YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → PART 2: Alex Jones / Sandy Hook Video Deposition

PART 2: Alex Jones / Sandy Hook Video Deposition — Transcript

by Kaster Lynch Farrar & Ball LLP · 13,121 words · 2,181 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:02We are back on the record today at 2:51
0:04p.m.
0:10Mr. Jones, um
0:11some of your
0:13Sandy Hook reporting
0:34Mr. Jones
0:36some of your reporting on Sandy Hook
0:40involved um a anonymous website known as
0:43Zero Hedge. You know what Zero Hedge is?
0:45Yes. Okay.
0:47Um you'll remember that
0:49there was an affidavit um submitted by
0:53one of the plaintiff's experts
0:55that said InfoWars and Zero Hedge
0:57promoted and endorsed each other's
0:59content. You remember that? That
1:01affidavit?
1:03No. Okay.
1:04You've taken issue with that statement
1:06though. You don't believe that
1:07statement's not true.
1:14I don't know who runs Zero Hedge. I
1:15don't know I don't want to have a
1:16relationship with them. Okay.
1:18I want to show you
1:21what I'm now marking as exhibit seven.
1:30Do you want to take a read a minute to
1:31read this, Mr. Jones? What I've handed
1:33you is the August 28th
1:37affidavit
1:38that you executed in the Heslin case. Do
1:40you Do you want a minute to read that?
1:41Sure, thank you.
3:02I'm I'm finished.
3:03Okay, Mr. Jones.
3:05I'd like to direct your attention there
3:06at the end of page one and spilling onto
3:08page two.
3:09I'm going to read a sentence there for
3:10you that's highlighted.
3:12States, "None of the defendants
3:16ever cooperated in any way with Zero
3:19Hedge
3:20nor have defendants and Zero Hedge ever
3:23promoted or endorsed each other's
3:25content."
3:26I read that correctly? Yes. Okay.
3:29Now and I believe next sentence there at
3:31times there's been times where in Zero
3:33Hedge has been cited. Yes. And and
3:36commented about.
3:37Yes. Right, but to talk about you
3:39engaging the promotion or endorsement of
3:41Zero Hedge content, that was that was
3:44wrong.
3:46That's what this affidavit
3:46Yes, that's
3:47that's wrong. I mean in in I don't know
3:49who Zero Hedge is. I've reached out to
3:51them before and said, "Hey, who are you?
3:52I'd like you to come on."
3:54Um
3:55and there's been no response back. Uh
3:58and I've said, "Wow, this is a I've
4:00said, "Wow, this is a good article from
4:01Zero Hedge." Um like I've said, I've
4:04said to the New York Times it's a good
4:05story.
4:06Uh but about I don't have any
4:07relationship with them.
4:08Right, okay. Well, I want to show you a
4:10video of you talking about Zero Hedge.
4:12Uh I'm going to show you a clip that was
4:14taken on June 13, 2017.
4:17This clip unfortunately is not available
4:19online anymore. This is what you're
4:21about to see has been downloaded from a
4:22website called sandyhookfacts.com.
4:25So, I want to show you that video which
4:27is just a recording of your video. Uh
4:30can you play the clip called Zero Hedge?
4:33Hedge for Zero Point now is to positive
4:35this this article. I I need to get this
4:36person to write for InfoWars. They
4:38absolutely get where I stand. They're
4:40journalists. They actually reported on
4:42what I said. They showed my quotes going
4:43back over years saying, "I don't know
4:45what happened, but it's got more holes
4:46than a Swiss cheese."
4:50But again, I want to encourage people to
4:51read the Zero Hedge article that breaks
4:53it all down because they absolutely are
4:57on target with this report where they
5:00ask the questions that the media seems
5:03so scared that I might even actually
5:05talk about even the Megyn Kelly
5:07interview aired.
5:09When you said in your affidavit that
5:11InfoWars and you have never promoted or
5:14endorsed Zero Hedge's content, that was
5:16a false statement.
