sorry?
00:57:18
Speaker 2: We reminded people. And I'm not even sure if he mentioned Northwoods that day or not. But I'm sure that was in his mind, although I can't speak for him.
00:57:29
Speaker 7: Okay, so we remind people of this.
00:57:34
Speaker 3: Wow.
00:57:35
Speaker 7: Which is, that is the, how's that different? That's bizarre.
00:57:39
Speaker 6: Well, I say it this way, and it doesn't sound like I said it a different way.
00:57:44
Speaker 7: It is such a good way that Bill put it. Because of this document that was declassified in the 90s, every mass shooting is reported as possibly being fake or likely being fake. Is that correct?
00:57:58
Speaker 6: And then Rob do has to be like, well, yes, but I don't want to say it because when you say it like that, it sounds fucking stupid.
00:58:05
Speaker 7: Yeah.
00:58:05
Speaker 6: So what I'm saying is we reminded people of the document.
00:58:09
Speaker 7: It sounds almost as if we have a very weak basis for the kind of reporting that we do.
00:58:14
Speaker 3: I've never thought of it that way. But when you put it like that.
00:58:17
Speaker 6: I am going to shut down and stay silent for a while.
00:58:20
Speaker 7: Ah, shit.
00:58:21
Speaker 3: Long pause.
00:58:22
Speaker 7: So one of the hallmarks, I think you could say, of these, particularly like the top tier depositions of InfoWars figures, is Unforced Errors. Daria is the queen of Unforced Errors. I mean, raise a hand up. Here, Rob makes a play for the crown.
00:58:42
Speaker 4: Sitting here on behalf of Free Speech Systems... Did the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary happen the way that it was reported by the overwhelmingly majority of the media?
00:58:56
Speaker 2: Objection is to form.
00:59:02
Speaker 4: You can answer.
00:59:24
Speaker 2: I still have doubts that Adam Lanza was the only person involved.
00:59:28
Speaker 4: Okay, so.
00:59:31
Speaker 2: But I believe children were killed at Sandy Hook. And I don't remember ever saying that children did not die at Sandy Hook. Okay.
00:59:40
Speaker 4: So you think this is some sort of hoax that Adam Lanza wasn't alone and someone else shot up a bunch of children in Sandy Hook Elementary School? .
00:59:56
Speaker 3: .
01:00:00
Speaker 2: Are you saying right now or then?
01:00:02
Speaker 4: Is that true? Right now. Sitting here right now. Just say no. Just say no.
01:00:12
Speaker 3: Just say no.
01:00:13
Speaker 6: Just say no.
01:00:25
Speaker 2: I think things have evolved over time. I think the government and the law enforcement in Connecticut, by their obfuscation, helped make this, turn this into what it is today. And I do not believe they helped the situation.
01:00:55
Speaker 4: You don't believe they helped the situation?
01:00:57
Speaker 2: I don't believe they helped the situation in answering people's questions. Okay.
01:01:01
Speaker 4: Do you have any idea what question I asked before you said all those words?
01:01:07
Speaker 2: You said, do I think Adam Lanza acted alone?
01:01:10
Speaker 4: Does Free Speech Systems believe Adam Lanza acted alone or that someone else came in and shot up a bunch of children at Sandy Hook Elementary? That was my question.
01:01:39
Speaker 2: I think we agree with the findings that came out in January of 2018. Wow.
01:01:44
Speaker 7: I mean, it's just the mind. The mind that you're getting a glimpse into here is.
01:01:51
Speaker 6: I feel like I can hear the squeaking. He needs some oil on those gears.
01:01:56
Speaker 7: Holy shit.
01:01:58
Speaker 3: That is slow.
01:01:59
Speaker 7: Unprompted. Unnecessarily throwing out. I still have some questions about whether Adam went back.
01:02:05
Speaker 6: To the load.
01:02:05
Speaker 7: I still don't think he did it. I am here as the corporate representative for free speech systems, and I am offering unprompted conspiracy theories. Oh, man, what an idiot.
01:02:17
Speaker 2: Amazing.
01:02:17
Speaker 6: As the physical manifestation of a business, I, too, agree that shooting was a hoax.
01:02:24
Speaker 7: Ew. Yeah, that's in the pantheon of things you don't need to say. That is up there. That is in the conversation. I.
01:02:37
Speaker 6: But they can't not do the thing that they do. They try so hard not to answer questions. And then they're like, yeah, but I got to get my thing out there. I got to get my little piece out there.
01:02:48
Speaker 3: I got to say it. I'm combative. I got to do it.
01:02:50
Speaker 7: And it kind of leads you to suspect, I think, that Rob does believe that. Yeah. There's a lot of people who probably are maybe more cynical and more maybe opportunistic.
01:03:03
Speaker 2: Yep.
01:03:04
Speaker 7: It feels like Rob, his silences and his contemplating is like, I don't want to lie and say that I don't believe this shit. Are they going to bust me for lying about not believing this?
01:03:18
Speaker 6: That's the other thing that I love about this is that it does seem like he is both. committed to not lying but also committed to not telling them anything right and so he's trying to reword all of the things that they say it's it's delightful it is delightful i would choose.
01:03:33
Speaker 7: A different word maybe the opposite of that but yes so he mentioned a agreement with a report from 2018 yes and so bill uh wants to know why do you agree with that report yeah how is it different than other reports that have come out in the past not good.
01:03:52
Speaker 4: This report that was released by the Connecticut State Police in January of 2018, how was it different from the original Connecticut report, the Newtown report that came out December of 2013?
01:04:16
Speaker 2: Well, from what I remember, the report that was initially released was redacted and did not have.
01:04:36
Speaker 2: I believe it was critical of certain aspects of what happened that day. And this new report seemed to be... Not as critical of the law enforcement response, the second report.
01:04:57
Speaker 4: That's the only difference?
01:05:00
Speaker 2: That's what I can recall comparing it to the initial.
01:05:03
Speaker 4: Report, yes. Let me back up then. That, what you just testified to, that information was what changed Free Speech Systems' position on whether or not.
01:05:14
Speaker 3: Oh, right, I'm supposed to be the business.
01:05:16
Speaker 5: Shit!
01:05:17
Speaker 4: Correct. Objection is due for.
01:05:24
Speaker 2: I think there's a lot of different things that happen over time with these events.
01:05:29
Speaker 7: Amazing.
01:05:30
Speaker 4: Was InfoWars wrong in its initial report?
01:05:36
Speaker 2: At the time we reported anything, we're not putting out information that we believe to be untrue. So if we put it out at that time, at that time we believed it to be true.
01:05:53
Speaker 4: Sure, but if one person at the top is vetting all the information and he just says, well, I think it's true, you can throw up anything, right? Correct?
01:06:01
Speaker 2: I don't agree with that statement.
01:06:03
Speaker 4: If Alex Jones wants something to go on the air, he can put it up and nobody can stop him at free speech systems, correct?
01:06:10
Speaker 2: Alex is the boss, yes.
01:06:14
Speaker 4: So if Mr. Jones believes something, then free speech systems can just hide behind the veil of, well, we thought it was true. at the time that we put out the wrong information. Is that true?
01:06:26
Speaker 5: It's the little sighs.
01:06:49
Speaker 3: What are you doing?
01:06:53
Speaker 2: I don't believe we're hiding behind anything.
01:06:57
Speaker 7: Comes off sincere. Yeah, really. After a long pause, some sighs, and we're not hiding behind anything. Okay.
01:07:03
Speaker 3: Nothing to hide behind here.
01:07:05
Speaker 7: I buy it.
01:07:05
Speaker 3: Yeah. Do not look in these bushes where I am.
01:07:09
Speaker 7: Yeah. But Bill's making a good point that Rob really can't answer, and that is the, like, okay, so if you believed it was right at the time, you have no responsibility for anything, and if one person... Basically is in charge of deciding what you believe at the time. Yep. All right. Seems like you're hiding behind that as a rationale for why you never did anything wrong and you never have. If you don't check on things and you just report things willy-nilly.
01:07:36
Speaker 2: Right.
01:07:36
Speaker 7: And then later you're wrong, but you had a quote-unquote good faith belief in it at the time. Sure. Seems like... Seems like you just are chaotic.
01:07:45
Speaker 3: All right, now I know what you're saying, but how about this?
01:07:49
Speaker 6: The things that I say sound better and make more sense when they are being yelled. And I think you don't understand me because we're talking so quietly. So let me try it this way.
01:07:59
Speaker 3: They did it wrong! See, that makes more sense. Now you can agree with me.
01:08:03
Speaker 7: Insert long pause. Could you repeat the question? So the issue of how big comes up, And there's a question of whether or not Wolfgang Halbig reached out to InfoWars or the other way around.
01:08:19
Speaker 3: That is a good question.
01:08:19
Speaker 7: And so this question comes up and then Rob Du gives a bizarre non sequitur.
01:08:25
Speaker 4: Let's talk about Wolfgang Halbig. Did InfoWars reach out to him? InfoWars.com reach out to him? Or did he reach out to.
01:08:35
Speaker 9: You?
01:08:49
Speaker 2: I believe he reached out to us at some point saying he was a school safety expert. Okay.
01:08:59
Speaker 4: And looking back in hindsight does free speech systems believe that was a good idea to start communicating and having him on the shows.
01:09:15
Speaker 2: I believe one of the first things he said was that he had given money to the victims.
01:09:21
Speaker 4: What does that mean?
01:09:23
Speaker 2: Well, that he believed it was a real event. What? And then after from what he was doing and asking questions, he was not getting answers to his questions.
01:09:35
Speaker 7: That is bewildering.
01:09:37
Speaker 6: Rob, Rob, Rob, where are you right now?
01:09:40
Speaker 7: Where did you just go?
01:09:41
Speaker 3: You left us. You're somewhere else, man.
01:09:44
Speaker 7: I think that the intent of that information is to say it seemed like a good idea to talk to him because he clearly believed that it was a real event.
01:09:53
Speaker 4: Yeah.
01:09:54
Speaker 7: But that also undercuts the path that their relationship took.
01:09:57
Speaker 2: Yeah.
01:09:57
Speaker 7: And how encouraging they were of him believing the opposite of that.
01:10:02
Speaker 3: Right, right.
01:10:03
Speaker 7: And it's not like he believed that at the time. He gave money to the families is part of Wolfgang's backstory in as much as it's given credibility to his claims that it's a hoax.
01:10:16
Speaker 6: Yeah, that's why he- He's like, I believed it, and then- It was a big come to Jesus moment for me.
01:10:20
Speaker 2: Exactly.
01:10:21
Speaker 3: Yes, it's bullshit.
01:10:22
Speaker 7: It's essentially a part of his prologue.
01:10:26
Speaker 3: Yeah, his myth.
01:10:26
Speaker 4: Yeah. Yeah.
01:10:27
Speaker 5: Yeah.
01:10:28
Speaker 7: It's very bizarre for Rob to be pulling that out.
01:10:31
Speaker 3: It does feel like he's like, no, no, no, you don't understand.
01:10:36
Speaker 6: He said that he gave money to the families at the time, so we thought he was a good guy, right?
01:10:41
Speaker 3: Because we weren't going to do that shit.
01:10:44
Speaker 7: It's strange. So Badandi comes up, and here's some thoughts about that.
01:10:50
Speaker 4: You're aware that Mr. Badandi, Free Speech Systems is aware Mr. Badandi went to Connecticut in June 2015.
01:10:59
Speaker 2: I'm aware. I couldn't give you the exact date. Okay.
01:11:02
Speaker 4: You watched the footage, though?
01:11:03
Speaker 2: From yesterday.
01:11:04
Speaker 4: That was the first time you'd ever seen it?
01:11:06
Speaker 2: No, I'd seen it before. Okay.
01:11:09
Speaker 4: What is Free Speech Systems' stance on that footage?
01:11:18
Speaker 3: No notes.
01:11:18
Speaker 1: Love it.
01:11:20
Speaker 2: I believe it was.
01:11:28
Speaker 2: I would say it was reasons like that is why he was not hired. He was no longer working for us.
01:11:41
Speaker 4: At the time, he was, though.
01:11:49
Speaker 7: Well, when you put it that way.
01:11:51
Speaker 3: Now I see what you're asking.
01:11:53
Speaker 7: Yes, but he was a contract person instead of a full-time.
01:11:58
Speaker 3: Completely different.
01:11:59
Speaker 7: Oh, boy.
01:12:01
Speaker 4: Wow.
01:12:01
Speaker 7: So, Dew brings up an email that definitely exists.
01:12:06
Speaker 3: Okay.
01:12:07
Speaker 7: Where he told Badandi, you're out of here.
01:12:10
Speaker 2: Right?
01:12:11
Speaker 6: Now, and I'm going to throw this out there. I'm just going to see if I can guess where this might be going. Do you realize that as the corporate representative, you were supposed to produce those documents directly to us?
01:12:21
Speaker 7: Well, you're on the right track because it turns out this email has not been turned off.
01:12:26
Speaker 3: What a surprise.
01:12:27
Speaker 7: Now, it definitely exists.
01:12:28
Speaker 2: Totally.
01:12:29
Speaker 7: But also, maybe it was a text.
01:12:30
Speaker 3: I believe that it exists.
01:12:32
Speaker 7: But hey.
01:12:34
Speaker 4: But after June of 2015, that's when.
01:12:38
Speaker 4: Free Speech Systems was company-wide, said we are no longer going to be associated with this guy.
01:12:43
Speaker 2: I don't know if it was June or not, but there's definitely an email that I believe I sent to him or, yeah, that I sent to him and said he's no longer representing or not to represent Free Speech Systems.
01:12:59
Speaker 4: Okay, and that wasn't anything to do with, like, a journalist's source. That was just you telling somebody to stop saying he's associated with you.
01:13:09
Speaker 2: Correct. Okay.
01:13:10
Speaker 4: Where's that email?
01:13:19
Speaker 3: I didn't think you were going to ask that.
01:13:22
Speaker 2: I assume you have it.
01:13:25
Speaker 4: What a shot.
01:13:29
Speaker 3: Let's back up.
01:13:30
Speaker 2: Did you give it to anybody?
01:13:40
Speaker 4: Did you give it to Mr. Bankston? Did you send it to Mr. Bankston?
01:13:44
Speaker 2: I don't know if I sent any documents to Mr. Bankston.
01:13:46
Speaker 4: Did you send it to Mr.
01:13:47
Speaker 2: Enoch? I don't believe I sent any documents to Mr. Enoch. You sent it to Mr. Barnes. There's a lot of attorneys working on the case, and so it went to another attorney, I imagine.
01:14:03
Speaker 4: Okay.
01:14:03
Speaker 2: But I'm not, thinking back, it may have been a text, but I would have to look through everything again.
01:14:12
Speaker 4: So you have a texting relationship with Mr. Bedondee?
01:14:17
Speaker 2: Not generally. But you have... What?
01:14:19
Speaker 4: There were text messages that were found, I guess, if you're bringing them up. Correct?
01:14:25
Speaker 2: There might be one or two or something, depending on.
01:14:31
Speaker 2: We generally like to do things in email.
01:14:33
Speaker 4: Okay.
01:14:36
Speaker 2: Especially if it's don't. We don't want you representing us anymore.
01:14:41
Speaker 7: Like this thing is.
01:14:43
Speaker 3: Okay, so in this circumstance.
01:14:45
Speaker 7: You'd really think it would be an email.
01:14:47
Speaker 6: Yeah.
01:14:47
Speaker 7: Yeah, so then we get on another lap, basically. That's how you restart this entire cycle of conversation that goes nowhere. I do really appreciate, though, that there's a certainty that there's an email.
01:14:58
Speaker 4: Yep.
01:14:59
Speaker 7: And then as they're like, oh, I don't have that email. No one has ever produced that email. Maybe it's a text.
01:15:05
Speaker 2: Ah.
01:15:06
Speaker 7: How do I wiggle out of this? My certainty has gone away.
01:15:09
Speaker 3: I just love the stab at the... You guys have it?
01:15:16
Speaker 7: Like the hope.
01:15:17
Speaker 3: The hope.
01:15:18
Speaker 7: I assume.
01:15:19
Speaker 3: That's the other thing. That's the other thing about these depositions that's always there. The hope that maybe they got out of it this time.
01:15:26
Speaker 2: Right.
01:15:26
Speaker 7: And presuming that he did turn it over to lawyers, the fact that they don't have it means that the lawyers are not producing things. So now you're getting other people.
01:15:37
Speaker 3: You're revealing all the wrong things.
01:15:38
Speaker 1: Yeah.
01:15:39
Speaker 7: Yeah. So we've touched on Halbig.
01:15:43
Speaker 5: Yeah.
01:15:43
Speaker 7: Touched on Badandi.
01:15:44
Speaker 2: Sure.
01:15:44
Speaker 7: Now let's talk Fetzer.
01:15:46
Speaker 3: Let's do it.
01:15:46
Speaker 7: And actually, Rob is correct about this, which is bizarre.
01:15:51
Speaker 4: Jim Fetzer. What do you know about Jim Fetzer?
01:15:59
Speaker 2: That he's an author, and I don't know if he's a talk show host, but he's been on a lot of talk shows.
01:16:06
Speaker 4: Okay. He's... I think to this day still holds that Sandy Hooks.
01:16:13
Speaker 2: Was a hoax.
01:16:14
Speaker 4: You would agree?
01:16:15
Speaker 2: I believe that is his view, yes.
01:16:18
Speaker 4: What was your relationship with Mr.
01:16:20
Speaker 2: Fetzer? He was a guest, but not that frequently. Okay.
01:16:27
Speaker 4: Why did he start becoming a guest?
01:16:30
Speaker 2: I believe he was a guest long before Sandy Hook.
01:16:33
Speaker 4: Okay.
01:16:36
Speaker 2: He may have come on once after Sandy Hook, but I don't even know if that. is accurate, but he was not a frequent guest.
01:16:46
Speaker 4: So prior to Sandy Hook, he was just another believer in conspiracy theories, right?
01:16:51
Speaker 2: I don't know what his beliefs are, but I imagine he's... I don't know what his beliefs are in terms of what you just said, conspiracy theories.
01:17:01
Speaker 7: So I'm baffled, but Rob is correct. I mean, Fetzer would have been on more in the past because he had like JFK conspiracies and like he was someone who Alex did have on before. I'm not even positive that he ever came on after Sandy Hook. And I think the reason is because he's so clearly unwell.
01:17:21
Speaker 4: Yeah.
01:17:21
Speaker 7: Like I've seen interviews with him on Project Camelot and he is somebody who is so obviously not credible as a witness that I don't think that Alex would ever want to have him on. in that era, in that time. But there's a lot of information that traces back to him that was easy to launder. And there were things that were written that don't come off as immediately unhinged as seeing him rant and rave would have been. And so I think whether or not Rob understands these dynamics or not, He's correct. I don't know if Fetzer ever did come on afterwards, but he was a longstanding guest back into the early 2000s, late 90s even maybe. I found stuff on archived pages of Alex's site of interviews with him from way back.
01:18:18
Speaker 6: Here's a piece of advice for anybody in any kind of interrogation circumstance or the like.
01:18:26
Speaker 3: If on some questions you have extremely long.
01:18:30
Speaker 6: Pauses that are noticed by the questioner, and on other questions you answer immediately and with confidence, then perhaps that says something about the varying degrees of truthfulness between those two answers.
01:18:43
Speaker 7: It's possible.
01:18:44
Speaker 3: Yeah.
01:18:45
Speaker 7: So you might notice also there's a little bit of, it's not that it's surface level, but there's not as much depth to this. And that is because these depositions are being done on a pretty tight schedule.
01:18:57
Speaker 2: Yeah.
01:18:58
Speaker 7: So a lot of the other ones, like later, they got taken to go on for hours and hours.
01:19:03
Speaker 3: Yeah.
01:19:04
Speaker 7: This was on a, I believe it was basically one hour for the Infor's LLC and two hours for this one.
01:19:11
Speaker 2: Wow.
01:19:12
Speaker 7: So there's not enough time to really drill into a ton of some of the substance that we see in some of the other depositions.
01:19:22
Speaker 5: Right.
01:19:23
Speaker 7: So you just have kind of like, who's Jim Fetzer?
01:19:26
Speaker 3: Think of.
01:19:27
Speaker 6: Think of the broad side that they must have had if they thought that the depositions were going to regularly be one or two hours.
01:19:36
Speaker 3: And then to have that jumped up to full day long.
01:19:40
Speaker 7: Who knows? Who knows what their expectations were?
01:19:42
Speaker 3: Heartbreaking.
01:19:43
Speaker 7: So Rob struggles in this next clip when asked if Alex ever called the Sandy Hook family's actors.
01:19:51
Speaker 3: Good question.
01:19:52
Speaker 7: Because he did.
01:19:53
Speaker 1: Yes, he did.
01:19:53
Speaker 7: He definitely did. We know. And so did Rob.
01:19:56
Speaker 2: Yep.
01:19:57
Speaker 7: But... Eh, he gives it a shot.
01:20:00
Speaker 4: Between December 2012 and today, has Mr. Jones ever referred to parents as actors? And by parents, I mean the parents of the children that died at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
01:20:14
Speaker 2: I believe you have, if you look at the footage, there's even law enforcement personnel referring to people as actors.
01:20:22
Speaker 4: Not, my question, in any shape, form, or fashion.
01:20:25
Speaker 3: Aha!
01:20:26
Speaker 1: Aha!
01:20:28
Speaker 2: Has Mr.
01:20:29
Speaker 4: Jones ever reported that the parents of the dead children from Sandy Hook Elementary School were faking and were actors about this situation?
01:20:42
Speaker 2: I do not believe he was referring to parents.
01:20:46
Speaker 4: As.
01:20:46
Speaker 3: How are we doing here?
01:20:52
Speaker 2: I believe when he says acting... He's talking about coaching from the mainstream media and the way they paraded those poor people in front of the camera day after day after day to talk about taking people's comments.
01:21:06
Speaker 3: So the answer is yes, then.
01:21:08
Speaker 4: I feel sorry to a breaking point. I've got one, two follow-up questions. As far as free speech is concerned, has anyone else at free speech said that parents were actors?
01:21:23
Speaker 2: There was people who believed all kinds of things during that.
01:21:26
Speaker 6: Sure.
01:21:27
Speaker 2: There were some people that believed everything that was coming out of the.