5:22I just said before you played the clip
5:23and I've said they've done good
5:24reporting. Sure, but Mr. Jones
5:27That's not an endorsement. I don't have
5:28I don't know who they are. You're going
5:29to tell us that that clip we just saw
5:30was not you promoting and endorsing Zero
5:32Hedge's content.
5:37I just told you I've said I think they
5:38do good reporting. You think the
5:39statements that you made in that
5:41affidavit were honest, forthright, and
5:42complete. Uh yes. Okay.
5:59Mr. Jones, you've said in testimony in
6:01this case that you've used blue screens
6:03before.
6:05You have experience with blue screens.
6:07And that there can be anomalies if the
6:09blue screen is not properly aligned,
6:11correct?
6:12Yes. Tell me how to align a blue screen.
6:16It depends if it's an older
6:19chroma key model or it depends if it's
6:23dozens and dozens of different digital
6:25units.
6:26But if the lighting isn't correctly
6:30uh
6:31displayed against the green screen, blue
6:33screen, it's whatever color you really
6:34dial it to.
6:35Um TV uses blue screens. A lot of
6:38entertainment stuff green, but it
6:39doesn't matter. It can be It can be any
6:41color that's not really common.
6:43It's not going to be on your shirt or on
6:45your tie.
6:46Just because then it'll make that
6:47disappear as well.
6:49And also if there's kind of a blue hue
6:51to your nose
6:52at the event horizon point nose is
6:55turning is generally the number one
6:56thing that disappears.
6:58Or any hairs that are amiss can create
7:00the blue shimmer off of television
7:02lights and then you'll see areas that
7:04disappear.
7:05Uh and so that's the telltale sign
7:08not of digital
7:10breakup
7:12but that's in squares. How do you align
7:14it?
7:16What does that mean, aligning the blue
7:18screen?
7:20Well, I mean that's not even really a
7:21technical term. You have to
7:23you have to affect you have to
7:26turn the lights on, put people on chair,
7:28and make sure the lights are properly
7:30set up to then work in the blue screen
7:34system. Can you pull up exhibit one?
7:39Uh this is seven.
7:44Can you look at paragraph three of
7:46exhibit one?
7:51This not technical term aligned, that's
7:54your term, right? You used it in a sworn
7:56affidavit. Correct? Well, I'm Yeah, I
7:59mean I would call them you dialed it
8:00like two different dials, lights and a
8:02thing to make them
8:04uh work together. I'd call that aligned.
8:05I mean I think that's a pretty good
8:06word. I guess you would call it sync or
8:09So, the lights. You're talking about the
8:11lights need to be aligned, not a blue
8:13screen?
8:14You've got to dial something on a light?
8:16Well, the no the lights and the
8:19and the computer program
8:21have to be aligned. You have to look at
8:23a color scope.
8:25You have to make sure the colors are all
8:26lined up or it won't work. It's got to
8:28be perfectly aligned. And that's either
8:30on a
8:30old spectrum system where
8:32you align it on a digital system. That's
8:34called actually aligning on that. It is
8:36is on the scope.
8:39And now the scopes are digital. So, you
8:41align the scope.
8:42Uh-huh. Technically that is a technical
8:44term. The scope. And then you have to
8:45align the lights
8:47uh with the scope so that it sets so
8:49that it hits the settings of the chroma
8:51key
8:52uh system. You would be able then I
8:54think through your years of experience
8:56and exposure to these kinds of videos.
8:58You've seen them before.
8:59Most common type of nose disappearing
9:01stuff. You would be able to produce to
9:04us examples of blue screen videos with
9:07noses disappearing just like Anderson
9:09Cooper's, right? I I think you probably
9:11found those. Yeah, that's something that
9:12you could produce.
9:14I I can't guarantee it, but that's
9:16pretty
9:17Like you ever seen like the weather
9:19person and they're like they're wearing
9:20the wrong color tie like then it does
9:22that, I mean. Absolutely. And so if um
9:25if they weren't a blue shirt, all of a
9:26sudden it looks like their shirt's
9:27invisible, right? Cuz it's it's the same
9:29color as the blue screen.