01:21:33
Speaker 3: Like you.
01:21:35
Speaker 2: From the media was true, and there were some people that did not believe that. So there.
01:21:41
Speaker 6: Were.
01:21:42
Speaker 2: And we have open debates about those things. Right. Because we believe that's the best place to have them is in the open.
01:21:48
Speaker 4: And by open, you mean on the show?
01:21:49
Speaker 2: Correct.
01:21:50
Speaker 4: So, for instance, when you went on the show and you said, I know Robbie Parker is an actor. I'm an actor. I have a degree in theater. Does that sound like a question? Or are you making a statement?
01:22:03
Speaker 2: I was referring to him preparing right before he began speaking.
01:22:07
Speaker 4: Sure. I asked a question of, does that sound like a question or a statement, Mr.
01:22:11
Speaker 2: Dew? That sounds like a statement. Thank you. And that was based on experience.
01:22:18
Speaker 4: And that experience, you were doing that. as an employee for Free Speech Systems, correct?
01:22:24
Speaker 2: I believe we are allowed to make statements.
01:22:25
Speaker 4: Correct. And you are doing it on a show that is owned and produced by Free Speech Systems, correct?
01:22:42
Speaker 2: I made that statement.
01:22:44
Speaker 3: Congrats.
01:22:47
Speaker 4: And you did it on a show owned by Free Speech Systems.
01:22:49
Speaker 2: And I believed at the time, when I was looking at what I was seeing, that Robbie Parker was going through some sort of actor training.
01:23:03
Speaker 7: Not my question.
01:23:06
Speaker 6: I don't know how more we can do this, sir. I'm asking you a question to which I want the answer.
01:23:11
Speaker 2: Right. Well.
01:23:12
Speaker 7: I mean, that's one way to approach... I'm just going to scat.
01:23:20
Speaker 3: The rest of the time. I think he might be more successful.
01:23:25
Speaker 7: If it pleases the court, I will speak in beeps and boops.
01:23:31
Speaker 3: And it is exemplary of what they're good at.
01:23:34
Speaker 6: They're good at, if somebody asks them a question, being like, I think cops also said they were actors.
01:23:39
Speaker 3: That's what they're good at. They can do that instantly. Pull it off the back of their backs.
01:23:43
Speaker 7: I imagine that's true in as much as somebody might say that people are actors in terms of performing actions.
01:23:51
Speaker 3: Right, right, right.
01:23:52
Speaker 7: I'm a competent actor or something like that. I could see somebody referring to somebody as an actor in that sense.
01:23:58
Speaker 2: Right.
01:23:59
Speaker 7: But not in the sense that they're talking about. Right. I mean, they are the same letters, right?
01:24:05
Speaker 2: Right.
01:24:06
Speaker 7: But not the same word.
01:24:07
Speaker 6: And it's like him being, it's so childish. It's like, oh, well, the cop said it. Why can't I say it? Like, no, just answer the fucking question. I don't care what you feel.
01:24:17
Speaker 2: Right.
01:24:17
Speaker 7: It's obfuscation and misdirection. They're very good at that.
01:24:21
Speaker 3: That's what they're doing.
01:24:21
Speaker 2: Yeah.
01:24:22
Speaker 7: That's 90% of the business model.
01:24:24
Speaker 3: Actually answering questions, true or false. Not good. Not good at it.
01:24:29
Speaker 2: No.
01:24:29
Speaker 7: And here comes another one.
01:24:30
Speaker 3: Okay.
01:24:31
Speaker 7: Hot and ready. Fresh across the plate. Here comes a meatball. Um, there's a question about a bit of reporting that Rob did himself. And that was that, uh, they had sealed the, uh, death certificates of the children. Okay. And, uh, why did you report that?
01:24:49
Speaker 3: Good question.
01:24:49
Speaker 4: And that programming in February 12th, 2015, you personally were on a free speech systems program and said that they sealed all the death certificates. You remember that?
01:25:03
Speaker 2: What was the date?
01:25:04
Speaker 4: February 12, 2015.
01:25:05
Speaker 2: I believe at the time that is what I believed that they had blocked those because they felt they weren't releasing them to the public.
01:25:22
Speaker 4: What did you do to try and get it? Did you fill out a FOIA request?
01:25:29
Speaker 2: I did not.
01:25:30
Speaker 9: Okay.
01:25:30
Speaker 4: What did you do to learn that they weren't giving them to the public?
01:25:36
Speaker 2: I did internet searches looking for those. I don't know if I did it that day. But I had done searches in the past looking for those because people were saying they're not providing the death certificates of these kids.
01:25:52
Speaker 4: Yeah, but you're a journalist. You're supposed to vet that information before you put it out onto the internet, right?
01:25:57
Speaker 2: Objection is 2-4.
01:25:58
Speaker 4: I'll back up. Are you a journalist?
01:25:59
Speaker 2: I provide information.
01:26:02
Speaker 4: What? Do you consider yourself a journalist?
01:26:05
Speaker 2: I think I wear a lot of hats.
01:26:06
Speaker 4: Do you wear a journalist hat?
01:26:08
Speaker 2: I believe I do. Okay.
01:26:09
Speaker 7: Nice hat. Wow.
01:26:12
Speaker 3: Pulling fucking teeth.
01:26:13
Speaker 7: Yeah, yeah. Pulling teeth. Do you consider yourself a journalist? I wear many hats. Do you wear a journalist hat?
01:26:19
Speaker 2: Yes.
01:26:20
Speaker 6: You know, I sing the songs of the journalist from time to time. I have tripped the light fantastique.
01:26:26
Speaker 2: Oh, God.
01:26:27
Speaker 3: What are we doing?
01:26:28
Speaker 2: Yep.
01:26:28
Speaker 3: Just say yes or no.
01:26:29
Speaker 7: Look, I heard on a bullshit message board that the death certificates were sealed, and I decided to repeat that shit.
01:26:37
Speaker 4: Yep.
01:26:38
Speaker 7: I don't give a fuck. I'm not checking into any of this stuff.
01:26:40
Speaker 3: Absolutely not.
01:26:41
Speaker 7: But here's how we're going to save that.
01:26:43
Speaker 3: How are we going to do it?
01:26:44
Speaker 7: We're going to say it's common knowledge.
01:26:46
Speaker 3: Get the fuck out.
01:26:47
Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
01:26:47
Speaker 9: Wow.
01:26:48
Speaker 7: It's pretty solid stuff.
01:26:49
Speaker 4: So you got this information from some Google searches. Did you fill out... Did you ever attempt... get a death certificate?
01:26:58
Speaker 2: I did not. Okay. Because I read that they were sealing them. They would not release them.
01:27:04
Speaker 4: Where were you reading this?
01:27:07
Speaker 2: I couldn't give you the exact article or website.
01:27:09
Speaker 3: A journalist never reveals his sources.
01:27:11
Speaker 2: I think it was common knowledge that they weren't releasing death certificates.
01:27:16
Speaker 4: When you say common knowledge, please tell us who that group of people would possibly think that was common knowledge.
01:27:37
Speaker 3: You're right, I hang out with weirdos, don't I?
01:27:40
Speaker 5: Huh.
01:27:41
Speaker 2: Uh-oh. One doesn't come to mind.
01:27:52
Speaker 7: Bad answer.
01:27:55
Speaker 6: This needs the Wonder Years-style level of voiceover for his thoughts, because they would be so funny.
01:28:02
Speaker 7: It's... What group am I going to come up with?
01:28:07
Speaker 2: Right.
01:28:07
Speaker 6: And he's going through the Rolodex, tossing them.
01:28:11
Speaker 3: Is that a good idea? No, that one makes me look dumb. No, I don't like that one. The Vets? No, that doesn't work.
01:28:18
Speaker 7: Unhinged Sandy Hook Truthers?
01:28:20
Speaker 3: Yeah, that one does work, but that makes me look real bad.
01:28:22
Speaker 7: I can't say that. Shit.
01:28:23
Speaker 3: You know what? I can't think of one.
01:28:25
Speaker 7: One does not come to mind.
01:28:27
Speaker 3: Ball's in your court now, sir.
01:28:31
Speaker 7: So not only was Rob saying that they'd sealed these death certificates, which is common knowledge that he cannot come up with. He went a step further. And in this clip we learned he might have just made this shit up.
01:28:47
Speaker 4: So you can't think of a single group of people who would think common knowledge was that the death certificates were being withheld and were sealed. Now that we've established that, You went on to say in that same program on February 12th of 2015 that it was a felony to get those death certificates. Remember saying that?
01:29:10
Speaker 2: No, I'd have to see the video.
01:29:11
Speaker 3: I talk so much shit, of course I don't.
01:29:13
Speaker 4: Have you ever believed that it was a felony to do a FOIA request and pay the $ 15 or $ 20 to get a death certificate?
01:29:22
Speaker 2: I might have been. I'd have to look at the video, but I was probably conflating several things together. One of which was a, I believe it was the head of the state police who came out and said, we're going to go after people who ask questions. And I believe there's video of that somewhere. Right.
01:29:40
Speaker 4: And that makes it a felony? Or did you just make that up?
01:29:49
Speaker 2: I don't believe I made that up. Okay.
01:29:51
Speaker 4: So you would have found a law somewhere that would have made it a felony?
01:29:55
Speaker 2: Right. Well, we're talking about something that was five years ago, six years ago.
01:30:02
Speaker 4: So you would have been able to just go on the internet back then and find a law that made it a felony, correct? Let me back up. I'll make this a lot easier. Other than the police officer saying he's going to go after people for asking questions that you claim happened.
01:30:18
Speaker 2: He said prosecute, I believe. Prosecute.
01:30:20
Speaker 4: Other than that, what... could have led you to believe that doing a FOIA request for death certificates would have been a felony?
01:30:30
Speaker 2: I think at the time, and that might have been information from a number of guests who were trying to get this information and were unable to.
01:30:39
Speaker 4: Okay, so you just took a bunch of information from everyone else, did zero vetting, and threw it out there as true.
01:30:46
Speaker 2: Correct. Objection is due to form.
01:30:49
Speaker 7: Yeah, I'd object to that too, probably.
01:30:50
Speaker 6: Yeah, the form is the troubling part, for sure. That's the troubling part.
01:30:54
Speaker 7: So what you did is Wolfgang Halbig made up some shit, and you just reported that.
01:31:01
Speaker 2: Yeah.
01:31:01
Speaker 7: Cool.
01:31:03
Speaker 3: Follow-up, I thought we were doing a deposition, and now I feel like I'm in the principal's office. Right. So that makes me feel small.
01:31:10
Speaker 7: Well, you deserve a trip to the principal's office.
01:31:12
Speaker 3: You sure do.
01:31:13
Speaker 7: Did you make up that this is a felony? I think it was a lot of sources and guests. Oh, so they made it up. Cool, great. So the thing that appears to be a factual basis there is Rob alleging that there was a cop who said that they were going to prosecute people who were asking questions. And this leads to the unfortunate realization that I think that Rob, and maybe all of Infowars ultimately, believe that asking questions and spreading misinformation are synonymous.
01:31:46
Speaker 3: Yeah, they do.
01:31:47
Speaker 7: They think it's the same thing, more or less.
01:31:50
Speaker 4: Yeah.
01:31:50
Speaker 7: So this comes up, and then Enoch shows back up.
01:31:54
Speaker 3: Of course. Now's the time for that rescue.
01:31:57
Speaker 4: Also, you said that the state police said he was coming after anybody that was asking questions, correct? That was what you just said earlier?
01:32:04
Speaker 2: I believe they said putting out false information, what they considered false information.
01:32:08
Speaker 4: Spreading misinformation.
01:32:10
Speaker 2: Misinformation. Okay.
01:32:11
Speaker 4: I just wanted to clear that up.
01:32:13
Speaker 2: Sure.
01:32:13
Speaker 4: Because it wasn't people that were asking questions. It was people that were intentionally and willfully spreading misinformation. Correct?
01:32:22
Speaker 2: And it was that statement that made us go, this is interesting. Now, why would they have a problem with people asking questions? Wow. Because you could say asking a question is spreading misinformation. No.
01:32:36
Speaker 4: When you say we were questioning things, and then it comes out and said... This is as fake as a $ 3 bill. You and I already agreed that's not a question, that's a statement. That is spreading a statement of misinformation, correct?
01:32:49
Speaker 2: But you're taking statements that are made over a year or so.
01:32:51
Speaker 4: I'm asking a question, correct? Don't interrupt the deposition, Mr. Enoch. Please let the witness finish his question, his answer.
01:32:58
Speaker 2: Would you do that, please, Mr. Rodman?
01:33:00
Speaker 6: If Mr.
01:33:00
Speaker 4: Barnes would like to do it as he's defending this deposition and you're sitting over there, I'm happy to entertain anything Mr. Barnes has to say because he's the one that is allowed to talk in this. Do you agree? Actually, can we, I'm going to pause this from the time. No, stay on the record. Do you agree that only one attorney in Texas gets to defend a deposition and speak?
01:33:21
Speaker 2: Mr. Ogden.
01:33:22
Speaker 4: No, I'm asking a question.
01:33:23
Speaker 2: Do you?
01:33:23
Speaker 4: Please don't interrupt me again. I haven't interrupted you. You just interrupted the deposition.
01:33:29
Speaker 2: I suggest you continue.
01:33:30
Speaker 4: Your deposition, Mr. Ogden. I'm asking you. Do you agree with me that only in the pursuit of the rules, one attorney is allowed to defend a deposition? Would you please continue your deposition, Mr.
01:33:40
Speaker 2: Ogden?
01:33:40
Speaker 4: Are we just going to ignore the Texas rules of civil procedure? Is that what we're doing? I want to know why you keep interrupting. And what's the basis for it? I keep hearing you say those words, but I'm going to... Are you just not going to answer? Are you just going to keep interrupting and being an obstructionist?
01:33:59
Speaker 2: Okay.
01:34:01
Speaker 4: But before I go forward, I just want you to know, everything you're saying is his job. If he's not doing it, talk to him, and he can do his job.
01:34:08
Speaker 2: But.
01:34:09
Speaker 4: Your team decided he was defending these depositions, not you. Where were we?
01:34:21
Speaker 2: Yep.
01:34:23
Speaker 7: You get the sense, I mean, cause this is two different depositions. Yeah. You get the sense that Enoch just shouldn't be allowed in the room.
01:34:30
Speaker 3: He shouldn't.
01:34:30
Speaker 7: He clearly can't control himself, but it's a choice.
01:34:35
Speaker 8: Exactly.
01:34:35
Speaker 7: You don't get to the position, uh, in, in life of, you know, being a, like head, like pretty high up at a law firm, you know, with that kind of impulse control, uh, issue, you know, you, it's a, it's a decision that he's making to be obstructionist.
01:34:53
Speaker 2: Yeah.
01:34:54
Speaker 7: Uh, in, in this, uh, he's trying to derail things and he just, his behavior is such that you just shouldn't be allowed in the room.
01:35:01
Speaker 6: Yeah. I mean, he's doing his best to, uh, I, I mean, both influence the client as well as the lawyers.
01:35:09
Speaker 7: Yeah. Trying to provoke.
01:35:11
Speaker 5: Yeah.
01:35:11
Speaker 3: He's trying to do all this. And then just as I suggest you... Fuck you. Right, right. Are you in the mafia? I suggest you continue your deposition.
01:35:21
Speaker 7: Shut the fuck up. I suggest Barnes do something.
01:35:23
Speaker 3: Yeah.
01:35:23
Speaker 7: He's the one who's supposed to be doing it.
01:35:25
Speaker 3: Give me money for his job.
01:35:27
Speaker 2: Mm-hmm.
01:35:28
Speaker 7: So it's not a felony to look for these death certificates. What? Yeah, it turns out. And it turns out that... Though Rob apparently only learned, as we're going to find out in this clip, that he could get those death certificates if he wanted to very easily. Turns out he learned that in 2018. But someone tweeted him about it years earlier.
01:35:48
Speaker 4: So I'm asking you, when did you learn that you can order the death certificates online?
01:36:07
Speaker 2: I would say maybe sometime during 2018. Okay.
01:36:10
Speaker 4: Were you... Because it's.
01:36:13
Speaker 2: Not something we covered every day.
01:36:14
Speaker 4: Are you still on Twitter?
01:36:17
Speaker 2: I am still on Twitter.
01:36:18
Speaker 4: Is it dues, news, dues with an S, news with a Z?
01:36:23
Speaker 2: Correct.
01:36:23
Speaker 4: Did you get multiple tweets from a person named C.W. Wade that was telling you that you can order the death certificates online back in November of 2016?
01:36:30
Speaker 2: Um.
01:36:35
Speaker 2: I may have. Just because somebody sends you something on Twitter doesn't mean you read it. Okay. Did I respond to him?
01:36:44
Speaker 4: Do you know who C.W. Wade is?
01:36:48
Speaker 2: Oh, boy. No.
01:36:51
Speaker 4: You do not know who C.W.
01:36:52
Speaker 2: Wade is? I don't know. Is that a Twitter name or is that somebody's name?
01:36:56
Speaker 4: It's at C.W. Wade's with an S, and C.W. Wade is the name.
01:37:02
Speaker 2: The name of the person.
01:37:04
Speaker 4: You are testifying under oath on the penalty of perjury that you don't know C.W. Wade is.
01:37:10
Speaker 2: Are you asking if I've met him in person?
01:37:11
Speaker 4: Do you know who that is?
01:37:14
Speaker 2: Sitting here right now, I do not know who that is. Do you have a picture of me with him?
01:37:18
Speaker 4: That's my question. That's the only question I have.
01:37:20
Speaker 7: So C.W. Wade is a pseudonym that was used by somebody who was a volunteer at the Honor Network. And they did a lot of correcting Sandy Hook misinformation online. So this is somebody that very much would have been sparring a bit with Infowars around this time.
01:37:39
Speaker 3: Right, right, right.
01:37:40
Speaker 7: It's understandable, I guess, that maybe Rob wouldn't recognize the name, but it also is probable that they've complained about C.W. Wade in the past. Yeah, yeah. So it is interesting to... Nailed that down.
01:37:53
Speaker 6: So if I understand correctly, Rob, the reason that you didn't follow up on these tweets is because you don't just trust things people put on the internet.
01:38:04
Speaker 7: Well, there's that. Or presumably he's like deluged with messages from people. Just do this news. You know, there's a lot of, a lot of people hitting them up. Sure. Tips. Naturally.
01:38:16
Speaker 3: Of course.
01:38:17
Speaker 7: Um, So he doesn't know who C.W. Wade is, but it turns out Rob also doesn't know who another person is.
01:38:24
Speaker 4: Jonathan Reich or Reich or Reich. Do you know who that is? no r-e-i-c-h jonathan r-e-i-c-h that name doesn't.
01:38:38
Speaker 2: Ring a bell i think i've heard the name but i don't know if i've had any communication with a jonathan okay do.
01:38:43
Speaker 4: You have any understanding of who that.
01:38:46
Speaker 2: Is I imagine he's involved in this somehow.
01:38:54
Speaker 4: But according to free speech systems, after reviewing all of the produced documents that are listed in topic number 10, you don't have any other information on him. Is that what you're testifying to?
01:39:12
Speaker 2: I imagine he is some ancillary person that you're going to try to entrap me with some sort of gotcha moment.
01:39:20
Speaker 4: Definitely not trying to do that. I'm just curious as to what you know. And if you prepared and reviewed the documents that were produced in this case so that we can talk about that name, because it comes up hundreds of times in dozens, if not hundreds, of documents.
01:39:37
Speaker 3: So I should know the name?
01:39:39
Speaker 4: Are you prepared to talk about who that is, or do you just think you may have heard the name once or twice before? That's all I'm asking.
01:39:47
Speaker 2: I don't recall hearing the name in any major capacity at all. I may have heard the name, but I can't recall at this time.
01:39:55
Speaker 4: Did you review any documents that had his name in it, preparing for this deposition specifically?
01:40:02
Speaker 2: I don't recall Jonathan Reich being a.
01:40:07
Speaker 2: I looked at a lot of documents, and I've been looking at a lot of documents, and I don't recall his name jumping out in any substantial capacity.
01:40:16
Speaker 7: Jonathan Reich is somebody who harassed a bunch of people, including the medical examiner in Newtown. And yeah, so he's somebody who factors heavily into a lot of the documents that Rob should have presumably reviewed.
01:40:31
Speaker 3: You'd think. Clearly didn't. No, he's read a lot of documents.
01:40:35
Speaker 7: And he read a lot of documents to prepare for this.
01:40:37
Speaker 3: And they're, you know, here's the thing about documents and words. Rob doesn't know how to read. That's my new theory. That's the only thing I've got.
01:40:47
Speaker 7: This is not possible. He's so averse to it.
01:40:50
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly. Perhaps he's allergic.
01:40:52
Speaker 7: Yeah, he could be allergic.
01:40:53
Speaker 3: It could be some sort of actual allergy.
01:40:55
Speaker 7: Could be like Cactus Tony.
01:40:57
Speaker 2: Yes.
01:40:57
Speaker 7: He's allergic to paper.
01:40:58
Speaker 3: He's allergic to paper.
01:40:59
Speaker 7: Exactly.
01:41:00
Speaker 3: And he can't afford an iPad. He only makes $ 400, 000 a year.
01:41:04
Speaker 7: Or some shit. We don't know Rob's salary, I don't think. Oh, that's right. But his preparation... should have involved these documents that would have led him to know or at least be familiar with the name Jonathan Reich. You'd think. But he didn't, and whatever.
01:41:19
Speaker 6: At least we know that when he gets another shot at it, he's really going to be on top of things.
01:41:25
Speaker 7: He's going to crush it.
01:41:25
Speaker 6: The second time around, that's what he needed.
01:41:27
Speaker 3: He just needed a mulligan.
01:41:28
Speaker 2: Yeah.
01:41:29
Speaker 7: Part of his preparation for this apparently was watching some videos.
01:41:33
Speaker 1: Okay.
01:41:34
Speaker 7: And that's a problem for reasons that will be discussed.
01:41:37
Speaker 3: Okay.
01:41:38
Speaker 7: And lead to Barnes getting involved.
01:41:40
Speaker 3: Of course.
01:41:41
Speaker 7: And starting a fight. Of course.
01:41:43
Speaker 2: I couldn't give you an exact number of, are you looking for eight-hour day segments or total?