9:30Right? Or about to be set to green and
9:32somebody sets it to blue and then it you
9:34know.
9:35Or somebody hits it and it goes to brown
9:36and all of a sudden the rest of her coat
9:37disappears. And the whole shirt
9:38disappears cuz it's blue. And there's a
9:39dial. You can dial it any color you
9:41want. Okay.
9:45At least on most
9:46those units.
9:48Okay. Older units.
9:49What kind do you have in InfoWars? You
9:50said you had one in the back. Uh we have
9:52quite a
9:53most I think we have I probably have
9:54about 10 of them. Okay. Uh, every
9:56computer system
9:58um, has them.
10:00You still have them? All 10 of them?
10:02That's not an accurate statement. We
10:03probably have 50. You have 50 blue
10:06screen mechanical devices.
10:09No, I said I had blue blue screen
10:11system. They're on all your major video
10:13editing software now. Okay.
10:14And then we have some of we might
10:16actually have a
10:18an old fashioned tube based one.
10:21And
10:22we the
10:23I'd say 50. What do you think we have?
10:2450 computers? I mean we probably got 50
10:26computers old and new.
10:28Those those blue screen In other words,
10:30what InfoWars uses to create blue
10:32screen, that still exist, is available
10:34for inspection.
10:38Correct? Well, it's standard on Final
10:40Cut Pro. It's standard on uh
10:43on all those editing systems. You just
10:45you can go to the you can go to the
10:46store and buy them. Okay. So, whatever
10:48InfoWars has that it's claiming gives it
10:51knowledge of how blue screens work, that
10:53still exist. You haven't gotten rid of
10:54that stuff.
10:56Right? No, we've got a couple green
10:58screens up on the walls and Perfect.
11:00Okay.
11:02One of the things that you talked about,
11:03remember we said we're going to put a
11:04pin in it, about blue screens. Is one of
11:07the reasons that you were suspicious
11:09about this interview and blue screens is
11:10because CNN's got caught using blue
11:12screens before. Right?
11:16Mhm.
11:17In fact, one of the things you brought
11:19up was about CNN getting caught using
11:20blue screens in the Gulf War. Mhm. On
11:22the on the satellite feeds. Right?
11:24Yes. Okay. I'm going to play you a video
11:26really quick from something you said in
11:28May 13th, 2014.
11:32About these blue screens. Can you play
11:33CNN blue screen for me?
11:35Just like CNN, I'm going back to our
11:36guest. Just like CNN back during the
11:38first Gulf War was at the broadcast
11:40center in Atlanta on top of a roof with
11:43a blue screen behind him saying they
11:45were in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and Israel
11:47different days being hit by nerve gas.
11:53And then they went on air for parts of
11:54it with the blue screen not even turned
11:56on.
11:58With blue behind it.
12:01Now, Mr. Jones, you've seen there was
12:03actually a satellite feed leak leak a
12:05leak of this that you've seen. Right?
12:08Mhm. Okay.
12:10Is that a yes?
12:10Yes. Okay.
12:19Mr. Jones, I'm going to hand to you what
12:20I've marked as exhibit eight.
12:24Do you recognize this
12:26this this leak from the Charles Jaco CNN
12:29broadcast where he's got the blue screen
12:31behind him? Do you recognize that?
12:32Yes. Okay. Um, and this was something
12:34that some people recorded off of a
12:36satellite leak. I believe so. Long time
12:38ago it was.
12:39you've done some reporting about this on
12:40InfoWars. You've you've shown this video
12:43and and what what happened that day.
12:46Um, yes. Okay.
12:48And as we see from here, you can see
12:52kind of on the left hand side and on the
12:54right hand side of the screen, there's
12:55this big blue screen up behind them.
12:57Right? Right?