01:41:48
Speaker 4: If you want to give it to me in hours, you can give it to me in days, you can give it to me in minutes. Just curious of how much time you spent preparing for right now. Because it seems like you're slightly not prepared to talk about some names that are literally mentioned hundreds of times in the document, in the little documents we've gotten. It seems like you reviewed some documents we haven't gotten.
01:42:10
Speaker 3: It does seem like that.
01:42:12
Speaker 4: I'm just trying to figure out how much.
01:42:21
Speaker 5: Time.
01:42:22
Speaker 3: Over under the length of total pauses, how much time did you spend preparing?
01:42:25
Speaker 2: I'd say maybe six total days, but spread out.
01:42:33
Speaker 4: Okay, those are eight-hour days.
01:42:36
Speaker 2: If you were, yes.
01:42:36
Speaker 4: So you've spent 40 hours reviewing documents.
01:42:41
Speaker 2: No, I think a lot of it was reviewing video and finding video.
01:42:45
Speaker 4: Okay. What were you having to find? The request just says what's been produced. Your lawyer's produced it. We know exactly what videos or no videos have been produced, right? Yeah, what videos were you reviewing?
01:42:59
Speaker 3: Oh, boy.
01:42:59
Speaker 4: They didn't produce any videos, right?
01:43:01
Speaker 2: Yeah.
01:43:01
Speaker 4: What videos were you reviewing?
01:43:04
Speaker 2: Objection is to form and misstating facts on the record.
01:43:07
Speaker 9: Videos were produced and you have them in voluminous quality, which you previously misled the court on.
01:43:12
Speaker 2: We'll get to that at a later date.
01:43:14
Speaker 4: Let's back.
01:43:17
Speaker 2: Up.
01:43:17
Speaker 9: Let me say for the record, all of the demonstrative, laughing, over-the-top reactions of Mr. Bankston is highly unprofessional, completely unnecessary, and I would greatly appreciate it if it was not contained. There doesn't need to be demonstrative, childlike behavior responding to a witness.
01:43:37
Speaker 2: Just do it professional, please.
01:43:39
Speaker 4: After yesterday, that's where we're going to go with this, Mr.
01:43:41
Speaker 2: Barnes? Oh, after yesterday?
01:43:43
Speaker 3: After the outrageous behavior yesterday of Mr.
01:43:45
Speaker 4: Bankston?
01:43:46
Speaker 9: And you two were laughing together repeatedly, joking with each other repeatedly?
01:43:51
Speaker 3: No, you guys are dumb.
01:43:52
Speaker 2: That's what we're talking about.
01:43:54
Speaker 3: There's going to be no.
01:43:56
Speaker 2: No, it's on the witness. I mean, now that's the kind of nonsense we're dealing with. All I'm asking is not to.
01:44:01
Speaker 9: Behave with ha-ha-ha, you know, talking with each other, laughing, trying to look at the witness and laugh.
01:44:07
Speaker 4: It's unprofessional.
01:44:08
Speaker 6: This is not brain surgery.
01:44:11
Speaker 2: Are you saying that's what Texas standards are? Texas standards are behaving.
01:44:14
Speaker 9: At the lowest possible ethical level in a way that makes lawyers look like a caricature?
01:44:18
Speaker 3: I'm so confused right now, Mr.
01:44:20
Speaker 4: Barnes, as to what we're talking about.
01:44:21
Speaker 7: Are you in a mirror?
01:44:22
Speaker 2: I'm requesting Mr.
01:44:23
Speaker 9: Banks quit laughing and behaving in a demonstrative way toward the witness repeatedly.
01:44:29
Speaker 2: That's all I'm asking. Thank you.
01:44:34
Speaker 4: We understand all those words.
01:44:38
Speaker 2: It's not an unreasonable request.
01:44:41
Speaker 7: It would be.
01:44:41
Speaker 4: I'm not going to make a comment on the reasonableness of what you just did. But we will talk about number 10. Actually, let's back up because you just made a representation and I just want this on the record. Is your position that any of the defendants in this case have produced videos to us.
01:45:02
Speaker 2: Yes. Okay.
01:45:03
Speaker 4: Every video that we have, we had to find ourselves.
01:45:07
Speaker 7: So this becomes a little bit of a thing. At the end of the deposition, Barnes and Mark both put some stuff on the record.
01:45:15
Speaker 2: Yeah.
01:45:15
Speaker 7: And hashed this out.
01:45:17
Speaker 3: Okay.
01:45:17
Speaker 7: And it turns out that Barnes' position is that they've turned over literally everything, and that is because... everything's online well no Mark and Bill and the folks at the law firm have gone and found a bunch of videos on their own and it's not the InfoWars obligation to create duplicates for them of stuff that they've already found so that's one thing and then the second thing is that they have directed them to tv.infowars.com and said hey here's all of the videos we've turned over all of the videos because we gave you this link and that is all bullshit But that's Barnes' position of the voluminous quality. We've turned over literally every video.
01:46:02
Speaker 6: Barnes complaining about another lawyer turning lawyers into a caricature.
01:46:08
Speaker 2: Right.
01:46:08
Speaker 7: Bananastown.
01:46:09
Speaker 9: Yeah.
01:46:10
Speaker 3: A delight.
01:46:11
Speaker 6: Yeah.
01:46:11
Speaker 3: This is just, of course you think that, Barnes.
01:46:14
Speaker 7: He's engaged in denial and delusion. Oh, my God. I'm doing my best Barnes impression with the two words that start with the same letter. So, yeah, Barnes sucks. Um, so we have a couple more clips here and it's basically the, the way things wrap up with a discussion of whether or not people should be held responsible for things.
01:46:31
Speaker 3: Right.
01:46:31
Speaker 6: Just a general, does responsibility matter in the world we inhabit?
01:46:35
Speaker 2: Sure.
01:46:36
Speaker 7: That's sort of where we begin. Gotcha.
01:46:37
Speaker 4: Do you agree with me that it's, it would, that people should be held responsible if they spread misinformation? Do you agree with that statement?
01:46:49
Speaker 2: If they're knowingly spreading misinformation.
01:46:51
Speaker 1: Okay.
01:46:53
Speaker 4: So as long as they stay ignorant and don't verify that it's false, it should be okay for somebody to spread misinformation. Is that your story? Objection is to inform. I'm just trying to get your understanding. Is that your understanding?
01:47:05
Speaker 9: Um....
01:47:19
Speaker 2: I don't believe we intentionally spread misinformation.
01:47:21
Speaker 4: I didn't just ask that. I said, as long as someone doesn't verify that something's false and spreads that information, should they be responsible for spreading misinformation?
01:47:32
Speaker 2: Objection is to inform.
01:47:53
Speaker 3: Long pause. What was your question again? I think the answer to your question is.
01:48:09
Speaker 2: I'm a good little boy. I think that's a hard question to answer. But I maintain that we never intentionally spread... misinformation or tried to hurt any parents.
01:48:24
Speaker 4: Right. So as long as you're reckless and not intentional, that's where your line starts to get a little murky?
01:48:30
Speaker 2: No, I'm not saying that. That's what you're saying. Okay.
01:48:33
Speaker 4: If you don't verify information and you start spreading it and it is false... Should that person be responsible for spreading misinformation? That's all I'm asking.
01:48:48
Speaker 2: I think you're making the assumption that there's only one source of verification. And I'm maintaining that sometimes there are multiple sources of verification.
01:48:58
Speaker 4: I'm not even saying either of those.
01:49:00
Speaker 7: I didn't say any of that. I... I think what Rob is saying is, hey, you know, there's multiple realities.
01:49:06
Speaker 3: Yes, that's what he's saying.
01:49:07
Speaker 6: He's saying, listen, you can believe in your reality and I'll believe in mine. And there's no way possible for some sort of objective reality to exist.
01:49:15
Speaker 7: I verified all this in crazy town.
01:49:17
Speaker 2: Yeah.
01:49:18
Speaker 7: All right.
01:49:18
Speaker 3: I'm the mayor there.
01:49:20
Speaker 4: Yeah.
01:49:20
Speaker 3: They love me. Why would I come to your house? You suck.
01:49:24
Speaker 6: You're a meanie making me feel bad about believing nonsense.
01:49:27
Speaker 7: I will listen to weirdos like Fetzer and Halbig. You can listen to the Clinton News Network if you like. All right, man.
01:49:35
Speaker 4: Oh, man.
01:49:36
Speaker 6: Now I'm just hearing Kevin Meaney. So that's not right. There's no responsibility that you're going to get here, really. Even if you try to approach it from the abstract position, Rob's not going to give you a satisfactory answer.
01:49:53
Speaker 7: And then when you ask free speech systems, y'all responsible? It's also not going to go great.
01:49:58
Speaker 4: Yeah. Does free speech systems... Do they accept responsibility for spreading misinformation about anything Sandy Hook related?
01:50:14
Speaker 2: Um....
01:50:17
Speaker 4: Sitting here today, not at the time. Sitting here right now, looking back.
01:50:24
Speaker 2: What I think we were doing was seeing how this was being used politically. And it's a shame that people's parents or parents of dead kids were being used to push a political narrative. But I think we had a duty to point that out, that that was being done.
01:50:41
Speaker 4: My question was, looking back, the information that was spread that is now, we can agree, wrong. Does free speech systems accept responsibility for.
01:50:57
Speaker 2: It? At this point, I will accept responsibility for defending the First and Second Amendment.
01:51:03
Speaker 4: Damn!
01:51:05
Speaker 3: God, these people are fucking insane.
01:51:07
Speaker 7: Right, but I 100% think that that is a line that he thought is going to be, give me liberty or give me death.
01:51:16
Speaker 3: That's 100% his sting. This is a quotable moment.
01:51:19
Speaker 7: This is when I stand up and I say, fuck you to power.
01:51:23
Speaker 6: Alex is going to say Thomas Jefferson said that in his deposition.
01:51:28
Speaker 7: Alex is going to get a tattoo of that line. And then it says Jefferson underneath it. And I get a raise. And he's going to pat me on the head.
01:51:35
Speaker 3: I'm going to be a good boy.
01:51:38
Speaker 7: Instead, it sounds monstrous, really. The only thing I'll take ownership of is that I stood up for the second amendment. Damn. You're disconnected at all from the conversation that is going on.
01:51:53
Speaker 6: So in retrospect, looking back, now that you know you hit that person with a car. Are you going to take responsibility for that murder?
01:52:01
Speaker 7: I will say that I made a great stance for the Sixth Amendment and the Third Amendment. And the 20. Which one's the one about prohibition?
01:52:12
Speaker 3: I want to say that's the 13th?
01:52:14
Speaker 7: No, 15th maybe?
01:52:16
Speaker 4: I don't know.
01:52:16
Speaker 7: Which one undoes prohibition? Because that's the one I was standing up for.
01:52:19
Speaker 6: That's the one right after it. There's two amendments that are directly back to back.
01:52:26
Speaker 3: Maybe no booze. Yes, please booze.
01:52:29
Speaker 7: That's the one I was standing up for when I hit the guy with the car. Because I was drunk. That sounds right.
01:52:33
Speaker 2: Um.
01:52:34
Speaker 7: So, yeah, this is what we got. 21st Amendment. 21st Amendment.
01:52:41
Speaker 6: Wow.
01:52:41
Speaker 7: It was later than you thought. It was.
01:52:45
Speaker 6: I assumed that we had gotten that one knocked out pretty early.
01:52:49
Speaker 7: So, do... And actually the 18th was the one that, uh, did prohibition. So it wasn't the next one.
01:52:54
Speaker 3: Oh damn. I'm way off.
01:52:56
Speaker 7: It took some time.
01:52:57
Speaker 3: What was the amendments in between?
01:52:58
Speaker 7: I don't know. Look, here's the deal.
01:53:00
Speaker 4: Yeah.
01:53:00
Speaker 7: Rob do sucks.
01:53:01
Speaker 3: Yes, he does.
01:53:02
Speaker 7: But it's shocking to hear this and then know that the next time wasn't better.
01:53:08
Speaker 2: Yeah.
01:53:08
Speaker 7: There wasn't any more preparation there. It's, it's a rank disrespect. Just one instance like this is pretty disrespectful. And, and, uh, bad but then to know that like you you just think like well we can do that again is.
01:53:24
Speaker 6: I mean yeah that that cannot be you know like that's deliberate barnes is aware of what's going on he's even made points in this deposition where he probably shouldn't be talking.
01:53:36
Speaker 7: Well in the same way that enoch knows what he's doing by disrupting exactly barnes knows what he's doing by allowing rob to show up uh completely unprepared right as the corporate representative yeah There is, and that's why this led to large fines and ultimately down the road was a large portion of the contributing to a default judgment.
01:53:59
Speaker 2: Yeah.
01:54:00
Speaker 7: You know, like it's, it is, they're cognizant of the way that this is playing out in a legal procedure.
01:54:07
Speaker 6: Yeah, and it's very much, it's almost hypocritical, you might say, for there to be a three strikes laws for people who are under the law.
01:54:19
Speaker 3: But people who work there, oh, sure, we'll do another deposition.
01:54:22
Speaker 6: Ah, we'll do, okay, six more depositions, and we're going to think you guys need a default judgment.
01:54:28
Speaker 7: Fool me 30 times.
01:54:29
Speaker 3: Exactly.
01:54:30
Speaker 7: Yeah. So, I mean, we reinforce the awareness that we have that Enoch sucks.
01:54:35
Speaker 6: Yep.
01:54:36
Speaker 7: We get some great do content. The pauses.
01:54:40
Speaker 2: Amazing.
01:54:41
Speaker 7: The testifying on behalf of free speech systems that Lanza may not have acted alone.
01:54:46
Speaker 4: Oh. Great.
01:54:48
Speaker 3: Not knowing what InfoWars is.
01:54:51
Speaker 7: Or why InfoWars LLC exists.
01:54:53
Speaker 6: Or that there's a comma before LLC in all LLCs.
01:54:58
Speaker 7: Pretty wild.
01:54:58
Speaker 4: Yeah.
01:54:59
Speaker 7: All LLCs. A good time and another trip to Deposition Corner.
01:55:06
Speaker 6: It's so insane. I can't get my head around that that's not the... Yep.
01:55:13
Speaker 3: That's not like the first... Boy.
01:55:16
Speaker 4: Wild.
01:55:16
Speaker 7: Anyway, we'll be back, Jordan. But until then, we have a website.
01:55:19
Speaker 3: We do. It's knowledgefight.com.
01:55:20
Speaker 2: Yep.
01:55:21
Speaker 7: We're also on Twitter.
01:55:22
Speaker 3: We are on Twitter. It's at knowledge underscore fight.
01:55:25
Speaker 2: Yep.
01:55:25
Speaker 7: We'll be back. But until then, I'm Neo. I'm Leo. I'm DZX Clark. I'm also Dan. But I've run out of times that Alex said Dan to have clips. So I'm going to have to go hunting for more.
01:55:36
Speaker 3: And now here comes the sex robots.
01:55:38
Speaker 4: Andy in Kansas, you're on the air.
01:55:40
Speaker 7: Thanks for holding.
01:55:42
Speaker 6: Hello, Alex.
01:55:43
Speaker 2: I'm a first time caller. I'm a huge fan.
01:55:45
Speaker 6: I love your work.
01:55:46
Speaker 4: I love you.
Speaker 1: Bye.
00:00:04
Speaker 2: Bye.
00:00:16
Speaker 3: Dan and Jordan, I am sweating.
00:00:19
Speaker 4: Knowledgefight.com. It's time to pray. I have great respect for Knowledge Fight. Knowledge Fight. I'm sick of them posing as if they're the good guys, saying we are the bad guys. Knowledge Fight.
00:00:30
Speaker 3: Dan and Jordan.
00:00:31
Speaker 4: Knowledge Fight. Need money.
00:00:33
Speaker 3: We're out of work.
00:00:39
Speaker 4: Andy in Kansas. Andy in Kansas.
00:00:42
Speaker 5: Stop it.
00:00:43
Speaker 2: Andy in Kansas.
00:00:43
Speaker 3: Andy in Kansas.
00:00:45
Speaker 6: Andy in Kansas.
00:00:46
Speaker 7: It's time to pray.
00:00:47
Speaker 4: Andy in Kansas.
00:00:48
Speaker 6: You're on the air.
00:00:48
Speaker 7: Thanks for holding.
00:00:49
Speaker 4: Hello, Alex.
00:00:49
Speaker 2: I'm a first-time caller.
00:00:51
Speaker 4: I'm a huge fan.
00:00:52
Speaker 7: I love your work.
00:00:53
Speaker 6: Knowledge fight.
00:00:54
Speaker 2: Knowledgefight.com. I love you.
00:00:59
Speaker 7: Hey, everybody. Welcome back to Knowledge Fight. I'm Dan.
00:01:01
Speaker 3: I'm Jordan.
00:01:02
Speaker 7: We're a couple dudes. Like to sit around, worship at the altar of Selene, and talk a little bit about Alex Jones.
00:01:07
Speaker 3: Oh, indeed we are, Dan.
00:01:08
Speaker 7: Jordan.
00:01:09
Speaker 8: Dan.
00:01:09
Speaker 2: Jordan.
00:01:09
Speaker 3: I have a quick question for you tonight.
00:01:12
Speaker 7: Yes.
00:01:12
Speaker 3: What's your bright spot today?
00:01:13
Speaker 7: We are recording a little bit later in the evening. It's not night, though.
00:01:18
Speaker 3: Well, it gets dark in Chicago now at 4.
00:01:20
Speaker 7: I'm pushing 40, so maybe 5 o'clock is night. I don't know. But my bright spot, I have dual bright spots.
00:01:26
Speaker 3: You got dual.
00:01:27
Speaker 7: Well, one is just looping back to one of yours, which was the Fire Emblem Engage. I've had a chance to play a bit of it, and I'm hype. Hype?
00:01:35
Speaker 3: You're hype again.
00:01:36
Speaker 7: I'm back to hype.
00:01:37
Speaker 3: Fully hype.
00:01:38
Speaker 7: Yeah, it's fun. It's fun.
00:01:39
Speaker 3: It is fun.
00:01:40
Speaker 7: It's such a high bar that Three Houses set, though. It's very difficult to assess, like, how much am I actually enjoying this? Do I miss those characters?
00:01:49
Speaker 5: Mm-hmm.
00:01:50
Speaker 7: But yeah, when you brought it up, I hadn't really had a chance to break into much of it, and I've been able to, and I enjoy it.
00:01:56
Speaker 2: Yeah.
00:01:57
Speaker 7: But my real bright spot is when this comes out, it's going to be Friday.
00:02:01
Speaker 3: Okay.
00:02:01
Speaker 7: And the day after that is Saturday. That's true. And that's the day of the Royal Rumble.
00:02:04
Speaker 3: That is the day of the Royal Rumble.
00:02:06
Speaker 7: I often, maybe people think that this is inaccurate, but I often say I'm not really that into wrestling.
00:02:12
Speaker 3: You do often say that.
00:02:13
Speaker 7: And I stand by it.
00:02:15
Speaker 3: I respect that.
00:02:17
Speaker 7: Despite how erroneous it seems, it's based on a lot of the things I bring up and things I know a lot about. But I'm not that into it. But I am super into a Royal Rumble.
00:02:27
Speaker 3: Of course.
00:02:27
Speaker 7: It is the greatest of all wrestling pay-per-views. It's just so fun. It's chaos. People come back random.
00:02:37
Speaker 5: Oh, yeah.
00:02:38
Speaker 7: Random appearances and drop-ins. Sometimes you get a Drew Carey showing up. That's right. That's right. But, yeah, it's just fun. Anything can happen. I mean, I know that that's not entirely true. Right, right. But, yeah, there's a lot of fun.
00:02:53
Speaker 6: No, I've watched three Royal Rumbles, all of which were in association with the game that the Hanson brothers used to play.
00:03:01
Speaker 2: Mm-hmm.
00:03:03
Speaker 7: You're talking about Mbop Handsome Brothers.
00:03:05
Speaker 6: Yes, not quite Mbop Handsome Brothers, but the comedians.
00:03:08
Speaker 7: Jeff and Ed.
00:03:09
Speaker 6: Yeah, Jeff and Ed. And they had this game where you'd have to try and guess. Everybody put money on who was coming out when. What's the dumbest one? Who goes out the fastest? All of those things. And you're like, that is why you watch this, because look at all the dumb shit that's going to happen.
00:03:24
Speaker 7: Yeah. I will be watching it with friends, Marty and Sarah of Marty and Sarah Love Wrestling.
00:03:30
Speaker 4: As will I.
00:03:32
Speaker 7: And, yeah, maybe I'll put together a betting pool. Maybe I'll do some dumb shit like that.
00:03:35
Speaker 3: I think that would be fun.
00:03:36
Speaker 7: Yeah. I mean, we'll be there.
00:03:38
Speaker 5: Yeah.
00:03:38
Speaker 7: Do some gambling.
00:03:39
Speaker 3: Let's do it.
00:03:41
Speaker 7: So anyway, I'm very hyped for that as well.
00:03:42
Speaker 3: That sounds great.
00:03:43
Speaker 7: And Bray Wyatt will be in a pitch black match.
00:03:46
Speaker 3: I'm going to tell you something.
00:03:47
Speaker 7: Mountain Dew pitch black.
00:03:48
Speaker 3: I'm a little bit worried about Uncle Howdy.
00:03:50
Speaker 7: I would be too. You know who else would be worried about him? Bray.
00:03:53
Speaker 3: Yeah, that would be a smart move. Anyway, what's your bright spot?
00:03:55
Speaker 6: My bright spot is last night my wife and I stayed up real late watching a documentary on the Pez Outlaw.
00:04:03
Speaker 3: Uh, who is a guy.
00:04:04
Speaker 7: Wait, wait, are you talking about the protocols, the elders of Zion or the candy?
00:04:07
Speaker 3: The literal candy.
00:04:08
Speaker 7: Okay.
00:04:09
Speaker 6: This guy, uh, in the, I, in the like seventies and eighties or whatever, um, He smuggled European Pez dispensers into the United States because the United States Pez.
00:04:21
Speaker 3: Company wouldn't allow the European Pez in here.
00:04:25
Speaker 7: What's the difference?
00:04:26
Speaker 3: Exactly.
00:04:27
Speaker 6: The European Pez company was able to sell all over the world, and they made all kinds of fun Willy Wonka-style Pez dispensers.
00:04:36
Speaker 7: So there were a higher variety of designs? Tons of them. Better flavors, maybe? What's the deal?
00:04:42
Speaker 3: Not the candy. It's all about the design.
00:04:44
Speaker 6: It's all about the designs for all the collectors.
00:04:46
Speaker 7: The IP. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
00:04:47
Speaker 3: All the collectors want that.
00:04:49
Speaker 6: And in America, you couldn't get it because there was some asshole executive in the American one who's like, I don't like those.
00:04:56
Speaker 3: So you can't have them.
00:04:57
Speaker 2: Right.
00:04:57
Speaker 7: Well, I think there's probably also a disconnect between like, who the fuck is this?
00:05:01
Speaker 3: Yes, exactly.
00:05:03
Speaker 7: This European celebrity. Americans aren't going to buy this. Why do you have a hundred different Gerard Depardews?
00:05:10
Speaker 3: So fun. So fun.
00:05:12
Speaker 6: But yeah, and he did it and he made tons of money and he's like, it's illegal and shit. And he was smuggling things across borders and he's got a plane and they hired people to follow him around.
00:05:23
Speaker 2: Wow.
00:05:24
Speaker 3: All of this about the Pez dispensers.
00:05:26
Speaker 7: That's a fascinating, that sounds like a great documentary.
00:05:28
Speaker 3: Fantastic documentary.
00:05:30
Speaker 7: I do love a candy smuggler.
00:05:32
Speaker 2: Yeah.
00:05:33
Speaker 7: I know that when I was younger, me and my friends loved Kinder Eggs. You know, those were illegal because the toys inside them were so small.
00:05:41
Speaker 3: They'll kill you.
00:05:42
Speaker 7: Kids will swallow them. Those are murder weapons, essentially. But we had a couple places we knew we could get bootleg Kinder Eggs. That was always so fun.
00:05:51
Speaker 3: It's just so funny.
00:05:52
Speaker 6: Whatever you have to have bootlegs of the dumbest possible thing.
00:05:56
Speaker 3: You know, that's the best.
00:05:58
Speaker 7: Yeah, for sure.
00:05:59
Speaker 4: Oh, man.
00:05:59
Speaker 6: And about halfway through the documentary, this will not surprise you. After they've described his exploits in great detail, he goes, and then later on, I was diagnosed as bipolar.
00:06:09
Speaker 7: I was like, buddy. You know it. You are seen.
00:06:14
Speaker 3: I've been there, man. I called it before you did.
00:06:18
Speaker 7: You've got to find an illegal candy and get to bootlegging, man.
00:06:21
Speaker 3: You're telling me.
00:06:21
Speaker 7: Live your destiny.
00:06:22
Speaker 3: And he's got a full ZZ Top beard? Incredible. That's... God among men.
00:06:28
Speaker 7: So, Jordan, today we have an episode to go over. Indeed. We're going to be talking about something. And that thing is, well, okay. So I teased that I had Rob do depositions. You did. I can't sit on that for a while. Okay. I can't sit on that for even a week.
00:06:43
Speaker 2: Nope.
00:06:43
Speaker 7: So we're doing some depositions of Rob do.
00:06:45
Speaker 3: We're doing do positions.
00:06:46
Speaker 7: Absolutely. So that debatably is where the formulaic objection series really started. I don't think it was the first one.
00:06:57
Speaker 6: No.
00:06:58
Speaker 7: I think Alex's was the first one. And then Rob was on one that we did also with Paul Joseph Watson, I believe.
00:07:06
Speaker 6: Right.
00:07:06
Speaker 7: But it was the one that crystallized this was ridiculous.
00:07:10
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:07:11
Speaker 7: He's wearing his Kangol hat. Yep. He's the corporate representative, doesn't know what the fuck is going on.
00:07:17
Speaker 4: Yep.
00:07:17
Speaker 7: So this, that one, the Kangol hat depot, as we're going to call it.
00:07:23
Speaker 2: Yeah.
00:07:23
Speaker 7: That was from November 26th, 2019.
00:07:24
Speaker 2: Okay.
00:07:24
Speaker 4: Okay.
00:07:27
Speaker 7: These two depositions that we're going to be listening to today are when Rob was the corporate representative for InfoWars LLC.
00:07:36
Speaker 4: Oh, no.
00:07:37
Speaker 7: And the second one is Free Speech Systems on March 15th, 2019.
00:07:43
Speaker 3: Okay, so we're five months... Okay.
00:07:46
Speaker 7: This is before. Right, right, right, right.
00:07:48
Speaker 4: Yeah.
00:07:48
Speaker 7: Oh, okay. Yeah, my bad. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
00:07:51
Speaker 6: I got the months going the other direction instead of the backwards.
00:07:54
Speaker 3: I went the forwards. Yeah, now I got you.
00:07:56
Speaker 7: So this is... When we heard him be such a shitty corporate representative, that was the second volley.
00:08:04
Speaker 2: Wow.
00:08:04
Speaker 7: This predates that.
00:08:06
Speaker 2: So.
00:08:07
Speaker 3: I don't know what to expect.
00:08:10
Speaker 7: This did get them sanctioned, I will say.
00:08:14
Speaker 3: That I expect. I do know what to expect in a certain sense.
00:08:17
Speaker 7: We can say that ahead of time. This got them sanctioned, and then in response to that, they decided to send Rob do again, and that got us the Kangal Hat Depot. Let's send them out one more time. So that's pretty interesting strategically.
00:08:33
Speaker 6: It was a shock whenever we were talking about that one because it is the corporate representative.
00:08:38
Speaker 7: You're right.
00:08:39
Speaker 6: That's what started the real, why are we doing depositions? Because these corporate representatives have no idea what's going on.
00:08:46
Speaker 7: Right. And it's not just a.
00:08:50
Speaker 7: I think a deposition where people answer questions sincerely is not really that entertaining, but when it's complete liars who are unprepared and are shady as hell and working across purposes, there's something fascinating about that.
00:09:06
Speaker 3: It is a little bit like.
00:09:09
Speaker 6: It feels like you're watching children from a glass dome, and you know that they've been cheating somebody and stealing cookies all over the place, but they're trying to argue their way out of it, and you're like, what are we doing?
00:09:22
Speaker 3: Guys, this is insane!
00:09:23
Speaker 7: Yeah, and the kid's lawyer is Barnes. Yeah, exactly! Um, so I also need to make a little correction and that is, um, on the Rob Jacobson deposition that we talked about, I said that was in 2018. I believe it was actually in 2019. Okay. Uh, because as, as, as I can tell, these are, uh, these March 15th, 2019, uh, due depositions are, uh, around the same time as the Jacobson one. So I apologize. I got that year wrong.
00:09:50
Speaker 4: Okay.
00:09:52
Speaker 7: So this is going to be a mess and we'll get into it. But first, let's say hello to some new ones oh that's a great idea so first a veritable tsunami of cantankerous badgers thank you so much you are now a policy wonk i'm a policy wonk thank you very much thank you next i just want to scribble thank you so much you are now a policy wonk.
00:10:09
Speaker 3: I'm a policy wonk thank you very much.
00:10:10
Speaker 7: Thank you next alex jones's gayest frog also known as paco thank you so much you are now a policy wonk I'm a policy wonk.
00:10:17
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Thank you.
00:10:18
Speaker 7: Next, proud, gribble, pibble of old. Thank you so much. You are now a policy wonk.
00:10:22
Speaker 4: I'm a policy wonk.
00:10:23
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Thank you.
00:10:24
Speaker 7: Next, help. My diamond gusset jeans don't fit. Thank you so much. You are now a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk.
00:10:30
Speaker 3: Thank you very much.
00:10:30
Speaker 7: Impossible.
00:10:31
Speaker 3: I think that one was from three years ago. That's how long we've been holding that one for a while.
00:10:36
Speaker 7: We got a backlog. We got a backlog. Next, Todd in Tennessee. Thank you so much. You are now a policy wonk.
00:10:40
Speaker 4: I'm a policy wonk.
00:10:41
Speaker 5: Thank you very much.
00:10:42
Speaker 6: Thank you.
00:10:42
Speaker 7: And we got a technocrat in the mix, Jordan. So a bucket of poop sent me a sodomite. Thank you so much. You are now a technocrat.
00:10:49
Speaker 3: I'm a policy wonk.
00:10:50
Speaker 2: Four stars. Go home to your mother and.
00:10:52
Speaker 4: Tell her you're brilliant. Someone sodomite sent me a bucket of poop. Daddy shark. Jar Jar Binks has a Caribbean black accent. He's a loser little, little titty baby.
00:11:05
Speaker 7: I don't want to hate black people. I renounce Jesus Christ. Thank you. Yeah. So we're going to listen to these two depositions. Do deposition to do our to do list. T.W.O.D.W. So here's the thing. The first one is he's the corporate representative for- Just stop. I tried to. I was going along here. I'm sorry.
00:11:28
Speaker 3: You got me. I'm sorry. You got me with that one. Okay, go for it.
00:11:33
Speaker 7: So the first one's the Infowars LLC corporate rep deposition. And there's not that much really to say about that. There was never going to be much gold in those hills.
00:11:44
Speaker 2: Sure.
00:11:45
Speaker 7: And the reason for that is that InfoWars LLC is essentially a non-existent company that primarily exists to hold the property to InfoWars.com. And so there's not a whole lot that anyone knows about it because it's not a business that does transactions necessarily. Right, right, right. They don't hold meetings. Free speech systems is essentially... the real company of all of these companies, if there is a real company.
00:12:10
Speaker 6: No, InfoWars LLC exists on paper and within the minds of the people who like to pretend it's something, but it is not anything.
00:12:18
Speaker 7: Right. And so for Rob to answer any questions about that is tough, and to know exactly where the questions would need to go is kind of tough. Because I think at this phase, in even the plaintiff's attorney's case, sort of figuring out where the case is. I don't know if they fully understood the extent to which like a lot of these companies only exist to either like take in a payment or to be a holding company for this intellectual property or whatever. So this is Bill Ogden. I don't know if he has gummy bears or gummy worms, but there are a couple of occasions where you can hear him eating something very probably aggressively.
00:13:03
Speaker 3: He's got it.
00:13:04
Speaker 7: Um, and, uh, yeah, we'll jump in. Here's, uh, the beginning of the, uh, the info wars, LLC, corporate representative desk testimony of Rob do songs. Kangal hat.
00:13:16
Speaker 4: Can you please say your name for me?
00:13:18
Speaker 2: Rob do.
00:13:19
Speaker 4: What is your, uh, employment status with info wars, LLC?
00:13:26
Speaker 2: Uh, as far as I know, there is no employment status with the fours LLC. Okay.
00:13:32
Speaker 4: What is your understanding as to why you are here today?
00:13:42
Speaker 2: To give a deposition?
00:13:43
Speaker 3: Sure.
00:13:43
Speaker 4: About what?
00:13:46
Speaker 2: About, well, a couple things, I guess.
00:13:48
Speaker 4: You can put your mic on. Just clip it to your lapel or button.
00:14:00
Speaker 2: Good. I don't touch other people's equipment. Sure.
00:14:04
Speaker 4: Yeah.
00:14:06
Speaker 7: He's a man of principle. So, yeah, he doesn't seem very prepared.
00:14:11
Speaker 8: Right.
00:14:11
Speaker 7: He is as bewildered as one might be in this circumstance.
00:14:17
Speaker 6: Once again, we have come to the ultimate impasse with an InfoWars employee.
00:14:21
Speaker 3: What do you do? Who do you work for? And why are you here? Are all unanswerable questions.
00:14:26
Speaker 7: But in this case, like with InfoWars LLC, like he doesn't work for them. He's never worked for them.
00:14:31
Speaker 2: So.
00:14:32
Speaker 7: I can understand a little more confusion, but also maybe prepare a little bit.
00:14:38
Speaker 6: Well, at least we know on the second crack at it, he's going to do a much better job.
00:14:42
Speaker 7: Well, yes. And it does also put that Kangal Hat deposition into a bit of a different context in that you realize that that was the second time.
00:14:54
Speaker 3: Oh, I got some mistakes to fix. I got it.
00:14:57
Speaker 7: Didn't do anything. Nope. Anyway, as is tradition in depositions, Bill asks, what did you do to prepare? Rob's a little befuddled.
00:15:11
Speaker 4: Exhibit one is in front of you. It is the notice of deposition. I assume prior to today you'd seen that before. On page two, there are six topics listed. Do you see those? Yes. Topic number one says the organizational structure... business purpose and method of generating revenue for InfoWars LLC. What did you, and none of my questions today are going to be eliciting answers that you've had conversations with either of your attorneys. But what did you do to prepare yourself for topic number one?
00:15:54
Speaker 3: Oh my God.
00:16:03
Speaker 2: As far as I know, InfoWars LLC does not have any of this. This does not pertain to InfoWars LLC.
00:16:12
Speaker 4: As far as you're aware.
00:16:13
Speaker 2: As far as I'm aware.
00:16:13
Speaker 4: What steps did you take to become aware or unaware of that?
00:16:24
Speaker 2: Um... I just don't know if there's any information that I have.
00:16:36
Speaker 4: And you didn't go look for it and try to figure it out? No.
00:16:40
Speaker 2: I don't think there's any information is what I'm saying.
00:16:42
Speaker 4: Did you look for it?
00:16:44
Speaker 2: I would not know where to look for this information. Okay.
00:16:47
Speaker 7: So that's a no. You can already sort of get the sense of this. Get ready for some pauses because Rob, for better or worse, I mean, I think if you were a more thoughtful person and maybe a little bit less of a dum-dum, long pauses could be an indication of trying to get your thoughts together, trying to answer concisely and coherently. For Rob, I think he's confused and trying to figure out what is being said to me. And also, what do I say to not implicate myself or anybody else in anything? What's the slipperiest answer I can give here?
00:17:21
Speaker 4: Yes.
00:17:22
Speaker 7: And there are a couple points where it is, whew, if you think pauses on Alex's show are long, some of these are.
00:17:30
Speaker 3: A minute long.
00:17:32
Speaker 6: It does feel like he is being interrogated in like a Spanish prison, and he doesn't understand what any of the questions are.
00:17:39
Speaker 3: So he's just like, I didn't do it. I didn't. Me didn't do it.
00:17:44
Speaker 6: I don't know how to say I didn't do it more.
00:17:46
Speaker 7: I don't know how to conjugate verbs in saying people talk. So he didn't prepare.
00:17:55
Speaker 3: No, of course not.
00:17:57
Speaker 7: But he's reviewed some documents. Okay.
00:18:00
Speaker 4: So as far as, do you know what an interrogatory is?
00:18:04
Speaker 2: What are you, can you explain it for your purposes?
00:18:08
Speaker 3: Of course I do, but could you explain it for the audience?
00:18:13
Speaker 4: Opponents in a lawsuit and they answer those questions and then they swear to them. You understand that?
00:18:18
Speaker 2: Okay.
00:18:19
Speaker 3: Okay.
00:18:19
Speaker 4: Did you review the interrogatories that were submitted in this case by Infowars LLC?
00:18:24
Speaker 2: I did. Okay.
00:18:27
Speaker 4: That would be considered a document. So when I asked... the last few questions I've asked, did you review any documents? Now that we know you did review the interrogatories, was there anything else that you reviewed?
00:18:45
Speaker 6: No.
00:18:45
Speaker 2: I believe the interrogatories were the only thing. Okay.
00:18:48
Speaker 4: You didn't see any requests for production or any documents that were produced?
00:18:52
Speaker 2: No.
00:18:53
Speaker 4: Are you prepared to testify as to answers to requests for production or any documents that have been produced by InfoWars LLC in this case. Are you prepared to testify today as to documents that have been produced by InfoWars LLC in this case?
00:19:15
Speaker 2: I'm not sure what testimony I can provide with relationship to InfoWars LLC.
00:19:21
Speaker 4: I'm specifically speaking to the documents that have been produced. Do you know what documents have been produced by Infowars LLC?
00:19:32
Speaker 2: I've looked at a lot of documents, and I'm not sure they all look the same.
00:19:37
Speaker 7: Okay.
00:19:37
Speaker 2: All right.
00:19:38
Speaker 4: Sure.
00:19:38
Speaker 3: Okay.
00:19:39
Speaker 7: The documents all look the same.
00:19:41
Speaker 6: I've looked at a lot of documents in my day. There's white papers, and they have little scribbles on them.
00:19:46
Speaker 7: They are all the same. They all look just the same.
00:19:50
Speaker 2: That.
00:19:50
Speaker 7: So yeah, we're not in good territory. I feel like there is a fundamental tension in that There isn't much that Rob can say, but he doesn't know how to articulate that in an appropriate way that would answer the questions that are being asked. He's unprepared to answer correctly things that he would be able to express, like that this is not really a functioning company that does business or anything.
00:20:24
Speaker 3: He can't tell the truth.
00:20:27
Speaker 7: Or he doesn't know.
00:20:28
Speaker 3: Well, I mean... He had no preparation to know the truth. Right, right, right. But I mean, in his mind.
00:20:33
Speaker 6: Here's a good shot of what I would assume that Rob Du is thinking about InfoWars LLC.
00:20:38
Speaker 3: He's thinking, that's a dummy company. In his mind, you know.
00:20:41
Speaker 6: I don't know if that's true or not. I don't know anything about it. But in his mind, that's my guess. It doesn't do anything, and I'm important to it somehow. So in that case, he can't just.
00:20:53
Speaker 3: Be like, hey, uh... If you wanted to look further into our finances, I wouldn't look here. It's a lie.
00:20:59
Speaker 7: You know, I think that there's a possibility that he knows that it's kind of a dummy company, but that like, That's the extent of his knowledge. And if he knew more, maybe he would know something that people would want to know about.
00:21:12
Speaker 2: Right.
00:21:12
Speaker 7: Exactly.
00:21:13
Speaker 6: Yeah.
00:21:13
Speaker 9: Yeah.
00:21:14
Speaker 7: I could see that.
00:21:14
Speaker 3: Yeah.
00:21:16
Speaker 6: I would love to tell you the truth, but honestly, I don't know anything. And they told me never to find out.
00:21:22
Speaker 7: It's in my best interest not to know all that much.
00:21:24
Speaker 3: It's so good to not know.
00:21:25
Speaker 7: So we know from the Kangal Hat Depot that Rob didn't understand the corporate representative thing, what that meant, that he was testifying as the company.
00:21:36
Speaker 6: He does not understand that he is not testifying as Rob do. He is testifying to what the company itself is supposed to know. Yes.
00:21:44
Speaker 2: Yeah.
00:21:44
Speaker 7: And he still, I mean, this is before that, so of course he doesn't really know that either.
00:21:49
Speaker 6: It's almost like an origin story. This is the beginning of not understanding what a corporate representative is.
00:21:54
Speaker 7: Yeah.
00:21:54
Speaker 4: Yeah.
00:21:55
Speaker 7: And then in this clip, we get an appearance from noted asshole attorney Enoch. Oh, boy. He jumps in and Bill yells at him. This is intense.
00:22:09
Speaker 4: When was InfoWars LLC registered?
00:22:17
Speaker 2: I believe in 2008.
00:22:17
Speaker 4: How do you know that?
00:22:21
Speaker 2: It was on one of these documents. Okay.
00:22:25
Speaker 4: And who registered it?
00:22:29
Speaker 2: That I don't know.
00:22:30
Speaker 3: Okay.
00:22:33
Speaker 4: Do you know any of the original officers that were listed on the LLC registration through the Secretary of State of Texas?
00:22:41
Speaker 2: I believe there's only one.
00:22:43
Speaker 4: Why do you believe that?
00:22:45
Speaker 2: Because it's listed as there's one listed. Okay.
00:22:49
Speaker 4: Who is that?
00:22:50
Speaker 2: It's Alex Jones.
00:22:54
Speaker 4: Has InfoWars LLC ever had any other officers?
00:23:02
Speaker 2: Not to my knowledge.
00:23:06
Speaker 4: When you say your knowledge, you're sitting here as InfoWars LLC.
00:23:10
Speaker 2: You understand that, correct? I've been asked to sit here as a representative of InfoWars LLC.
00:23:17
Speaker 4: And as a representative, you are sitting in the chair as the company. Do you realize that?
00:23:24
Speaker 6: No.
00:23:25
Speaker 2: I'm not sure. Right.
00:23:27
Speaker 4: You're not here as Rob do. You're here as InfoWars LLC. Has anybody explained that to you? Time out. Time out. You cannot make hand gestures, Mr.
00:23:45
Speaker 5: Enoch.
00:23:47
Speaker 4: I just saw you go. And the witness looked directly at you. You asked a question. I did. Would you please not interrupt me? Sir, I haven't interrupted you. You asked a question that was so broad that it would encompass attorney-fying communications. That's a great opinion for you to have. Are you defending this deposition? We had this yesterday, and unfortunately, Mr. Bankston's the nice one of us. So I'm not going to put up with it. You can leave. If you are going to do that, if you're going to be an obstruction in this deposition, leave.
00:24:19
Speaker 2: Now.
00:24:21
Speaker 4: Otherwise, sit there quietly and don't make gestures and don't share your opinions with anybody but whispering into Mr. Barnes' ear because he is defending this deposition.
00:24:31
Speaker 2: I can appreciate your opinion.
00:24:32
Speaker 4: Please continue the deposition, Mr. Ogden.
00:24:36
Speaker 7: Ugly ugly ugly so yeah apparently he's making enoch's making hand gestures at rob do and uh that's that is not good.
00:24:47
Speaker 6: Shady assholes yeah they just they just can't they just can't not well they have to be assholes it.
00:24:54
Speaker 7: Would be just as easy conceivably to whisper to Barnes and have Barnes say, objection, I don't answer that question or, you know, whatever.
00:25:03
Speaker 6: It would be, but you would have to have respect for the people that you are working against.
00:25:07
Speaker 7: .
00:25:09
Speaker 6: .
00:25:12
Speaker 7: I just picture Enoch like pulling on his collar.
00:25:17
Speaker 3: He's got like a little noose. Yeah.
00:25:19
Speaker 5: Yeah.
00:25:20
Speaker 7: Oh, boy. So, yeah, that's one of a couple of outbursts that happen throughout both of these depositions.
00:25:27
Speaker 3: Love it.