12:59Because they left it on. I mean they
13:01didn't put anything on it because they
13:02were on a satellite kind of practice
13:04feed, I think. Right?
13:08I don't remember all the particulars,
13:10but they admitted they weren't on
13:11location. Okay. And and then again, it's
13:14it's not like they they're not like the
13:15background turns on.
13:18It's it the computer overlays it.
13:20Right. It's not like actually on the
13:22they're suddenly there's something up on
13:23the screen. Computer takes care of that
13:25in post production. Or it does it live.
13:27Or does it live. Right. Okay.
13:30But that CNN studio, that setup
13:34um, what I'm going to hand you now is
13:36what I've been marked as exhibit 10.
13:38Do you think ABC News and Ford Sawyer
13:40was given access to Ted Turner's secret
13:43studio?
13:52Do you think
13:52I I don't I don't even know anything
13:53about this. I mean I don't I know they
13:55were You've never seen that picture.
13:57Um
14:00No, I believe that the
14:02CNN and other especially CBS partners or
14:04other groups were teaming up, but I I
14:05that's conjecture. I don't know. Okay.
14:07So, I take it you've never done any sort
14:09of research as to where these
14:11interviews were allegedly done.
14:13Where CNN says they were done.
14:16You know, this is so long ago. I think
14:17there was even PBS documentaries about
14:19this.
14:19Mhm. Yeah. And let me show you an
14:21exhibit about that. I'm going to hand
14:23you now what I've marked as exhibit
14:25nine.
14:27You've never seen the International
14:28Hotel in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, have you?
14:33No, I know that's where they said they
14:34were broadcasting from.
14:38Let me show you what I'm going to mark
14:38as exhibit 11.
14:45You've never seen the photographs
14:47of the satellite setups for the major
14:49networks at the International Hotel in
14:51Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, have you?
14:54No. I just know Jaco says that they
14:56staged the chemical attack. It didn't
14:57happen.
14:58No, you didn't know that Jaco admits is
15:00what you're saying. You've seen clips of
15:02Charles Jaco saying it was
15:03Yeah, I mean it came out later that
15:04there was
15:05nerve gas in the air and all that and
15:07they did stage some of the shots on blue
15:08screen.
15:10So, you're maintaining that that thing
15:11behind them in that shot is a blue
15:14screen used for compositing and not just
15:17the walls of the International Hotel in
15:19Riyadh that was on every broadcast
15:21during that time.
15:22That's what you're saying?
15:28Well, no. If they were saying they were
15:29there, I think they were saying they
15:30were projecting that behind them. I get
15:32your confusion about the blue thing and
15:34or my confusion. It's a long time ago.
15:36It's not debated that CNN has staged a
15:38location shot before.
15:39stage that shot, did they?
15:42That shot was in front of the
15:43International Hotel in Riyadh. That was
15:45not a staged shot.
15:47Yeah, they put the gas mask on and did
15:49the whole thing and then they stopped
15:50during the breaks and it's all a big
15:51joke.
15:51I'm not real concerned of what they did
15:53on the broadcast. You said that they
15:54were in a secret broadcast center in
15:56Atlanta
15:58when they said they were in Riyadh. You
16:00were wrong. That was false.
16:02They were actually in Riyadh. You can
16:04admit that.
16:05In fact, you don't know.
16:07When you were saying that they were not
16:09in Riyadh, you had no idea.
16:13I I think you're mixing things together.
16:17Okay, Mr. Jones.
16:19You're right, Colin Powell. There the
16:21anthrax was real. You're right. Nothing
16:22staged.
16:27There was a lot of reporting during the
16:28Gulf War. A lot of people doing really
16:30hard work
16:31to uncover the fact that those aluminum
16:33tubes were were total bunk. That wasn't
16:35WMDs. Right? And yet Judith Miller was
16:38it was it wrong for people to question
16:39that?
16:39Absolutely. There was a lot of people
16:40questioning that. They did some really
16:41good reporting. They found out for
16:43instance,
16:45that some of the allegations of torture
16:47in Kuwait were total bunk. It was total
16:49propaganda. Some good journalists found
16:51that out.