00:25:28
Speaker 7: There's a little bit of non-civility that happens.
00:25:33
Speaker 3: I just.
00:25:36
Speaker 6: You can only push people so far. You just can. You can only push people so far.
00:25:41
Speaker 7: I hear you. And honestly, I'm surprised these don't end up turning into fights. Like actual fist fights.
00:25:46
Speaker 3: Well, that's why at the trial we almost had an actual fist fight.
00:25:50
Speaker 7: Right. I mean, it's... What do you do at a certain point if people are obfuscating so hard And being such dicks.
00:25:57
Speaker 3: I know.
00:25:58
Speaker 6: It's like, I don't know at what point we graduate from adults to we're fine, fine.
00:26:06
Speaker 3: We're on the playground.
00:26:07
Speaker 2: Fine.
00:26:07
Speaker 7: Yeah, we're throwing hands.
00:26:08
Speaker 3: That's what we're doing.
00:26:09
Speaker 5: Fine.
00:26:10
Speaker 7: Well, I think it's a testament to the patience that you need to have to be a lawyer. Yeah. And particularly a lawyer in this kind of a situation. Like, you have to be able to put that, like, personal... desire to throw hands aside.
00:26:25
Speaker 6: But I would say that it would suggest to me that it's come in handy for Enoch. I'm sure that you pulling this bullshit has been useful to him.
00:26:36
Speaker 7: It almost feels like someone like him, that's the job of someone who's an older brother. who's really good at pushing those buttons and getting the younger brother to do something that gets them in trouble. You're not wrong. It has that vibe. He's trolling a little. Yeah, he does poke. He does like to poke. He knows damn well that what he's doing is inappropriate. And then when Bill is telling him, you can stop this or you can leave, the response of like, I think you should get back to your deposition, is that's the poke.
00:27:11
Speaker 3: That's another poke. I'm not touching you.
00:27:12
Speaker 6: I'm not touching you. I wasn't touching you. I didn't touch him. I didn't touch anybody. I'm just waving my hand.
00:27:17
Speaker 7: It's some shit. So anyway, Rob gets back to some questions, and it turns out he doesn't know why InfoWars LLC even exists.
00:27:24
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's what I thought.
00:27:25
Speaker 4: The business purpose of InfoWars LLC, what is it?
00:27:28
Speaker 2: I don't know.
00:27:37
Speaker 4: Why was it created? And by it, why was InfoWars LLC created?
00:27:43
Speaker 2: I don't know.
00:27:47
Speaker 7: Man, fuck if I know.
00:27:49
Speaker 2: Wow.
00:27:50
Speaker 3: Okay.
00:27:51
Speaker 2: All right.
00:27:51
Speaker 3: Rob, I'm sure that I'll only have to explain this to you one time.
00:27:57
Speaker 6: As the corporate representative, imagine the building we're supposed to be here. Imagine an anthropomorphic building with all the knowledge of InfoWars business practices.
00:28:10
Speaker 3: That is what you are.
00:28:11
Speaker 7: A business can't speak for itself. And as such, in order to get questions about the business itself, we need somebody to be able to take on... The accumulated awareness and knowledge of the business. And that is you right now.
00:28:27
Speaker 3: Yeah, that is your job. And we gave you time to do it.
00:28:30
Speaker 7: This business is in a crisis of identity, apparently. Does not know why it exists or why it was created.
00:28:35
Speaker 3: I don't know who I am. I don't know what I'm meant to do.
00:28:37
Speaker 7: I mean, look, I definitely have periods where I'm like, why did my parents have me? Sure, it's existential angst that I get sometimes.
00:28:45
Speaker 3: What is InfoWars for? I didn't ask it to be born. You know, I don't know.
00:28:51
Speaker 7: So Bill produces a bit of the terms of service for InfoWars.com's website. And in it, the we, whenever it says we, the agreement that the user is entering into, the person that they're entering into it with is InfoWars LLC.
00:29:09
Speaker 3: Aha, so?
00:29:10
Speaker 7: It does exist as a business.
00:29:12
Speaker 8: Right.
00:29:12
Speaker 7: Now this becomes a little bit of a conflict because Rob is saying that it's an inactive business.
00:29:20
Speaker 2: Yes.
00:29:20
Speaker 7: And then this is brought up and it's like, well, they're keeping cookies and all this stuff. Like, is that inactivity? And then it's just.
00:29:34
Speaker 6: I mean, I'm not doing anything. So it is inactivity in my mind.
00:29:38
Speaker 7: Yeah. it's just a mess. It is absolutely bizarre.
00:29:43
Speaker 2: I believe Infowars LLC is an inactive entity.
00:29:47
Speaker 4: You said inactive earlier. What do you mean inactive?
00:29:52
Speaker 2: That it doesn't play, that it would not be actively involved in any.
00:30:00
Speaker 2: With reference to what you're asking here, it doesn't have anything to do with creation licensing and marketing, staffing, programming, management development.
00:30:15
Speaker 4: You skipped over distribution.
00:30:17
Speaker 2: Distribution.
00:30:20
Speaker 4: Have you read the terms and conditions that InfoWars LLC lists as the controlling entity for the terms and conditions for InfoWars.com? Text has deformed.
00:30:29
Speaker 2: I'm not sure I understand that question.
00:30:31
Speaker 3: Have you read it? Can you read? Can you read? Can you read?
00:30:35
Speaker 4: The terms of use for Infowars.com. What are they? Excuse me. What do they do?
00:30:51
Speaker 2: Are you referring to these?
00:30:53
Speaker 4: Those are just some of the definitions. 48 pages. I was saving a little bit of paper just to show you that In the terms of use, when it's an agreement with anyone saying we, which is used throughout the entire terms and conditions, they're defined as InfoWars LLC, not free speech systems. You understand that?
00:31:22
Speaker 2: Well, I see a comma between InfoWars and LLC, so I'm not sure that That is correct.
00:31:27
Speaker 4: If you look at the notice and any filings of any business entities formerly named, you'll realize that the comma is always there.
00:31:38
Speaker 7: Okay. Good stuff.
00:31:42
Speaker 3: Your Honor, there is a comma there. I rest my case.
00:31:46
Speaker 7: It's so cool. That he's sitting there and he's trying to find ways to wiggle out. He tries the comma. So you need to tell me that this means that you're entering into a terms of service agreement with InfoWars and something called LLC. Okay.
00:32:08
Speaker 5: Great.
00:32:10
Speaker 6: Or is it like the LLC who you're addressing? You know, it's InfoWars, right, LLC?
00:32:16
Speaker 3: You know what I'm saying?
00:32:16
Speaker 2: Right.
00:32:17
Speaker 7: Isn't that Chris Gethard's house band? Right. You're entering into the Chris Gethard Show house band and InfoWars. Run the terms of service for InfoWars.com.
00:32:28
Speaker 6: You understand, of all things, of all things, for a corporate representative to not know that there comes a comma before LLC.
00:32:36
Speaker 3: Always seems high on the list. You should just know that.
00:32:40
Speaker 7: Yeah.
00:32:41
Speaker 3: You're the corporate representative.
00:32:42
Speaker 4: Yeah.
00:32:43
Speaker 7: You should know the standards of.
00:32:46
Speaker 3: Just regular. Just business.
00:32:48
Speaker 7: Yeah. So they talk a little bit here about inactivity, what it means to be an inactive business, according to Rob. Take a little nap. That leads to Barnes getting all up in Bill's business.
00:33:00
Speaker 3: Let's figure out what inactive means.
00:33:04
Speaker 4: If InfoWars LLC is listed as the entity that is in agreement with all users of InfoWars.com for things like using cookies and log files to create profiles for other users. That wouldn't necessarily make them inactive, correct?
00:33:24
Speaker 2: Objection is due form.
00:33:26
Speaker 4: What's the form?
00:33:27
Speaker 2: In other words, it basically calls for a legal conclusion.
00:33:33
Speaker 4: Which legal conclusion?
00:33:34
Speaker 1: In other words, defining what constitutes an active or inactive entity.
00:33:39
Speaker 4: I'm using inactive that I had him define it. Right, and that's where... So we're using his definition. What's the legal conclusion? He's complying with the rule. Not you, Mr. Enoch. I'm not raising my voice. No, this is just my voice when someone's obstructing a deposition that they shouldn't be talking in. I'm asking you not to raise your voice at council. And I'm asking you not to speak any further. Bill, we can be civil with each other. Please just don't raise your voice at council.
00:34:07
Speaker 2: Mr.
00:34:07
Speaker 4: Barnes doesn't deserve that. I'm not raising it to Mr.
00:34:09
Speaker 2: Barnes. Mr.
00:34:10
Speaker 4: Barnes, have I raised my voice towards you? Let's move forward.
00:34:13
Speaker 1: I mean, I get that there's a mistake here, but I'm just saying that in terms of what is incorrectly listed in the.
00:34:23
Speaker 4: Terms of service.
00:34:25
Speaker 2: Mr.
00:34:25
Speaker 4: Barnes, hold on. What do you mean it's incorrectly listed?
00:34:29
Speaker 2: I was about to say free speech systems.
00:34:32
Speaker 3: I'm sorry?
00:34:32
Speaker 4: How is any of that a legal objection during a deposition? And how are you not kind of coaching the witness right now? No, I'm just trying to answer your question.
00:34:41
Speaker 1: In other words, I interpreted your question as calling for a legal conclusion.
00:34:46
Speaker 3: Barnes!
00:34:46
Speaker 4: Whether this.
00:34:49
Speaker 9: Designation constituted ownership of the site and admission of ownership of the site.
00:34:56
Speaker 4: But that wasn't my question.
00:34:57
Speaker 8: That's how I interpreted the question, is calling for that legal conclusion.
00:35:00
Speaker 4: But I asked him what is his understanding of the word that he used, and then I had him define.
00:35:06
Speaker 8: I know, but it was followed up by a question that presumed and I took as asking for a legal conclusion about whether this statement means X.
00:35:17
Speaker 4: What was my question?
00:35:18
Speaker 9: My recollection is that this statement means, do you agree that this statement means that Infowars owns something or is active? And I was saying that that would call for a legal conclusion.
00:35:29
Speaker 2: Okay.
00:35:30
Speaker 4: Well, I will make sure that in no way will my questions be interpreted to be asking that.
00:35:36
Speaker 2: Okay, thank you.
00:35:38
Speaker 4: Sitting here today, are you aware that InfoWars LLC is listed in the terms and services on InfoWars.com as the controlling entity?
00:35:57
Speaker 2: Seeing it here listed on the terms of service is the first time I've seen it.
00:36:06
Speaker 4: Now that you're seeing it, and let's presume that it's still there right now. When you said inactive earlier and you told me what you meant by inactive, do you still believe it's inactive?
00:36:28
Speaker 6: Yes.
00:36:31
Speaker 4: What would a company have to do?
00:36:44
Speaker 7: Careful, careful.
00:37:00
Speaker 2: I'm not sure I understand your question.
00:37:06
Speaker 7: Worth the wait.
00:37:07
Speaker 3: What a fucking punchline that was.
00:37:09
Speaker 7: Worth the wait.
00:37:11
Speaker 2: Come on.
00:37:12
Speaker 5: What?
00:37:14
Speaker 7: So one of the things that is a little bit meh about this deposition itself is that a lot of it is just Rob not knowing shit and not being able to answer any questions and Barnes being a shithead.
00:37:27
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, yeah.
00:37:28
Speaker 7: That's kind of a lot of this, whereas- Where Rob shines is when he accidentally says stuff that is implicating.
00:37:36
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's the game.
00:37:37
Speaker 7: And we'll get to that more in the free speech systems deposition. Okay, good. But yeah, this is just sort of like he's just a... This is a moose boosh for her. Just a hopeless man sitting there being asked questions, seeing if he can run out the clock.
00:37:51
Speaker 6: It does feel like he's waiting there just like, will they forget they asked me the question if I just stay silent?
00:37:57
Speaker 7: I feel like I've done that in school before. Okay.
00:38:02
Speaker 3: I saw Jurassic Park last night. What was it about lawyers? If you don't move, they can't see you. That's what it was.
00:38:07
Speaker 7: I swear. Look, the bell is going to ring at 2.45. They have to let me leave. They have to let me go.
00:38:13
Speaker 3: They can't detain me.
00:38:14
Speaker 7: Yeah. So there's another thing that comes up that is a bit of an issue, and that is that Alex is not the only person who's ever been listed as a controlling manager of InfoWars LLC.
00:38:30
Speaker 6: Why would I expect the question that he answered to have been the correct answer?
00:38:34
Speaker 3: Of course it wasn't.
00:38:35
Speaker 7: Well, he said to the best of his knowledge Alex was the only one. But again, he's the company, and you'd think he'd know if there were other officers. That's the rule. And it turns out, prior, the controlling officer was Magnolia Holdings. And we know that Magnolia Holdings was the company that was based off of Alex's dad's bank account.
00:38:53
Speaker 2: Right.
00:38:53
Speaker 7: That he made so he would have a business line of credit. Exactly. And that is where a lot of these businesses were able to be created and housed in a way that allowed him to. Probably get credit in a way that other people wouldn't have access to. Yeah. Real, real shortcut kind of shit.
00:39:13
Speaker 3: Hold himself up by the bootstraps.
00:39:15
Speaker 7: Bootstraps.
00:39:16
Speaker 3: With those bootstraps gilded by his daddy.
00:39:19
Speaker 7: And his dad's dental practice.
00:39:20
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly.
00:39:21
Speaker 7: So it turns out that is the prior controlling interest in Infowars LLC.
00:39:29
Speaker 4: Right.
00:39:30
Speaker 7: But there's another wrinkle to this.
00:39:32
Speaker 3: Of course there is.
00:39:33
Speaker 7: That is mind-blowing.
00:39:35
Speaker 4: Who is Magnolia Holdings Limited Partnerships?
00:39:55
Speaker 2: I've heard that name. I believe they're involved with free speech systems in some way. Okay.
00:40:04
Speaker 4: How did you come across that name?
00:40:15
Speaker 2: I don't recall exactly because I've been there for so long, so a lot of things just kind of run together. But I couldn't tell you exactly when. but I think I saw the name at some point. Do you.
00:40:30
Speaker 4: Have any idea who it is?
00:40:31
Speaker 2: I don't have a definitive answer for you, but I'm imagining Alex Jones has something to do with Magnolia. Okay.
00:40:50
Speaker 4: Were you aware that the original manager of Infowars LLC was Magnolia Holdings, L.P.
00:40:56
Speaker 2: Was I aware of what?
00:40:57
Speaker 4: Were you aware that the original manager of InfoWars LLC was Magnolia Holdings LP?
00:41:06
Speaker 2: I was not aware.
00:41:11
Speaker 4: What's the address... Excuse me. Yeah, what's the address at InfoWars?
00:41:20
Speaker 3: Is this a trick question?
00:41:21
Speaker 4: Where you work.
00:41:24
Speaker 2: That would be... Free speech systems.
00:41:26
Speaker 4: Free speech, excuse me. I say Infowars, I was encompassing them all.
00:41:30
Speaker 2: Okay.
00:41:30
Speaker 4: What's the address of free speech systems?
00:41:33
Speaker 2: The physical or the mailing address?
00:41:35
Speaker 4: We can start with physical.
00:41:37
Speaker 7: Oh my God.
00:41:38
Speaker 2: The physical address of free speech systems is 3019 Alvin Devane, suite. There's a couple of suites. The direct mailing address is suite 230. Okay.
00:41:53
Speaker 4: But same street number and street name?
00:41:55
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's different suite numbers.
00:41:57
Speaker 6: Okay.
00:41:58
Speaker 4: Have you ever been to 100 Congress Avenue on the 22nd floor?
00:42:06
Speaker 2: No. Are we here at 100 Congress Avenue? Okay. I know where this building is, but I don't know. No. Okay. The 22nd floor is what you're asking?
00:42:15
Speaker 1: Yeah.
00:42:16
Speaker 4: No. Were you aware that Magnolia Holdings is four floors above us right now?
00:42:21
Speaker 2: No.
00:42:21
Speaker 3: No, I was not aware of that.
00:42:44
Speaker 4: It was an extremely long pause.
00:42:47
Speaker 3: Thank God he said it. That is too long for that answer. That is too long.
00:42:52
Speaker 7: Extremely long pause.
00:42:55
Speaker 3: Extremely long pause.
00:42:56
Speaker 7: Yeah. So it turns out four floors above them in the building that they're having this deposition in is where- The address of Magnolia Holdings Limited Partnership is.
00:43:07
Speaker 3: Of course.
00:43:08
Speaker 7: And I don't know if that even means anything.
00:43:10
Speaker 3: I don't think it means anything. It's a fun little reveal.
00:43:12
Speaker 7: Yeah.
00:43:13
Speaker 5: It's great.
00:43:13
Speaker 3: It threw me for a loop.
00:43:15
Speaker 7: So it was a long, long pause.
00:43:17
Speaker 4: Yes.
00:43:17
Speaker 7: And Rob explains why he had such a pause.
00:43:20
Speaker 4: It was an extremely long pause.
00:43:24
Speaker 2: Well, I'll tell you why. Would you like a... Please, go ahead.
00:43:27
Speaker 8: Yeah.
00:43:28
Speaker 2: There's a lot of... I guess people put a lot of stuff out on the internet and sometimes you look and it's different. Oh, who runs Alex Jones type stuff. Okay. And it goes into, you know, this company was formed here. So I have seen, and that's where I'm thinking I saw the name Magnolia Holdings.
00:43:59
Speaker 3: When somebody did an expose on us.
00:44:02
Speaker 2: Documents but i was not aware it was on this in this.
00:44:05
Speaker 7: Bill yeah so rob was worried because a lot of people post a lot of stuff online and they say who controls alex and maybe he heard the name because somebody had accurately reported that it was a company that uh infowars uh was associated with.
00:44:20
Speaker 6: Early on i feel like i feel like rob should just answer every question with like hey man okay You ever see that scene in The Wire where Stringer Bell was like, are you writing notes on a criminal fucking conspiracy?
00:44:32
Speaker 3: Imagine that's all of our paperwork. Of course I don't know any of it. It's against the law.
00:44:37
Speaker 9: Right.
00:44:38
Speaker 7: But there is a certain delicious irony of Rob being like, yeah, there's a lot of bullshit online.
00:44:43
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yes.
00:44:44
Speaker 7: A lot of people say a lot of shit.
00:44:46
Speaker 6: Hey, man, a lot of people out there, they'll lie about you. They'll even try and ruin your life. Don't even mess with that stuff. I tell you, the internet's a scary place.
00:44:53
Speaker 3: Yeah.
00:44:54
Speaker 7: So we have one last clip here, and it's a discussion of whether or not Rob knows if InfoWars LLC has an office.
00:45:02
Speaker 4: Does InfoWars LLC have an office?
00:45:10
Speaker 2: Not to my knowledge.
00:45:15
Speaker 4: And in the corporate documents, it lists the governing authority as Alex Jones is the manager and has it at 100 Congress Avenue, 22nd floor. Is there an office there?
00:45:31
Speaker 2: I don't know. I've never been to the 22nd floor.
00:45:38
Speaker 4: Did you ask anyone preparing for this deposition whether or not Infowars LLC had an office?
00:45:55
Speaker 2: I don't believe I did.
00:45:57
Speaker 3: Yeah, no shit.
00:45:58
Speaker 7: Why would you?
00:45:58
Speaker 3: No shit.
00:45:59
Speaker 7: So yeah, that's the same address as Magnolia. I could not be happier.
00:46:04
Speaker 6: Because again, I'm trying to visualize this in my mind as an actual corporate representative. I'm trying to anthropomorphize the company itself. And so the idea of you asking a company, do.
00:46:19
Speaker 3: You have an office? And then the company going... Not that I know. I didn't ask. Yeah, like what? What are you talking about? And then they just disappear into thin air.
00:46:27
Speaker 7: Yeah, yeah. So the reason that some of this is relevant, even if it is kind of like blah, is that there is a clear indication that no effort has gone into... making sure that these businesses are legally distinct from each other or legally distinct from Alex Jones himself. The fact that InfoWars LLC has the same address, apparently, as Magnolia Partnership, and they were originally in charge of it. Now Alex is in charge of InfoWars LLC. It's all just like, okay, this might as well all just be the same shit. Yeah. And it is.
00:47:03
Speaker 3: Yeah, it is.
00:47:04
Speaker 2: Yeah.
00:47:04
Speaker 6: I mean, it's almost kind of funny that, to me, what I'm seeing in my mind is these people being like, we're not going to open an LLC in Delaware like the rest of everybody who wants to cheat.
00:47:17
Speaker 7: Not until years later.
00:47:19
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly. We're going to do it when it's too late.
00:47:21
Speaker 7: Alex is proud of Texas. He's the Texan.
00:47:23
Speaker 3: Exactly.
00:47:23
Speaker 7: That's what Trump called him.
00:47:24
Speaker 6: It's his both greatest attribute and apparently his downfall.
00:47:29
Speaker 7: Alamo. Yeah. So we go to the free speech systems, corporate representative testimony deposition. And this is from the same day. And so you take a little break, come back.
00:47:41
Speaker 3: Rob has a different hat on.
00:47:43
Speaker 7: There's no hats. But this is fun.
00:47:46
Speaker 4: Where does the majority of revenue come from? Supplements or... Or does it come from ad buys?
00:48:03
Speaker 2: I would say it's listener supported. So I would say most of that is coming from people either donating or buying products. Okay.
00:48:17
Speaker 4: And speaking of, are you... on any of the products from InfoWars right now?
00:48:22
Speaker 2: Am I on them?
00:48:23
Speaker 4: Have you taken any of them? Supplements, anything like that?
00:48:29
Speaker 9: Ever?
00:48:30
Speaker 4: Today.
00:48:30
Speaker 2: Oh, today. I have not taken any today.
00:48:33
Speaker 4: Do you regularly take any of them?
00:48:44
Speaker 2: I would say there's a turmeric product I take.
00:48:47
Speaker 7: Okay, so there's two things that are really fun here. The first is that, like, it's almost as if, like, are you impaired by.
00:48:53
Speaker 3: Taking- Yes, yeah, totally. Are you, are you, have you taken any drugs or alcohol today?
00:48:58
Speaker 7: Or InfraWars supplements.
00:48:59
Speaker 3: Yeah, or InfraWars supplements, totally.
00:49:00
Speaker 7: Which is fun. Yeah, it's always great. And then the second thing is that, like, Hey, if all of the claims about how you need this to fight off the 5G and all the stuff in the food, it's the good halogen, you need the iodine or else your IQ will be lowered. You'd think you'd be taking it, not just some turmeric.
00:49:19
Speaker 3: You'd think you'd be crammed to the gills with that crap.
00:49:21
Speaker 6: Right.
00:49:21
Speaker 7: Apparently not. Apparently the people who are on the inside kind of get it and know that it's all bullshit.
00:49:26
Speaker 6: I could not be happier with the length of time necessary to understand whether or not you take a product regularly.
00:49:33
Speaker 7: Well, he's probably thinking about, like, should I tell him that my wife won't let me take Supermail Vitality?
00:49:38
Speaker 3: No, like, remember that time that my wife was like, you're fucking hard.
00:49:41
Speaker 7: You're too hard.
00:49:42
Speaker 3: Too hard.
00:49:43
Speaker 7: Can't take that Supermail anymore. Stop it. So they talk about the coverage of Sandy Hook, and the day of, Rob admits... They were talking about it as a situation where people were going to take guns because.
00:50:01
Speaker 3: Of this shooting. That's wise.
00:50:03
Speaker 7: Which is, oof.
00:50:05
Speaker 4: What's the first video or article that was produced on InfoWars.com regarding Sandy Hook and it being a hoax and or false flag?
00:50:20
Speaker 3: Where's that Wikipedia printout when you need it?
00:50:35
Speaker 2: Can you explain what you mean by hoax?
00:50:40
Speaker 4: Do you know what the word hoax means?
00:50:44
Speaker 2: I know what the word hoax means.
00:50:45
Speaker 4: What does it mean?
00:50:50
Speaker 2: Something that was... A hoax is an event or a.
00:50:59
Speaker 7: Oh, boy.
00:51:02
Speaker 2: A hoax is meant to fool people.
00:51:08
Speaker 3: Oh boy, Bill.
00:51:10
Speaker 7: That's gross.
00:51:11
Speaker 4: What is the factual basis that free speech systems relied on when it first reported Sandy Hook Elementary might be a hoax?
00:51:28
Speaker 2: I believe most of our reporting was involved with looking at how this event will be used to take people's Second Amendment rights.
00:51:40
Speaker 4: When did that conversation start?
00:51:43
Speaker 2: I believe that conversation started the day of the event.
00:51:50
Speaker 4: Why would you... What made free speech systems start having that conversation?
00:51:58
Speaker 2: Because we have seen past events where a gun is used and when a gun is used.
00:52:09
Speaker 2: The gun becomes the cause. And then they look at gun owners as being people that need to be stripped of their rights and gun ownership.
00:52:21
Speaker 7: This is, I mean, even hearing him explain this, which you obviously already know, this is what he thinks.
00:52:25
Speaker 4: Yeah.
00:52:26
Speaker 7: He sounds dumb. He's not able to articulate this in a way that like sounds compelling. And he, Like, this would not be necessarily a great thing to be expressing.
00:52:39
Speaker 3: Yeah.
00:52:39
Speaker 7: Like, there's a mass shooting where a bunch of children were murdered at a school. And your first thought is, won't you think of the guns? Like, that's really bizarre to be, like... that's your head space, you're testifying that that's your head space. This is where we're at, this is our priorities, very consistent, and it's strange.
00:53:01
Speaker 5: It's strange.
00:53:01
Speaker 6: Yeah, I saw all those victims and heroes tragically murdered, gunned down, mowed down, and I was like, man, I hope that gun's okay.
00:53:10
Speaker 3: It probably fired a little too much for my taste.
00:53:13
Speaker 7: Well, even putting it on a more realistic framing, it's like, how am I gonna be defensive about this? And that's weird.
00:53:22
Speaker 3: It is weird. It's almost deflated.
00:53:25
Speaker 6: It's like he's realized that no matter what answer he gives, I think he's already, after the first morning deposition, I think he's realized that he's not going to get anything right.
00:53:35
Speaker 2: Maybe.
00:53:35
Speaker 3: So all he's doing is trying to think of the right thing to say to get.
00:53:39
Speaker 7: Out of it. Well, see, I'm trying to put myself in the position of this gun-loving guy. Lovin's too weak of a word. Yeah, yeah. This sort of mindset. And I think that having that kind of a response of they're going to use this tragedy to push gun legislation, that would make sense in opposition to gun legislation.
00:54:03
Speaker 4: Right.
00:54:03
Speaker 7: So let's say two months after Sandy Hook, there's a bill that is being introduced and expressing something to the effect of my heart goes out as much as it possibly can to the victims and the surviving family members. but we can't allow sentimentality or over emotion to erode our freedoms or something like that. In the context of discussing a bill, an actual bill that is being introduced, that makes sense. To see a shooting and then immediately imagine a future bill. and then get defensive about it, get defensive about something that doesn't exist, it seems fucked up. It seems like a them problem.
00:54:45
Speaker 2: It is.
00:54:46
Speaker 6: But that's what happens whenever you don't see other people as people.
00:54:50
Speaker 2: True.
00:54:50
Speaker 3: They're not humans. Why would you bother?
00:54:52
Speaker 6: Who cares about whether or not they introduce the bill now or 100 years from now? I know they're evil.
00:54:59
Speaker 7: Yeah, it's silly.
00:55:01
Speaker 2: Yeah.
00:55:02
Speaker 7: Anyway, so there needs to be a factual basis for his belief, or at least the question is, what's your factual basis?
00:55:10
Speaker 3: Yeah, there doesn't need to be.
00:55:11
Speaker 7: And it turns out it's Operation Northwood. Oh, God. But Rob doesn't seem to even understand this.
00:55:18
Speaker 4: The day of the Sandy Hook shooting, Mr. Jones went on his show and suggested that this was all staged by the government.
00:55:30
Speaker 2: Correct? Correct. You'd have to show me the video. Okay.
00:55:34
Speaker 4: I'm asking you, what's the factual basis for Mr. Jones' theory the day of as it relates to number four listed in the piece of paper in front of you? Mm-hmm. What was the factual basis for him saying the government staged this?
00:55:49
Speaker 2: I think the factual basis goes back to a document that was declassified in the late 1990s, and it was called Operation Northwoods. And in that, it describes situations where the government would create events and stage, one of which was bombing airlines, also staging mass shootings, they say, in theaters. I believe schools is also listed in that. I haven't looked at that document in a while. But that document became declassified. And it was signed by.
00:56:33
Speaker 2: The heads of the military and given to President Kennedy.
00:56:38
Speaker 4: Okay. So, because that document was declassified in the 90s, every single mass shooting, immediately Mr. Jones goes on Infowars.com and on his radio show and suggests that this is staged. I just want to make sure that I have my factual basis clear.
00:56:57
Speaker 2: You're getting arrested for what?
00:57:02
Speaker 3: Well, we can say it like that.
00:57:03
Speaker 2: I think what we do is.
00:57:05
Speaker 4: Not what you do, what you did.
00:57:06
Speaker 2: What we did? We remind people.
00:57:17
Speaker 3: I'm sorry?
00:57:18
Speaker 2: We reminded people. And I'm not even sure if he mentioned Northwoods that day or not. But I'm sure that was in his mind, although I can't speak for him.
00:57:29
Speaker 7: Okay, so we remind people of this.
00:57:34
Speaker 3: Wow.
00:57:35
Speaker 7: Which is, that is the, how's that different? That's bizarre.
00:57:39
Speaker 6: Well, I say it this way, and it doesn't sound like I said it a different way.
00:57:44
Speaker 7: It is such a good way that Bill put it. Because of this document that was declassified in the 90s, every mass shooting is reported as possibly being fake or likely being fake. Is that correct?
00:57:58
Speaker 6: And then Rob do has to be like, well, yes, but I don't want to say it because when you say it like that, it sounds fucking stupid.
00:58:05
Speaker 7: Yeah.
00:58:05
Speaker 6: So what I'm saying is we reminded people of the document.
00:58:09
Speaker 7: It sounds almost as if we have a very weak basis for the kind of reporting that we do.
00:58:14
Speaker 3: I've never thought of it that way. But when you put it like that.
00:58:17
Speaker 6: I am going to shut down and stay silent for a while.
00:58:20
Speaker 7: Ah, shit.
00:58:21
Speaker 3: Long pause.
00:58:22
Speaker 7: So one of the hallmarks, I think you could say, of these, particularly like the top tier depositions of InfoWars figures, is Unforced Errors. Daria is the queen of Unforced Errors. I mean, raise a hand up. Here, Rob makes a play for the crown.
00:58:42
Speaker 4: Sitting here on behalf of Free Speech Systems... Did the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary happen the way that it was reported by the overwhelmingly majority of the media?
00:58:56
Speaker 2: Objection is to form.
00:59:02
Speaker 4: You can answer.
00:59:24
Speaker 2: I still have doubts that Adam Lanza was the only person involved.
00:59:28
Speaker 4: Okay, so.
00:59:31
Speaker 2: But I believe children were killed at Sandy Hook. And I don't remember ever saying that children did not die at Sandy Hook. Okay.
00:59:40
Speaker 4: So you think this is some sort of hoax that Adam Lanza wasn't alone and someone else shot up a bunch of children in Sandy Hook Elementary School? .
00:59:56
Speaker 3: .
01:00:00
Speaker 2: Are you saying right now or then?
01:00:02
Speaker 4: Is that true? Right now. Sitting here right now. Just say no. Just say no.
01:00:12
Speaker 3: Just say no.
01:00:13
Speaker 6: Just say no.
01:00:25
Speaker 2: I think things have evolved over time. I think the government and the law enforcement in Connecticut, by their obfuscation, helped make this, turn this into what it is today. And I do not believe they helped the situation.
01:00:55
Speaker 4: You don't believe they helped the situation?
01:00:57
Speaker 2: I don't believe they helped the situation in answering people's questions. Okay.
01:01:01
Speaker 4: Do you have any idea what question I asked before you said all those words?
01:01:07
Speaker 2: You said, do I think Adam Lanza acted alone?
01:01:10
Speaker 4: Does Free Speech Systems believe Adam Lanza acted alone or that someone else came in and shot up a bunch of children at Sandy Hook Elementary? That was my question.
01:01:39
Speaker 2: I think we agree with the findings that came out in January of 2018. Wow.
01:01:44
Speaker 7: I mean, it's just the mind. The mind that you're getting a glimpse into here is.
01:01:51
Speaker 6: I feel like I can hear the squeaking. He needs some oil on those gears.
01:01:56
Speaker 7: Holy shit.
01:01:58
Speaker 3: That is slow.
01:01:59
Speaker 7: Unprompted. Unnecessarily throwing out. I still have some questions about whether Adam went back.
01:02:05
Speaker 6: To the load.
01:02:05
Speaker 7: I still don't think he did it. I am here as the corporate representative for free speech systems, and I am offering unprompted conspiracy theories. Oh, man, what an idiot.
01:02:17
Speaker 2: Amazing.
01:02:17
Speaker 6: As the physical manifestation of a business, I, too, agree that shooting was a hoax.
01:02:24
Speaker 7: Ew. Yeah, that's in the pantheon of things you don't need to say. That is up there. That is in the conversation. I.
01:02:37
Speaker 6: But they can't not do the thing that they do. They try so hard not to answer questions. And then they're like, yeah, but I got to get my thing out there. I got to get my little piece out there.
01:02:48
Speaker 3: I got to say it. I'm combative. I got to do it.
01:02:50
Speaker 7: And it kind of leads you to suspect, I think, that Rob does believe that. Yeah. There's a lot of people who probably are maybe more cynical and more maybe opportunistic.
01:03:03
Speaker 2: Yep.
01:03:04
Speaker 7: It feels like Rob, his silences and his contemplating is like, I don't want to lie and say that I don't believe this shit. Are they going to bust me for lying about not believing this?
01:03:18
Speaker 6: That's the other thing that I love about this is that it does seem like he is both. committed to not lying but also committed to not telling them anything right and so he's trying to reword all of the things that they say it's it's delightful it is delightful i would choose.
01:03:33
Speaker 7: A different word maybe the opposite of that but yes so he mentioned a agreement with a report from 2018 yes and so bill uh wants to know why do you agree with that report yeah how is it different than other reports that have come out in the past not good.
01:03:52
Speaker 4: This report that was released by the Connecticut State Police in January of 2018, how was it different from the original Connecticut report, the Newtown report that came out December of 2013?
01:04:16
Speaker 2: Well, from what I remember, the report that was initially released was redacted and did not have.
01:04:36
Speaker 2: I believe it was critical of certain aspects of what happened that day. And this new report seemed to be... Not as critical of the law enforcement response, the second report.
01:04:57
Speaker 4: That's the only difference?
01:05:00
Speaker 2: That's what I can recall comparing it to the initial.
01:05:03
Speaker 4: Report, yes. Let me back up then. That, what you just testified to, that information was what changed Free Speech Systems' position on whether or not.
01:05:14
Speaker 3: Oh, right, I'm supposed to be the business.
01:05:16
Speaker 5: Shit!
01:05:17
Speaker 4: Correct. Objection is due for.
01:05:24
Speaker 2: I think there's a lot of different things that happen over time with these events.
01:05:29
Speaker 7: Amazing.
01:05:30
Speaker 4: Was InfoWars wrong in its initial report?
01:05:36
Speaker 2: At the time we reported anything, we're not putting out information that we believe to be untrue. So if we put it out at that time, at that time we believed it to be true.
01:05:53
Speaker 4: Sure, but if one person at the top is vetting all the information and he just says, well, I think it's true, you can throw up anything, right? Correct?
01:06:01
Speaker 2: I don't agree with that statement.
01:06:03
Speaker 4: If Alex Jones wants something to go on the air, he can put it up and nobody can stop him at free speech systems, correct?
01:06:10
Speaker 2: Alex is the boss, yes.
01:06:14
Speaker 4: So if Mr. Jones believes something, then free speech systems can just hide behind the veil of, well, we thought it was true. at the time that we put out the wrong information. Is that true?
01:06:26
Speaker 5: It's the little sighs.
01:06:49
Speaker 3: What are you doing?
01:06:53
Speaker 2: I don't believe we're hiding behind anything.
01:06:57
Speaker 7: Comes off sincere. Yeah, really. After a long pause, some sighs, and we're not hiding behind anything. Okay.
01:07:03
Speaker 3: Nothing to hide behind here.
01:07:05
Speaker 7: I buy it.
01:07:05
Speaker 3: Yeah. Do not look in these bushes where I am.
01:07:09
Speaker 7: Yeah. But Bill's making a good point that Rob really can't answer, and that is the, like, okay, so if you believed it was right at the time, you have no responsibility for anything, and if one person... Basically is in charge of deciding what you believe at the time. Yep. All right. Seems like you're hiding behind that as a rationale for why you never did anything wrong and you never have. If you don't check on things and you just report things willy-nilly.
01:07:36
Speaker 2: Right.
01:07:36
Speaker 7: And then later you're wrong, but you had a quote-unquote good faith belief in it at the time. Sure. Seems like... Seems like you just are chaotic.
01:07:45
Speaker 3: All right, now I know what you're saying, but how about this?
01:07:49
Speaker 6: The things that I say sound better and make more sense when they are being yelled. And I think you don't understand me because we're talking so quietly. So let me try it this way.
01:07:59
Speaker 3: They did it wrong! See, that makes more sense. Now you can agree with me.
01:08:03
Speaker 7: Insert long pause. Could you repeat the question? So the issue of how big comes up, And there's a question of whether or not Wolfgang Halbig reached out to InfoWars or the other way around.
01:08:19
Speaker 3: That is a good question.
01:08:19
Speaker 7: And so this question comes up and then Rob Du gives a bizarre non sequitur.
01:08:25
Speaker 4: Let's talk about Wolfgang Halbig. Did InfoWars reach out to him? InfoWars.com reach out to him? Or did he reach out to.
01:08:35
Speaker 9: You?
01:08:49
Speaker 2: I believe he reached out to us at some point saying he was a school safety expert. Okay.
01:08:59
Speaker 4: And looking back in hindsight does free speech systems believe that was a good idea to start communicating and having him on the shows.
01:09:15
Speaker 2: I believe one of the first things he said was that he had given money to the victims.
01:09:21
Speaker 4: What does that mean?
01:09:23
Speaker 2: Well, that he believed it was a real event. What? And then after from what he was doing and asking questions, he was not getting answers to his questions.
01:09:35
Speaker 7: That is bewildering.
01:09:37
Speaker 6: Rob, Rob, Rob, where are you right now?
01:09:40
Speaker 7: Where did you just go?
01:09:41
Speaker 3: You left us. You're somewhere else, man.
01:09:44
Speaker 7: I think that the intent of that information is to say it seemed like a good idea to talk to him because he clearly believed that it was a real event.
01:09:53
Speaker 4: Yeah.
01:09:54
Speaker 7: But that also undercuts the path that their relationship took.
01:09:57
Speaker 2: Yeah.
01:09:57
Speaker 7: And how encouraging they were of him believing the opposite of that.
01:10:02
Speaker 3: Right, right.
01:10:03
Speaker 7: And it's not like he believed that at the time. He gave money to the families is part of Wolfgang's backstory in as much as it's given credibility to his claims that it's a hoax.
01:10:16
Speaker 6: Yeah, that's why he- He's like, I believed it, and then- It was a big come to Jesus moment for me.
01:10:20
Speaker 2: Exactly.
01:10:21
Speaker 3: Yes, it's bullshit.
01:10:22
Speaker 7: It's essentially a part of his prologue.
01:10:26
Speaker 3: Yeah, his myth.
01:10:26
Speaker 4: Yeah. Yeah.
01:10:27
Speaker 5: Yeah.
01:10:28
Speaker 7: It's very bizarre for Rob to be pulling that out.
01:10:31
Speaker 3: It does feel like he's like, no, no, no, you don't understand.
01:10:36
Speaker 6: He said that he gave money to the families at the time, so we thought he was a good guy, right?
01:10:41
Speaker 3: Because we weren't going to do that shit.
01:10:44
Speaker 7: It's strange. So Badandi comes up, and here's some thoughts about that.
01:10:50
Speaker 4: You're aware that Mr. Badandi, Free Speech Systems is aware Mr. Badandi went to Connecticut in June 2015.
01:10:59
Speaker 2: I'm aware. I couldn't give you the exact date. Okay.
01:11:02
Speaker 4: You watched the footage, though?
01:11:03
Speaker 2: From yesterday.
01:11:04
Speaker 4: That was the first time you'd ever seen it?
01:11:06
Speaker 2: No, I'd seen it before. Okay.
01:11:09
Speaker 4: What is Free Speech Systems' stance on that footage?
01:11:18
Speaker 3: No notes.
01:11:18
Speaker 1: Love it.
01:11:20
Speaker 2: I believe it was.
01:11:28
Speaker 2: I would say it was reasons like that is why he was not hired. He was no longer working for us.
01:11:41
Speaker 4: At the time, he was, though.
01:11:49
Speaker 7: Well, when you put it that way.
01:11:51
Speaker 3: Now I see what you're asking.
01:11:53
Speaker 7: Yes, but he was a contract person instead of a full-time.
01:11:58
Speaker 3: Completely different.
01:11:59
Speaker 7: Oh, boy.
01:12:01
Speaker 4: Wow.
01:12:01
Speaker 7: So, Dew brings up an email that definitely exists.
01:12:06
Speaker 3: Okay.
01:12:07
Speaker 7: Where he told Badandi, you're out of here.
01:12:10
Speaker 2: Right?
01:12:11
Speaker 6: Now, and I'm going to throw this out there. I'm just going to see if I can guess where this might be going. Do you realize that as the corporate representative, you were supposed to produce those documents directly to us?
01:12:21
Speaker 7: Well, you're on the right track because it turns out this email has not been turned off.
01:12:26
Speaker 3: What a surprise.
01:12:27
Speaker 7: Now, it definitely exists.
01:12:28
Speaker 2: Totally.
01:12:29
Speaker 7: But also, maybe it was a text.
01:12:30
Speaker 3: I believe that it exists.
01:12:32
Speaker 7: But hey.
01:12:34
Speaker 4: But after June of 2015, that's when.
01:12:38
Speaker 4: Free Speech Systems was company-wide, said we are no longer going to be associated with this guy.
01:12:43
Speaker 2: I don't know if it was June or not, but there's definitely an email that I believe I sent to him or, yeah, that I sent to him and said he's no longer representing or not to represent Free Speech Systems.
01:12:59
Speaker 4: Okay, and that wasn't anything to do with, like, a journalist's source. That was just you telling somebody to stop saying he's associated with you.
01:13:09
Speaker 2: Correct. Okay.
01:13:10
Speaker 4: Where's that email?
01:13:19
Speaker 3: I didn't think you were going to ask that.
01:13:22
Speaker 2: I assume you have it.
01:13:25
Speaker 4: What a shot.
01:13:29
Speaker 3: Let's back up.
01:13:30
Speaker 2: Did you give it to anybody?
01:13:40
Speaker 4: Did you give it to Mr. Bankston? Did you send it to Mr. Bankston?
01:13:44
Speaker 2: I don't know if I sent any documents to Mr. Bankston.
01:13:46
Speaker 4: Did you send it to Mr.
01:13:47
Speaker 2: Enoch? I don't believe I sent any documents to Mr. Enoch. You sent it to Mr. Barnes. There's a lot of attorneys working on the case, and so it went to another attorney, I imagine.
01:14:03
Speaker 4: Okay.
01:14:03
Speaker 2: But I'm not, thinking back, it may have been a text, but I would have to look through everything again.
01:14:12
Speaker 4: So you have a texting relationship with Mr. Bedondee?
01:14:17
Speaker 2: Not generally. But you have... What?
01:14:19
Speaker 4: There were text messages that were found, I guess, if you're bringing them up. Correct?
01:14:25
Speaker 2: There might be one or two or something, depending on.
01:14:31
Speaker 2: We generally like to do things in email.
01:14:33
Speaker 4: Okay.
01:14:36
Speaker 2: Especially if it's don't. We don't want you representing us anymore.
01:14:41
Speaker 7: Like this thing is.
01:14:43
Speaker 3: Okay, so in this circumstance.