16:51The babies in the incubators? I think
16:53that's some of it, isn't it? That's not
16:54just the babies in the incubators
16:55though. There was a lot of false things
16:57being told to the American public to get
16:59them to go to war, wasn't there? Yeah.
17:01And a lot of reporters did a really good
17:02work doing it and finding out what those
17:04things were.
17:07There were some really good reports.
17:08Right?
17:09And the incubator report for instance.
17:10Yeah,
17:12I was
17:13pretty young then, but yeah. So, those
17:14good journalists did good work
17:16uncovering those facts. But your work on
17:18the blue screen allegation in in Gulf
17:21War, that wasn't good journalism, was
17:23it, Mr. Jones? Uh, no. They they admit
17:25they did blue screen shots from Atlanta
17:27and and a whole bunch of places.
17:28That's where you're doubling down.
17:29You're saying that that's a fact.
17:30I'm saying you're you're mixing things
17:32together, so I can't say anything any
17:33further.
17:33Okay.
17:36I want to talk a little bit. Actually, I
17:38want to go back to something you said
17:39earlier. Which is that you have CIA
17:41sources who told you that something's up
17:43in Vegas. Something funny's going on in
17:45Vegas. Who?
17:46The Jackson will instruct the witness
17:48not to answer on journalistic privilege.
17:50Got you.
17:52What did you hear?
17:56What did this person tell you?
17:58The same instruction not to answer if it
18:00in any way will disclose their identity.
18:02Yeah, I'm not asking for their identity.
18:07No, I did.
18:08What did they tell you?
18:11I got contacted in the morning
18:18with
18:24I got contacted by individuals assigned
18:26to the surf teams CIA assassination
18:28squads
18:30who had people inside the hostage rescue
18:32team
18:34in Vegas and they said that he was
18:35selling weapons to the jihadis.
18:38And that they had paraphernalia from
18:40jihadis from the Middle East. He was an
18:42arms dealer.
18:43And because the Saudis were having a
18:44civil war that they were having an event
18:46in S
18:47uh, with the Saudi military over 10,000
18:49of them in Las Vegas that weekend
18:52uh, as part of a larger event.
18:56Uh, and that as basically inside the
18:59Saudi Arabian civil war that they used
19:01the arms deal to get weapons inside the
19:04United States.
19:05And that they then killed uh, the patsy
19:08and then carried out the operation.
19:10Uh, and that the whole thing was
19:12basically a Saudi civil war. And a lot
19:15of that later came out.
19:17Came out where?
19:19It came out in the news he went to the
19:20Middle East. It came out that he would
19:21been involved in arms dealing. And then
19:23also had to sign non-disclosures that I
19:25I can't get into subsequently with the
19:27other information. You've signed
19:29non-disclosures? Mhm. With who? Can't
19:31talk about it. Okay. What about
19:34What's the general topic that you can't
19:35disclose?
19:36Can't talk about it. Okay. So, it's
19:37apparently there is some non-disclosure
19:39agreement that you'd signed with some
19:41unnamed person that is relevant to the
19:42allegations that you were making about
19:44Vegas.
19:45Yes. Okay. And you you can't you for
19:48reasons of that non-disclosure, you
19:49can't disclose anything about that
19:51today. No, I can't. Okay.
19:53Was that a Was that a government person
19:54that you did a non-disclosure with?
19:56Objection. We instruct the witness not
19:59to answer to the degree it could
20:00disclose his identity. I think that
20:02question basically would. Was it a
20:04corporate entity?
20:05Same instruction uh not to answer on
20:07grounds of the journalistic privilege
20:09shield as something that may identify or
20:11lead to the identification of the
20:12individual. Was it a real person or an
20:14imaginary person? Oh, it's real.
20:16It's a real person. So, there is a
20:17contract. If we needed it, we could get
20:19it.
20:22It exists.