01:14:45
Speaker 7: You'd really think it would be an email.
01:14:47
Speaker 6: Yeah.
01:14:47
Speaker 7: Yeah, so then we get on another lap, basically. That's how you restart this entire cycle of conversation that goes nowhere. I do really appreciate, though, that there's a certainty that there's an email.
01:14:58
Speaker 4: Yep.
01:14:59
Speaker 7: And then as they're like, oh, I don't have that email. No one has ever produced that email. Maybe it's a text.
01:15:05
Speaker 2: Ah.
01:15:06
Speaker 7: How do I wiggle out of this? My certainty has gone away.
01:15:09
Speaker 3: I just love the stab at the... You guys have it?
01:15:16
Speaker 7: Like the hope.
01:15:17
Speaker 3: The hope.
01:15:18
Speaker 7: I assume.
01:15:19
Speaker 3: That's the other thing. That's the other thing about these depositions that's always there. The hope that maybe they got out of it this time.
01:15:26
Speaker 2: Right.
01:15:26
Speaker 7: And presuming that he did turn it over to lawyers, the fact that they don't have it means that the lawyers are not producing things. So now you're getting other people.
01:15:37
Speaker 3: You're revealing all the wrong things.
01:15:38
Speaker 1: Yeah.
01:15:39
Speaker 7: Yeah. So we've touched on Halbig.
01:15:43
Speaker 5: Yeah.
01:15:43
Speaker 7: Touched on Badandi.
01:15:44
Speaker 2: Sure.
01:15:44
Speaker 7: Now let's talk Fetzer.
01:15:46
Speaker 3: Let's do it.
01:15:46
Speaker 7: And actually, Rob is correct about this, which is bizarre.
01:15:51
Speaker 4: Jim Fetzer. What do you know about Jim Fetzer?
01:15:59
Speaker 2: That he's an author, and I don't know if he's a talk show host, but he's been on a lot of talk shows.
01:16:06
Speaker 4: Okay. He's... I think to this day still holds that Sandy Hooks.
01:16:13
Speaker 2: Was a hoax.
01:16:14
Speaker 4: You would agree?
01:16:15
Speaker 2: I believe that is his view, yes.
01:16:18
Speaker 4: What was your relationship with Mr.
01:16:20
Speaker 2: Fetzer? He was a guest, but not that frequently. Okay.
01:16:27
Speaker 4: Why did he start becoming a guest?
01:16:30
Speaker 2: I believe he was a guest long before Sandy Hook.
01:16:33
Speaker 4: Okay.
01:16:36
Speaker 2: He may have come on once after Sandy Hook, but I don't even know if that. is accurate, but he was not a frequent guest.
01:16:46
Speaker 4: So prior to Sandy Hook, he was just another believer in conspiracy theories, right?
01:16:51
Speaker 2: I don't know what his beliefs are, but I imagine he's... I don't know what his beliefs are in terms of what you just said, conspiracy theories.
01:17:01
Speaker 7: So I'm baffled, but Rob is correct. I mean, Fetzer would have been on more in the past because he had like JFK conspiracies and like he was someone who Alex did have on before. I'm not even positive that he ever came on after Sandy Hook. And I think the reason is because he's so clearly unwell.
01:17:21
Speaker 4: Yeah.
01:17:21
Speaker 7: Like I've seen interviews with him on Project Camelot and he is somebody who is so obviously not credible as a witness that I don't think that Alex would ever want to have him on. in that era, in that time. But there's a lot of information that traces back to him that was easy to launder. And there were things that were written that don't come off as immediately unhinged as seeing him rant and rave would have been. And so I think whether or not Rob understands these dynamics or not, He's correct. I don't know if Fetzer ever did come on afterwards, but he was a longstanding guest back into the early 2000s, late 90s even maybe. I found stuff on archived pages of Alex's site of interviews with him from way back.
01:18:18
Speaker 6: Here's a piece of advice for anybody in any kind of interrogation circumstance or the like.
01:18:26
Speaker 3: If on some questions you have extremely long.
01:18:30
Speaker 6: Pauses that are noticed by the questioner, and on other questions you answer immediately and with confidence, then perhaps that says something about the varying degrees of truthfulness between those two answers.
01:18:43
Speaker 7: It's possible.
01:18:44
Speaker 3: Yeah.
01:18:45
Speaker 7: So you might notice also there's a little bit of, it's not that it's surface level, but there's not as much depth to this. And that is because these depositions are being done on a pretty tight schedule.
01:18:57
Speaker 2: Yeah.
01:18:58
Speaker 7: So a lot of the other ones, like later, they got taken to go on for hours and hours.
01:19:03
Speaker 3: Yeah.
01:19:04
Speaker 7: This was on a, I believe it was basically one hour for the Infor's LLC and two hours for this one.
01:19:11
Speaker 2: Wow.
01:19:12
Speaker 7: So there's not enough time to really drill into a ton of some of the substance that we see in some of the other depositions.
01:19:22
Speaker 5: Right.
01:19:23
Speaker 7: So you just have kind of like, who's Jim Fetzer?
01:19:26
Speaker 3: Think of.
01:19:27
Speaker 6: Think of the broad side that they must have had if they thought that the depositions were going to regularly be one or two hours.
01:19:36
Speaker 3: And then to have that jumped up to full day long.
01:19:40
Speaker 7: Who knows? Who knows what their expectations were?
01:19:42
Speaker 3: Heartbreaking.
01:19:43
Speaker 7: So Rob struggles in this next clip when asked if Alex ever called the Sandy Hook family's actors.
01:19:51
Speaker 3: Good question.
01:19:52
Speaker 7: Because he did.
01:19:53
Speaker 1: Yes, he did.
01:19:53
Speaker 7: He definitely did. We know. And so did Rob.
01:19:56
Speaker 2: Yep.
01:19:57
Speaker 7: But... Eh, he gives it a shot.
01:20:00
Speaker 4: Between December 2012 and today, has Mr. Jones ever referred to parents as actors? And by parents, I mean the parents of the children that died at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
01:20:14
Speaker 2: I believe you have, if you look at the footage, there's even law enforcement personnel referring to people as actors.
01:20:22
Speaker 4: Not, my question, in any shape, form, or fashion.
01:20:25
Speaker 3: Aha!
01:20:26
Speaker 1: Aha!
01:20:28
Speaker 2: Has Mr.
01:20:29
Speaker 4: Jones ever reported that the parents of the dead children from Sandy Hook Elementary School were faking and were actors about this situation?
01:20:42
Speaker 2: I do not believe he was referring to parents.
01:20:46
Speaker 4: As.
01:20:46
Speaker 3: How are we doing here?
01:20:52
Speaker 2: I believe when he says acting... He's talking about coaching from the mainstream media and the way they paraded those poor people in front of the camera day after day after day to talk about taking people's comments.
01:21:06
Speaker 3: So the answer is yes, then.
01:21:08
Speaker 4: I feel sorry to a breaking point. I've got one, two follow-up questions. As far as free speech is concerned, has anyone else at free speech said that parents were actors?
01:21:23
Speaker 2: There was people who believed all kinds of things during that.
01:21:26
Speaker 6: Sure.
01:21:27
Speaker 2: There were some people that believed everything that was coming out of the.
01:21:33
Speaker 3: Like you.
01:21:35
Speaker 2: From the media was true, and there were some people that did not believe that. So there.
01:21:41
Speaker 6: Were.
01:21:42
Speaker 2: And we have open debates about those things. Right. Because we believe that's the best place to have them is in the open.
01:21:48
Speaker 4: And by open, you mean on the show?
01:21:49
Speaker 2: Correct.
01:21:50
Speaker 4: So, for instance, when you went on the show and you said, I know Robbie Parker is an actor. I'm an actor. I have a degree in theater. Does that sound like a question? Or are you making a statement?
01:22:03
Speaker 2: I was referring to him preparing right before he began speaking.
01:22:07
Speaker 4: Sure. I asked a question of, does that sound like a question or a statement, Mr.
01:22:11
Speaker 2: Dew? That sounds like a statement. Thank you. And that was based on experience.
01:22:18
Speaker 4: And that experience, you were doing that. as an employee for Free Speech Systems, correct?
01:22:24
Speaker 2: I believe we are allowed to make statements.
01:22:25
Speaker 4: Correct. And you are doing it on a show that is owned and produced by Free Speech Systems, correct?
01:22:42
Speaker 2: I made that statement.
01:22:44
Speaker 3: Congrats.
01:22:47
Speaker 4: And you did it on a show owned by Free Speech Systems.
01:22:49
Speaker 2: And I believed at the time, when I was looking at what I was seeing, that Robbie Parker was going through some sort of actor training.
01:23:03
Speaker 7: Not my question.
01:23:06
Speaker 6: I don't know how more we can do this, sir. I'm asking you a question to which I want the answer.
01:23:11
Speaker 2: Right. Well.
01:23:12
Speaker 7: I mean, that's one way to approach... I'm just going to scat.
01:23:20
Speaker 3: The rest of the time. I think he might be more successful.
01:23:25
Speaker 7: If it pleases the court, I will speak in beeps and boops.
01:23:31
Speaker 3: And it is exemplary of what they're good at.
01:23:34
Speaker 6: They're good at, if somebody asks them a question, being like, I think cops also said they were actors.
01:23:39
Speaker 3: That's what they're good at. They can do that instantly. Pull it off the back of their backs.
01:23:43
Speaker 7: I imagine that's true in as much as somebody might say that people are actors in terms of performing actions.
01:23:51
Speaker 3: Right, right, right.
01:23:52
Speaker 7: I'm a competent actor or something like that. I could see somebody referring to somebody as an actor in that sense.
01:23:58
Speaker 2: Right.
01:23:59
Speaker 7: But not in the sense that they're talking about. Right. I mean, they are the same letters, right?
01:24:05
Speaker 2: Right.
01:24:06
Speaker 7: But not the same word.
01:24:07
Speaker 6: And it's like him being, it's so childish. It's like, oh, well, the cop said it. Why can't I say it? Like, no, just answer the fucking question. I don't care what you feel.
01:24:17
Speaker 2: Right.
01:24:17
Speaker 7: It's obfuscation and misdirection. They're very good at that.
01:24:21
Speaker 3: That's what they're doing.
01:24:21
Speaker 2: Yeah.
01:24:22
Speaker 7: That's 90% of the business model.
01:24:24
Speaker 3: Actually answering questions, true or false. Not good. Not good at it.
01:24:29
Speaker 2: No.
01:24:29
Speaker 7: And here comes another one.
01:24:30
Speaker 3: Okay.
01:24:31
Speaker 7: Hot and ready. Fresh across the plate. Here comes a meatball. Um, there's a question about a bit of reporting that Rob did himself. And that was that, uh, they had sealed the, uh, death certificates of the children. Okay. And, uh, why did you report that?
01:24:49
Speaker 3: Good question.
01:24:49
Speaker 4: And that programming in February 12th, 2015, you personally were on a free speech systems program and said that they sealed all the death certificates. You remember that?
01:25:03
Speaker 2: What was the date?
01:25:04
Speaker 4: February 12, 2015.
01:25:05
Speaker 2: I believe at the time that is what I believed that they had blocked those because they felt they weren't releasing them to the public.
01:25:22
Speaker 4: What did you do to try and get it? Did you fill out a FOIA request?
01:25:29
Speaker 2: I did not.
01:25:30
Speaker 9: Okay.
01:25:30
Speaker 4: What did you do to learn that they weren't giving them to the public?
01:25:36
Speaker 2: I did internet searches looking for those. I don't know if I did it that day. But I had done searches in the past looking for those because people were saying they're not providing the death certificates of these kids.
01:25:52
Speaker 4: Yeah, but you're a journalist. You're supposed to vet that information before you put it out onto the internet, right?
01:25:57
Speaker 2: Objection is 2-4.
01:25:58
Speaker 4: I'll back up. Are you a journalist?
01:25:59
Speaker 2: I provide information.
01:26:02
Speaker 4: What? Do you consider yourself a journalist?
01:26:05
Speaker 2: I think I wear a lot of hats.
01:26:06
Speaker 4: Do you wear a journalist hat?
01:26:08
Speaker 2: I believe I do. Okay.
01:26:09
Speaker 7: Nice hat. Wow.
01:26:12
Speaker 3: Pulling fucking teeth.
01:26:13
Speaker 7: Yeah, yeah. Pulling teeth. Do you consider yourself a journalist? I wear many hats. Do you wear a journalist hat?
01:26:19
Speaker 2: Yes.
01:26:20
Speaker 6: You know, I sing the songs of the journalist from time to time. I have tripped the light fantastique.
01:26:26
Speaker 2: Oh, God.
01:26:27
Speaker 3: What are we doing?
01:26:28
Speaker 2: Yep.
01:26:28
Speaker 3: Just say yes or no.
01:26:29
Speaker 7: Look, I heard on a bullshit message board that the death certificates were sealed, and I decided to repeat that shit.
01:26:37
Speaker 4: Yep.
01:26:38
Speaker 7: I don't give a fuck. I'm not checking into any of this stuff.
01:26:40
Speaker 3: Absolutely not.
01:26:41
Speaker 7: But here's how we're going to save that.
01:26:43
Speaker 3: How are we going to do it?
01:26:44
Speaker 7: We're going to say it's common knowledge.
01:26:46
Speaker 3: Get the fuck out.
01:26:47
Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
01:26:47
Speaker 9: Wow.
01:26:48
Speaker 7: It's pretty solid stuff.
01:26:49
Speaker 4: So you got this information from some Google searches. Did you fill out... Did you ever attempt... get a death certificate?
01:26:58
Speaker 2: I did not. Okay. Because I read that they were sealing them. They would not release them.
01:27:04
Speaker 4: Where were you reading this?
01:27:07
Speaker 2: I couldn't give you the exact article or website.
01:27:09
Speaker 3: A journalist never reveals his sources.
01:27:11
Speaker 2: I think it was common knowledge that they weren't releasing death certificates.
01:27:16
Speaker 4: When you say common knowledge, please tell us who that group of people would possibly think that was common knowledge.
01:27:37
Speaker 3: You're right, I hang out with weirdos, don't I?
01:27:40
Speaker 5: Huh.
01:27:41
Speaker 2: Uh-oh. One doesn't come to mind.
01:27:52
Speaker 7: Bad answer.
01:27:55
Speaker 6: This needs the Wonder Years-style level of voiceover for his thoughts, because they would be so funny.
01:28:02
Speaker 7: It's... What group am I going to come up with?
01:28:07
Speaker 2: Right.
01:28:07
Speaker 6: And he's going through the Rolodex, tossing them.
01:28:11
Speaker 3: Is that a good idea? No, that one makes me look dumb. No, I don't like that one. The Vets? No, that doesn't work.
01:28:18
Speaker 7: Unhinged Sandy Hook Truthers?
01:28:20
Speaker 3: Yeah, that one does work, but that makes me look real bad.
01:28:22
Speaker 7: I can't say that. Shit.
01:28:23
Speaker 3: You know what? I can't think of one.
01:28:25
Speaker 7: One does not come to mind.
01:28:27
Speaker 3: Ball's in your court now, sir.
01:28:31
Speaker 7: So not only was Rob saying that they'd sealed these death certificates, which is common knowledge that he cannot come up with. He went a step further. And in this clip we learned he might have just made this shit up.
01:28:47
Speaker 4: So you can't think of a single group of people who would think common knowledge was that the death certificates were being withheld and were sealed. Now that we've established that, You went on to say in that same program on February 12th of 2015 that it was a felony to get those death certificates. Remember saying that?
01:29:10
Speaker 2: No, I'd have to see the video.
01:29:11
Speaker 3: I talk so much shit, of course I don't.
01:29:13
Speaker 4: Have you ever believed that it was a felony to do a FOIA request and pay the $ 15 or $ 20 to get a death certificate?
01:29:22
Speaker 2: I might have been. I'd have to look at the video, but I was probably conflating several things together. One of which was a, I believe it was the head of the state police who came out and said, we're going to go after people who ask questions. And I believe there's video of that somewhere. Right.
01:29:40
Speaker 4: And that makes it a felony? Or did you just make that up?
01:29:49
Speaker 2: I don't believe I made that up. Okay.
01:29:51
Speaker 4: So you would have found a law somewhere that would have made it a felony?
01:29:55
Speaker 2: Right. Well, we're talking about something that was five years ago, six years ago.
01:30:02
Speaker 4: So you would have been able to just go on the internet back then and find a law that made it a felony, correct? Let me back up. I'll make this a lot easier. Other than the police officer saying he's going to go after people for asking questions that you claim happened.
01:30:18
Speaker 2: He said prosecute, I believe. Prosecute.
01:30:20
Speaker 4: Other than that, what... could have led you to believe that doing a FOIA request for death certificates would have been a felony?
01:30:30
Speaker 2: I think at the time, and that might have been information from a number of guests who were trying to get this information and were unable to.
01:30:39
Speaker 4: Okay, so you just took a bunch of information from everyone else, did zero vetting, and threw it out there as true.
01:30:46
Speaker 2: Correct. Objection is due to form.
01:30:49
Speaker 7: Yeah, I'd object to that too, probably.
01:30:50
Speaker 6: Yeah, the form is the troubling part, for sure. That's the troubling part.
01:30:54
Speaker 7: So what you did is Wolfgang Halbig made up some shit, and you just reported that.
01:31:01
Speaker 2: Yeah.
01:31:01
Speaker 7: Cool.
01:31:03
Speaker 3: Follow-up, I thought we were doing a deposition, and now I feel like I'm in the principal's office. Right. So that makes me feel small.
01:31:10
Speaker 7: Well, you deserve a trip to the principal's office.
01:31:12
Speaker 3: You sure do.
01:31:13
Speaker 7: Did you make up that this is a felony? I think it was a lot of sources and guests. Oh, so they made it up. Cool, great. So the thing that appears to be a factual basis there is Rob alleging that there was a cop who said that they were going to prosecute people who were asking questions. And this leads to the unfortunate realization that I think that Rob, and maybe all of Infowars ultimately, believe that asking questions and spreading misinformation are synonymous.
01:31:46
Speaker 3: Yeah, they do.
01:31:47
Speaker 7: They think it's the same thing, more or less.
01:31:50
Speaker 4: Yeah.
01:31:50
Speaker 7: So this comes up, and then Enoch shows back up.
01:31:54
Speaker 3: Of course. Now's the time for that rescue.
01:31:57
Speaker 4: Also, you said that the state police said he was coming after anybody that was asking questions, correct? That was what you just said earlier?
01:32:04
Speaker 2: I believe they said putting out false information, what they considered false information.
01:32:08
Speaker 4: Spreading misinformation.
01:32:10
Speaker 2: Misinformation. Okay.
01:32:11
Speaker 4: I just wanted to clear that up.
01:32:13
Speaker 2: Sure.
01:32:13
Speaker 4: Because it wasn't people that were asking questions. It was people that were intentionally and willfully spreading misinformation. Correct?
01:32:22
Speaker 2: And it was that statement that made us go, this is interesting. Now, why would they have a problem with people asking questions? Wow. Because you could say asking a question is spreading misinformation. No.
01:32:36
Speaker 4: When you say we were questioning things, and then it comes out and said... This is as fake as a $ 3 bill. You and I already agreed that's not a question, that's a statement. That is spreading a statement of misinformation, correct?
01:32:49
Speaker 2: But you're taking statements that are made over a year or so.
01:32:51
Speaker 4: I'm asking a question, correct? Don't interrupt the deposition, Mr. Enoch. Please let the witness finish his question, his answer.
01:32:58
Speaker 2: Would you do that, please, Mr. Rodman?
01:33:00
Speaker 6: If Mr.
01:33:00
Speaker 4: Barnes would like to do it as he's defending this deposition and you're sitting over there, I'm happy to entertain anything Mr. Barnes has to say because he's the one that is allowed to talk in this. Do you agree? Actually, can we, I'm going to pause this from the time. No, stay on the record. Do you agree that only one attorney in Texas gets to defend a deposition and speak?
01:33:21
Speaker 2: Mr. Ogden.
01:33:22
Speaker 4: No, I'm asking a question.
01:33:23
Speaker 2: Do you?
01:33:23
Speaker 4: Please don't interrupt me again. I haven't interrupted you. You just interrupted the deposition.
01:33:29
Speaker 2: I suggest you continue.
01:33:30
Speaker 4: Your deposition, Mr. Ogden. I'm asking you. Do you agree with me that only in the pursuit of the rules, one attorney is allowed to defend a deposition? Would you please continue your deposition, Mr.
01:33:40
Speaker 2: Ogden?
01:33:40
Speaker 4: Are we just going to ignore the Texas rules of civil procedure? Is that what we're doing? I want to know why you keep interrupting. And what's the basis for it? I keep hearing you say those words, but I'm going to... Are you just not going to answer? Are you just going to keep interrupting and being an obstructionist?
01:33:59
Speaker 2: Okay.
01:34:01
Speaker 4: But before I go forward, I just want you to know, everything you're saying is his job. If he's not doing it, talk to him, and he can do his job.
01:34:08
Speaker 2: But.
01:34:09
Speaker 4: Your team decided he was defending these depositions, not you. Where were we?
01:34:21
Speaker 2: Yep.
01:34:23
Speaker 7: You get the sense, I mean, cause this is two different depositions. Yeah. You get the sense that Enoch just shouldn't be allowed in the room.
01:34:30
Speaker 3: He shouldn't.
01:34:30
Speaker 7: He clearly can't control himself, but it's a choice.
01:34:35
Speaker 8: Exactly.
01:34:35
Speaker 7: You don't get to the position, uh, in, in life of, you know, being a, like head, like pretty high up at a law firm, you know, with that kind of impulse control, uh, issue, you know, you, it's a, it's a decision that he's making to be obstructionist.
01:34:53
Speaker 2: Yeah.
01:34:54
Speaker 7: Uh, in, in this, uh, he's trying to derail things and he just, his behavior is such that you just shouldn't be allowed in the room.
01:35:01
Speaker 6: Yeah. I mean, he's doing his best to, uh, I, I mean, both influence the client as well as the lawyers.
01:35:09
Speaker 7: Yeah. Trying to provoke.
01:35:11
Speaker 5: Yeah.
01:35:11
Speaker 3: He's trying to do all this. And then just as I suggest you... Fuck you. Right, right. Are you in the mafia? I suggest you continue your deposition.
01:35:21
Speaker 7: Shut the fuck up. I suggest Barnes do something.
01:35:23
Speaker 3: Yeah.
01:35:23
Speaker 7: He's the one who's supposed to be doing it.
01:35:25
Speaker 3: Give me money for his job.
01:35:27
Speaker 2: Mm-hmm.
01:35:28
Speaker 7: So it's not a felony to look for these death certificates. What? Yeah, it turns out. And it turns out that... Though Rob apparently only learned, as we're going to find out in this clip, that he could get those death certificates if he wanted to very easily. Turns out he learned that in 2018. But someone tweeted him about it years earlier.
01:35:48
Speaker 4: So I'm asking you, when did you learn that you can order the death certificates online?
01:36:07
Speaker 2: I would say maybe sometime during 2018. Okay.
01:36:10
Speaker 4: Were you... Because it's.
01:36:13
Speaker 2: Not something we covered every day.
01:36:14
Speaker 4: Are you still on Twitter?
01:36:17
Speaker 2: I am still on Twitter.
01:36:18
Speaker 4: Is it dues, news, dues with an S, news with a Z?
01:36:23
Speaker 2: Correct.
01:36:23
Speaker 4: Did you get multiple tweets from a person named C.W. Wade that was telling you that you can order the death certificates online back in November of 2016?
01:36:30
Speaker 2: Um.
01:36:35
Speaker 2: I may have. Just because somebody sends you something on Twitter doesn't mean you read it. Okay. Did I respond to him?
01:36:44
Speaker 4: Do you know who C.W. Wade is?
01:36:48
Speaker 2: Oh, boy. No.
01:36:51
Speaker 4: You do not know who C.W.
01:36:52
Speaker 2: Wade is? I don't know. Is that a Twitter name or is that somebody's name?
01:36:56
Speaker 4: It's at C.W. Wade's with an S, and C.W. Wade is the name.
01:37:02
Speaker 2: The name of the person.
01:37:04
Speaker 4: You are testifying under oath on the penalty of perjury that you don't know C.W. Wade is.
01:37:10
Speaker 2: Are you asking if I've met him in person?
01:37:11
Speaker 4: Do you know who that is?
01:37:14
Speaker 2: Sitting here right now, I do not know who that is. Do you have a picture of me with him?
01:37:18
Speaker 4: That's my question. That's the only question I have.
01:37:20
Speaker 7: So C.W. Wade is a pseudonym that was used by somebody who was a volunteer at the Honor Network. And they did a lot of correcting Sandy Hook misinformation online. So this is somebody that very much would have been sparring a bit with Infowars around this time.
01:37:39
Speaker 3: Right, right, right.
01:37:40
Speaker 7: It's understandable, I guess, that maybe Rob wouldn't recognize the name, but it also is probable that they've complained about C.W. Wade in the past. Yeah, yeah. So it is interesting to... Nailed that down.
01:37:53
Speaker 6: So if I understand correctly, Rob, the reason that you didn't follow up on these tweets is because you don't just trust things people put on the internet.
01:38:04
Speaker 7: Well, there's that. Or presumably he's like deluged with messages from people. Just do this news. You know, there's a lot of, a lot of people hitting them up. Sure. Tips. Naturally.
01:38:16
Speaker 3: Of course.
01:38:17
Speaker 7: Um, So he doesn't know who C.W. Wade is, but it turns out Rob also doesn't know who another person is.
01:38:24
Speaker 4: Jonathan Reich or Reich or Reich. Do you know who that is? no r-e-i-c-h jonathan r-e-i-c-h that name doesn't.
01:38:38
Speaker 2: Ring a bell i think i've heard the name but i don't know if i've had any communication with a jonathan okay do.
01:38:43
Speaker 4: You have any understanding of who that.
01:38:46
Speaker 2: Is I imagine he's involved in this somehow.
01:38:54
Speaker 4: But according to free speech systems, after reviewing all of the produced documents that are listed in topic number 10, you don't have any other information on him. Is that what you're testifying to?
01:39:12
Speaker 2: I imagine he is some ancillary person that you're going to try to entrap me with some sort of gotcha moment.
01:39:20
Speaker 4: Definitely not trying to do that. I'm just curious as to what you know. And if you prepared and reviewed the documents that were produced in this case so that we can talk about that name, because it comes up hundreds of times in dozens, if not hundreds, of documents.
01:39:37
Speaker 3: So I should know the name?
01:39:39
Speaker 4: Are you prepared to talk about who that is, or do you just think you may have heard the name once or twice before? That's all I'm asking.
01:39:47
Speaker 2: I don't recall hearing the name in any major capacity at all. I may have heard the name, but I can't recall at this time.
01:39:55
Speaker 4: Did you review any documents that had his name in it, preparing for this deposition specifically?
01:40:02
Speaker 2: I don't recall Jonathan Reich being a.
01:40:07
Speaker 2: I looked at a lot of documents, and I've been looking at a lot of documents, and I don't recall his name jumping out in any substantial capacity.
01:40:16
Speaker 7: Jonathan Reich is somebody who harassed a bunch of people, including the medical examiner in Newtown. And yeah, so he's somebody who factors heavily into a lot of the documents that Rob should have presumably reviewed.
01:40:31
Speaker 3: You'd think. Clearly didn't. No, he's read a lot of documents.
01:40:35
Speaker 7: And he read a lot of documents to prepare for this.
01:40:37
Speaker 3: And they're, you know, here's the thing about documents and words. Rob doesn't know how to read. That's my new theory. That's the only thing I've got.
01:40:47
Speaker 7: This is not possible. He's so averse to it.
01:40:50
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly. Perhaps he's allergic.
01:40:52
Speaker 7: Yeah, he could be allergic.
01:40:53
Speaker 3: It could be some sort of actual allergy.
01:40:55
Speaker 7: Could be like Cactus Tony.
01:40:57
Speaker 2: Yes.
01:40:57
Speaker 7: He's allergic to paper.
01:40:58
Speaker 3: He's allergic to paper.
01:40:59
Speaker 7: Exactly.
01:41:00
Speaker 3: And he can't afford an iPad. He only makes $ 400, 000 a year.
01:41:04
Speaker 7: Or some shit. We don't know Rob's salary, I don't think. Oh, that's right. But his preparation... should have involved these documents that would have led him to know or at least be familiar with the name Jonathan Reich. You'd think. But he didn't, and whatever.
01:41:19
Speaker 6: At least we know that when he gets another shot at it, he's really going to be on top of things.
01:41:25
Speaker 7: He's going to crush it.
01:41:25
Speaker 6: The second time around, that's what he needed.
01:41:27
Speaker 3: He just needed a mulligan.
01:41:28
Speaker 2: Yeah.
01:41:29
Speaker 7: Part of his preparation for this apparently was watching some videos.
01:41:33
Speaker 1: Okay.
01:41:34
Speaker 7: And that's a problem for reasons that will be discussed.
01:41:37
Speaker 3: Okay.
01:41:38
Speaker 7: And lead to Barnes getting involved.
01:41:40
Speaker 3: Of course.
01:41:41
Speaker 7: And starting a fight. Of course.
01:41:43
Speaker 2: I couldn't give you an exact number of, are you looking for eight-hour day segments or total?
01:41:48
Speaker 4: If you want to give it to me in hours, you can give it to me in days, you can give it to me in minutes. Just curious of how much time you spent preparing for right now. Because it seems like you're slightly not prepared to talk about some names that are literally mentioned hundreds of times in the document, in the little documents we've gotten. It seems like you reviewed some documents we haven't gotten.
01:42:10
Speaker 3: It does seem like that.
01:42:12
Speaker 4: I'm just trying to figure out how much.
01:42:21
Speaker 5: Time.
01:42:22
Speaker 3: Over under the length of total pauses, how much time did you spend preparing?
01:42:25
Speaker 2: I'd say maybe six total days, but spread out.
01:42:33
Speaker 4: Okay, those are eight-hour days.
01:42:36
Speaker 2: If you were, yes.
01:42:36
Speaker 4: So you've spent 40 hours reviewing documents.
01:42:41
Speaker 2: No, I think a lot of it was reviewing video and finding video.
01:42:45
Speaker 4: Okay. What were you having to find? The request just says what's been produced. Your lawyer's produced it. We know exactly what videos or no videos have been produced, right? Yeah, what videos were you reviewing?
01:42:59
Speaker 3: Oh, boy.
01:42:59
Speaker 4: They didn't produce any videos, right?
01:43:01
Speaker 2: Yeah.
01:43:01
Speaker 4: What videos were you reviewing?
01:43:04
Speaker 2: Objection is to form and misstating facts on the record.
01:43:07
Speaker 9: Videos were produced and you have them in voluminous quality, which you previously misled the court on.
01:43:12
Speaker 2: We'll get to that at a later date.
01:43:14
Speaker 4: Let's back.
01:43:17
Speaker 2: Up.
01:43:17
Speaker 9: Let me say for the record, all of the demonstrative, laughing, over-the-top reactions of Mr. Bankston is highly unprofessional, completely unnecessary, and I would greatly appreciate it if it was not contained. There doesn't need to be demonstrative, childlike behavior responding to a witness.
01:43:37
Speaker 2: Just do it professional, please.
01:43:39
Speaker 4: After yesterday, that's where we're going to go with this, Mr.
01:43:41
Speaker 2: Barnes? Oh, after yesterday?
01:43:43
Speaker 3: After the outrageous behavior yesterday of Mr.
01:43:45
Speaker 4: Bankston?
01:43:46
Speaker 9: And you two were laughing together repeatedly, joking with each other repeatedly?
01:43:51
Speaker 3: No, you guys are dumb.
01:43:52
Speaker 2: That's what we're talking about.
01:43:54
Speaker 3: There's going to be no.
01:43:56
Speaker 2: No, it's on the witness. I mean, now that's the kind of nonsense we're dealing with. All I'm asking is not to.
01:44:01
Speaker 9: Behave with ha-ha-ha, you know, talking with each other, laughing, trying to look at the witness and laugh.
01:44:07
Speaker 4: It's unprofessional.
01:44:08
Speaker 6: This is not brain surgery.
01:44:11
Speaker 2: Are you saying that's what Texas standards are? Texas standards are behaving.
01:44:14
Speaker 9: At the lowest possible ethical level in a way that makes lawyers look like a caricature?
01:44:18
Speaker 3: I'm so confused right now, Mr.
01:44:20
Speaker 4: Barnes, as to what we're talking about.
01:44:21
Speaker 7: Are you in a mirror?
01:44:22
Speaker 2: I'm requesting Mr.
01:44:23
Speaker 9: Banks quit laughing and behaving in a demonstrative way toward the witness repeatedly.
01:44:29
Speaker 2: That's all I'm asking. Thank you.
01:44:34
Speaker 4: We understand all those words.
01:44:38
Speaker 2: It's not an unreasonable request.
01:44:41
Speaker 7: It would be.
01:44:41
Speaker 4: I'm not going to make a comment on the reasonableness of what you just did. But we will talk about number 10. Actually, let's back up because you just made a representation and I just want this on the record. Is your position that any of the defendants in this case have produced videos to us.
01:45:02
Speaker 2: Yes. Okay.
01:45:03
Speaker 4: Every video that we have, we had to find ourselves.
01:45:07
Speaker 7: So this becomes a little bit of a thing. At the end of the deposition, Barnes and Mark both put some stuff on the record.
01:45:15
Speaker 2: Yeah.
01:45:15
Speaker 7: And hashed this out.
01:45:17
Speaker 3: Okay.
01:45:17
Speaker 7: And it turns out that Barnes' position is that they've turned over literally everything, and that is because... everything's online well no Mark and Bill and the folks at the law firm have gone and found a bunch of videos on their own and it's not the InfoWars obligation to create duplicates for them of stuff that they've already found so that's one thing and then the second thing is that they have directed them to tv.infowars.com and said hey here's all of the videos we've turned over all of the videos because we gave you this link and that is all bullshit But that's Barnes' position of the voluminous quality. We've turned over literally every video.
01:46:02
Speaker 6: Barnes complaining about another lawyer turning lawyers into a caricature.
01:46:08
Speaker 2: Right.
01:46:08
Speaker 7: Bananastown.
01:46:09
Speaker 9: Yeah.
01:46:10
Speaker 3: A delight.
01:46:11
Speaker 6: Yeah.
01:46:11
Speaker 3: This is just, of course you think that, Barnes.
01:46:14
Speaker 7: He's engaged in denial and delusion. Oh, my God. I'm doing my best Barnes impression with the two words that start with the same letter. So, yeah, Barnes sucks. Um, so we have a couple more clips here and it's basically the, the way things wrap up with a discussion of whether or not people should be held responsible for things.
01:46:31
Speaker 3: Right.
01:46:31
Speaker 6: Just a general, does responsibility matter in the world we inhabit?
01:46:35
Speaker 2: Sure.
01:46:36
Speaker 7: That's sort of where we begin. Gotcha.
01:46:37
Speaker 4: Do you agree with me that it's, it would, that people should be held responsible if they spread misinformation? Do you agree with that statement?
01:46:49
Speaker 2: If they're knowingly spreading misinformation.
01:46:51
Speaker 1: Okay.
01:46:53
Speaker 4: So as long as they stay ignorant and don't verify that it's false, it should be okay for somebody to spread misinformation. Is that your story? Objection is to inform. I'm just trying to get your understanding. Is that your understanding?
01:47:05
Speaker 9: Um....
01:47:19
Speaker 2: I don't believe we intentionally spread misinformation.
01:47:21
Speaker 4: I didn't just ask that. I said, as long as someone doesn't verify that something's false and spreads that information, should they be responsible for spreading misinformation?
01:47:32
Speaker 2: Objection is to inform.
01:47:53
Speaker 3: Long pause. What was your question again? I think the answer to your question is.
01:48:09
Speaker 2: I'm a good little boy. I think that's a hard question to answer. But I maintain that we never intentionally spread... misinformation or tried to hurt any parents.
01:48:24
Speaker 4: Right. So as long as you're reckless and not intentional, that's where your line starts to get a little murky?
01:48:30
Speaker 2: No, I'm not saying that. That's what you're saying. Okay.
01:48:33
Speaker 4: If you don't verify information and you start spreading it and it is false... Should that person be responsible for spreading misinformation? That's all I'm asking.
01:48:48
Speaker 2: I think you're making the assumption that there's only one source of verification. And I'm maintaining that sometimes there are multiple sources of verification.
01:48:58
Speaker 4: I'm not even saying either of those.
01:49:00
Speaker 7: I didn't say any of that. I... I think what Rob is saying is, hey, you know, there's multiple realities.
01:49:06
Speaker 3: Yes, that's what he's saying.
01:49:07
Speaker 6: He's saying, listen, you can believe in your reality and I'll believe in mine. And there's no way possible for some sort of objective reality to exist.
01:49:15
Speaker 7: I verified all this in crazy town.
01:49:17
Speaker 2: Yeah.
01:49:18
Speaker 7: All right.
01:49:18
Speaker 3: I'm the mayor there.
01:49:20
Speaker 4: Yeah.
01:49:20
Speaker 3: They love me. Why would I come to your house? You suck.
01:49:24
Speaker 6: You're a meanie making me feel bad about believing nonsense.
01:49:27
Speaker 7: I will listen to weirdos like Fetzer and Halbig. You can listen to the Clinton News Network if you like. All right, man.
01:49:35
Speaker 4: Oh, man.
01:49:36
Speaker 6: Now I'm just hearing Kevin Meaney. So that's not right. There's no responsibility that you're going to get here, really. Even if you try to approach it from the abstract position, Rob's not going to give you a satisfactory answer.
01:49:53
Speaker 7: And then when you ask free speech systems, y'all responsible? It's also not going to go great.
01:49:58
Speaker 4: Yeah. Does free speech systems... Do they accept responsibility for spreading misinformation about anything Sandy Hook related?
01:50:14
Speaker 2: Um....
01:50:17
Speaker 4: Sitting here today, not at the time. Sitting here right now, looking back.
01:50:24
Speaker 2: What I think we were doing was seeing how this was being used politically. And it's a shame that people's parents or parents of dead kids were being used to push a political narrative. But I think we had a duty to point that out, that that was being done.
01:50:41
Speaker 4: My question was, looking back, the information that was spread that is now, we can agree, wrong. Does free speech systems accept responsibility for.
01:50:57
Speaker 2: It? At this point, I will accept responsibility for defending the First and Second Amendment.
01:51:03
Speaker 4: Damn!
01:51:05
Speaker 3: God, these people are fucking insane.
01:51:07
Speaker 7: Right, but I 100% think that that is a line that he thought is going to be, give me liberty or give me death.
01:51:16
Speaker 3: That's 100% his sting. This is a quotable moment.
01:51:19
Speaker 7: This is when I stand up and I say, fuck you to power.
01:51:23
Speaker 6: Alex is going to say Thomas Jefferson said that in his deposition.
01:51:28
Speaker 7: Alex is going to get a tattoo of that line. And then it says Jefferson underneath it. And I get a raise. And he's going to pat me on the head.
01:51:35
Speaker 3: I'm going to be a good boy.
01:51:38
Speaker 7: Instead, it sounds monstrous, really. The only thing I'll take ownership of is that I stood up for the second amendment. Damn. You're disconnected at all from the conversation that is going on.
01:51:53
Speaker 6: So in retrospect, looking back, now that you know you hit that person with a car. Are you going to take responsibility for that murder?
01:52:01
Speaker 7: I will say that I made a great stance for the Sixth Amendment and the Third Amendment. And the 20. Which one's the one about prohibition?
01:52:12
Speaker 3: I want to say that's the 13th?
01:52:14
Speaker 7: No, 15th maybe?
01:52:16
Speaker 4: I don't know.
01:52:16
Speaker 7: Which one undoes prohibition? Because that's the one I was standing up for.
01:52:19
Speaker 6: That's the one right after it. There's two amendments that are directly back to back.
01:52:26
Speaker 3: Maybe no booze. Yes, please booze.
01:52:29
Speaker 7: That's the one I was standing up for when I hit the guy with the car. Because I was drunk. That sounds right.
01:52:33
Speaker 2: Um.
01:52:34
Speaker 7: So, yeah, this is what we got. 21st Amendment. 21st Amendment.
01:52:41
Speaker 6: Wow.
01:52:41
Speaker 7: It was later than you thought. It was.
01:52:45
Speaker 6: I assumed that we had gotten that one knocked out pretty early.
01:52:49
Speaker 7: So, do... And actually the 18th was the one that, uh, did prohibition. So it wasn't the next one.
01:52:54
Speaker 3: Oh damn. I'm way off.
01:52:56
Speaker 7: It took some time.
01:52:57
Speaker 3: What was the amendments in between?
01:52:58
Speaker 7: I don't know. Look, here's the deal.
01:53:00
Speaker 4: Yeah.
01:53:00
Speaker 7: Rob do sucks.
01:53:01
Speaker 3: Yes, he does.
01:53:02
Speaker 7: But it's shocking to hear this and then know that the next time wasn't better.
01:53:08
Speaker 2: Yeah.
01:53:08
Speaker 7: There wasn't any more preparation there. It's, it's a rank disrespect. Just one instance like this is pretty disrespectful. And, and, uh, bad but then to know that like you you just think like well we can do that again is.
01:53:24
Speaker 6: I mean yeah that that cannot be you know like that's deliberate barnes is aware of what's going on he's even made points in this deposition where he probably shouldn't be talking.
01:53:36
Speaker 7: Well in the same way that enoch knows what he's doing by disrupting exactly barnes knows what he's doing by allowing rob to show up uh completely unprepared right as the corporate representative yeah There is, and that's why this led to large fines and ultimately down the road was a large portion of the contributing to a default judgment.
01:53:59
Speaker 2: Yeah.
01:54:00
Speaker 7: You know, like it's, it is, they're cognizant of the way that this is playing out in a legal procedure.
01:54:07
Speaker 6: Yeah, and it's very much, it's almost hypocritical, you might say, for there to be a three strikes laws for people who are under the law.
01:54:19
Speaker 3: But people who work there, oh, sure, we'll do another deposition.
01:54:22
Speaker 6: Ah, we'll do, okay, six more depositions, and we're going to think you guys need a default judgment.
01:54:28
Speaker 7: Fool me 30 times.
01:54:29
Speaker 3: Exactly.
01:54:30
Speaker 7: Yeah. So, I mean, we reinforce the awareness that we have that Enoch sucks.
01:54:35
Speaker 6: Yep.
01:54:36
Speaker 7: We get some great do content. The pauses.
01:54:40
Speaker 2: Amazing.
01:54:41
Speaker 7: The testifying on behalf of free speech systems that Lanza may not have acted alone.
01:54:46
Speaker 4: Oh. Great.
01:54:48
Speaker 3: Not knowing what InfoWars is.
01:54:51
Speaker 7: Or why InfoWars LLC exists.
01:54:53
Speaker 6: Or that there's a comma before LLC in all LLCs.
01:54:58
Speaker 7: Pretty wild.
01:54:58
Speaker 4: Yeah.
01:54:59
Speaker 7: All LLCs. A good time and another trip to Deposition Corner.
01:55:06
Speaker 6: It's so insane. I can't get my head around that that's not the... Yep.
01:55:13
Speaker 3: That's not like the first... Boy.
01:55:16
Speaker 4: Wild.
01:55:16
Speaker 7: Anyway, we'll be back, Jordan. But until then, we have a website.
01:55:19
Speaker 3: We do. It's knowledgefight.com.
01:55:20
Speaker 2: Yep.
01:55:21
Speaker 7: We're also on Twitter.
01:55:22
Speaker 3: We are on Twitter. It's at knowledge underscore fight.
01:55:25
Speaker 2: Yep.
01:55:25
Speaker 7: We'll be back. But until then, I'm Neo. I'm Leo. I'm DZX Clark. I'm also Dan. But I've run out of times that Alex said Dan to have clips. So I'm going to have to go hunting for more.
01:55:36
Speaker 3: And now here comes the sex robots.
01:55:38
Speaker 4: Andy in Kansas, you're on the air.
01:55:40
Speaker 7: Thanks for holding.
01:55:42
Speaker 6: Hello, Alex.
01:55:43
Speaker 2: I'm a first time caller. I'm a huge fan.
01:55:45
Speaker 6: I love your work.
01:55:46
Speaker 4: I love you.