20:26Do you I I already told you it exists.
20:27Do you own a copy?
20:29We have a copy of that one.
20:32Well, the
20:33He's asking whether you Yes, we have a
20:35copy. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Jones.
20:40Let's talk a little bit about sources.
20:44What is InfoWars' policy on using
20:46unnamed sources?
20:49If they've been credible in the past and
20:52they've been good sources, then then you
20:54know, we reported from an unnamed
20:56source. Who is in charge or makes the
20:58decision on if a source is credible? Uh
21:00Paul Watson, myself, Rob Dew.
21:04Okay.
21:08You talked a lot about covering the
21:10internet.
21:11Let me let me be clear. Paul does his
21:12own thing. So, he he he he does his
21:15reporting and then helps us out with
21:16other stuff.
21:18Okay. So, it's you and Rob
21:20who assign credibility to sources.
21:24Yes. Okay.
21:27Talked a bit about covering the internet
21:29and what's being said on the internet.
21:31When you cover the internet and the
21:34stuff that's being said there, are there
21:36particular places that you consider
21:38important places to look on the internet
21:39for what's really being said and what's
21:41happening?
21:44Yes. What are your some of your
21:46primary sources on the internet to get
21:48internet chatter?
21:51I mean, everything from The Intercept to
21:53The New York Times
21:55to Drudge Report to
21:57CNN. I mean, we just look at everything.
22:00To the Congressional Record.
22:02Um
22:03Well, I mean, I understand you look at
22:04media and mass media and government
22:06reports, but I'm talking about internet
22:08chatter, what the people are talking
22:09about online. How do you get a pulse of
22:11that?
22:13It's not even getting a pulse. In the
22:14past, we would cover whatever the big
22:16chatter was cuz I thought it was
22:18interesting and the crew did. We
22:19basically try not to even do that
22:21anymore because it always gets assigned
22:22to us when we cover even big stories.
22:26Um because it'll be like CNN takes the
22:28angle on Pizzagate, makes it huge. It's
22:30all a concerted effort, Washington Post,
22:31New York Times, CNN. They make that part
22:344chan reporting on the huge thing and
22:36then we go and report on this huge thing
22:38that the media corporate media actually
22:40went is like a honeypot and and set up.
22:44So, uh more and more I try to not even
22:48report on whatever the big
22:51thing on 4chan or or
22:54you know, any of these sites uh are are
22:56are talking about. I In fact, I I
22:57directly stay away from it now. Okay.
23:00Um
23:024chan. Let's pick that one up first cuz
23:04that's sort of what I'm looking at.
23:06That's an anonymous image board, right?
23:08Yes. The posters there
23:11assign a random number.
23:13Right?
23:15Yes. InfoWars has frequently used 4chan
23:18as a source.
23:20We've reported on things being reported
23:22at 4chan.
23:23As a source, right? That's what a source
23:25is, isn't it?
23:27Um let me Yes. Okay. I mean, somebody
23:30emailing you you you you could say
23:31technically is a source even though we
23:32never even open it. Any piece of
23:34information that you're going to report
23:35secondhand is a source, right? Yes.
23:37Yeah, there's a source of that
23:38information.
23:39Yeah, like somebody draws on a bathroom
23:40wall would be a source.
23:43Now, when for instance, we talked about
23:46misidentifying the Parkland shooter.
23:52No problem.
23:53We talked earlier about misidentifying
23:56the Parkland shooter last year.
23:59InfoWars' source was 4chan, right?
24:02I I don't remember that, but we we
24:04corrected it within a day.
24:06Well, I mean, I didn't ask anything
24:08about correction, right? What I'm asking
24:10is do you or do you not know 4chan was
24:12your source?
24:15I believe it was one of the places that
24:17uh put it up. Okay.
24:20Hence why I've told
24:21I was kind of asking when you when I say
24:23where do you get your chatter? 4chan's
24:25one. Do you have any others for me?
24:28What uh email, um what people are
24:30talking about on the street.
24:33Well, I mean, I'm specifically we're
24:34talking honing in on this idea that
24:36there were people on the internet
24:37chattering about Sandy Hook. The
24:39internet was talking about it. You you
24:41did things
24:42say YouTube. I mean, there were like
24:44videos in the first few weeks for like 5
24:46million, 10 million views plus and they
24:48were showing a lot of things that didn't
24:50when you looked at it looked pretty
24:52compelling. Okay. So, there were people
24:54making videos on YouTube. You've had
24:55some of those people on your show,
24:57right?
24:58I'm not I can't remember.
25:00Okay.
25:02Um you know who QK Ultra is? You heard
25:03that name? No.
25:05You know what the Independent Media
25:07Solidarity Group is? You heard that
25:09name? No. You know Peter Klein and his
25:11film Let's Talk About Sandy Hook.
25:14No.
25:14You know the book Nobody Died at Sandy
25:16Hook.
25:17I've not read it. Okay.
25:20All of these things have been sources
25:21for you though, right?
25:23No, I don't think Fetzer by the time he
25:25wrote that book was a source.
25:28There's a broadcast with Mr. discussing
25:30Mr. Heslin in 2017 about his statements
25:33on the Megyn Kelly Show. You know what
25:35I'm talking about?
25:38Can you Can you be specific?
25:39Yeah, you were sued over it by Mr.
25:40Heslin. You know what broadcast I'm
25:42talking about now?
25:47I mean, what specifically uh Mr. Jones,
25:49you understand Neil Heslin sued you?
25:53Do you understand that?
25:56Well, well, you're asking me about a
25:57specific broadcast. I'm saying what
25:58broadcast?
25:59Right. I'm First, I'm asking you, do you
26:00understand Neil Heslin sued you? Yes.
26:02Okay. Are you telling me that you don't
26:04know sitting here right now what
26:06broadcast he sued you for?
26:10Uh
26:12I mean, I'm asking you to give me the
26:13specifics like so so you can get me to
26:15comment. No, I'm asking you right now.
26:17That's what I want to know. What
26:18question do you Do you even know what
26:21Mr. Heslin sued you for?
26:24Objection as to this being outside the
26:26scope.
26:29This isn't
26:30He's an individual. This isn't about the
26:33Right. There's no 30(b)(6) notice here.
26:34He has no scope. Sure, there is. If he
26:36has personal knowledge, he can answer.
26:37If you're Are you instructing him not to
26:39answer?
26:40I'm sustaining the objection Okay. Then,
26:42you can go ahead and answer, Mr. Jones.
26:44him there's no scope, Mark.
26:46I don't know what the scope is. I have
26:48no idea what the scope is, what you
26:49mean. Is there something in the order
26:50that you think there's a scope? I don't
26:51see a scope.
26:52The court said you were allowed to ask
26:54things consistent with your RFPs. Yeah,
26:57whether Mr. Whether Mr. Heslin was
26:59defamed is relevant to my case. You know
27:03that. I The document requests are all
27:05about Mr. Heslin. Don't even start this
27:08with me. Mr. Feinstein, may I finish,
27:10please? I would rather you not because
27:11you're not defending this deposition,
27:13Mr. Enoch. I've had an extraordinary
27:14amount of patience with you speaking
27:16during this deposition, but we're not
27:17going to do this to you when we defend
27:19depositions. I presented this lawyer
27:21that the judge did not restrict the
27:22scope to the limit limited to the RFPs.
27:25Do you agree that he limited to that?
27:27No, I don't think so. Not to an RFP. No,
27:30I don't think so. I don't think the
27:31scope of
27:32No, Mr. Enoch, I don't think the scope
27:34of written discovery on request for
27:36production was identical to the scope of
27:39deposition. And many many times, Mr.
27:42Enoch, the judge said, "No, you can't
27:44ask that question for a request for
27:46production, but you can just ask it in
27:47deposition." So, no, I don't agree with
27:50you at all and I would appreciate it if
27:52you kept quiet the remainder of the
27:53deposition. You are not defending this
27:56deposition. Mr. Feinstein, I will speak
27:59if it's appropriate for me to speak. It
28:00is not appropriate for you to speak, Mr.
28:03Sir, I'm going to ask you to leave my
28:05deposition.
28:06Go off the record for a second. I want
28:08you to leave.
28:09All right, don't go off the record. Mr.
28:10Enoch, I'm asking you to leave my
28:11deposition. You are being obstructive.
28:13You are talking. You are not appearing
28:15at this deposition. You are not
28:16defending it. If you do not agree to be
28:18quiet, I'm asking you
28:20to leave the deposition. Are you going
28:22to stay and be quiet or am I going to
28:23have to ask you to leave? Mr. Feinstein,
28:25I am not leaving the deposition. Then,
28:27you're going to stay quiet. Would you
28:29like to continue your deposition?
28:30I am and if you leave again if you keep
28:32speaking, I guarantee you I will seek
28:34sanctions against you, Mr. Enoch.
28:37Mr. Jones,
28:41does interactions with readers and
28:43viewers
28:45that tends to help drive what you do on
28:46the show, right?
28:52Somewhat. I mean, if viewers want you to
28:55cover something, that's a motivator for
28:57you to cover it.
29:00Sometimes, not so much.
29:01In fact, you've said about Sandy Hook,
29:03"This is what our viewers wanted us to
29:05cover. That's why we were covering it."
29:06Uh yes, it was an internet since a big
29:08deal early on. And in fact, when you
29:10weren't covering it so much, whenever
29:12you stopped covering it for a little
29:13bit, your your viewers would get upset
29:15and they'd be like, "Why aren't you
29:16covering Sandy Hook? It's a hoax." Yes,
29:18people the public the public in general
29:20did did had major questions.
29:23I mean, even the Hartford Courant did.
29:24They said that they never seen stuff
29:27covered up like this. Right.
29:31I mean, I knew FBI agents and people
29:33that would said there was something
29:34weird going on with it.
29:36One of them was his uncle, right? Uh
29:38yes, Rob Dew's uncle, yes. Yeah. Yeah,
29:39he got He was up there with Mr. Halbig
29:41and Mr. Madandy and Mr. We didn't even
29:44know he was going. Right. I'm not saying
29:45you did. I'm saying he was up there.
29:47Yep. Yeah. retired FBI, yep. Right with
29:50Mr. Halbig, Mrs. K. Wilson,
29:53uh Mr.
29:53It it was it was a big city council
29:54meeting, yeah. Yeah, Mr. Reich was
29:56there.
29:57I don't know who those folks are, but
29:59Okay.
30:01Now, Mr. Dew, he has been frequently
30:04sent as the news director of InfoWars.
30:07Wait, hold on, let me back that up
30:08because I'm making an assumption. Mr.
30:10Dew's the news director of InfoWars? For
30:12the for the for the
30:13for some of the programs. We don't do
30:14daily news anymore, but he he he he was
30:16directing those shows, yes. Okay. So,
30:19Mr. Dew had been over the years sent
30:23emails and communications and tweets
30:26from Sandy Hook debunkers.
30:29You know what I mean when I say that?
30:30Yes. Okay. And and Mr. Dew had been told
30:33by these people, "What you're saying is
30:35wrong. You need to stop saying it.
30:36Here's the real proof." You understand
30:38I thought you meant debunkers debunking
30:40the official story. No, I mean those who
30:41were debunking what you were saying
30:43about Sandy Hook.
30:44Yes, and then we would offer them to
30:45come on air and cover what they said.
30:46And in fact, you had been given
30:48information by them. They had given you
30:49information.
30:50And we put it on air. And and you had a
30:51debate with a guy named Keith Johnson,
30:53right?
30:54I don't think I did. Well, okay. So,
30:57there was a debate hosted on InfoWars
30:58between Keith Johnson and Mr. Halbig.
31:03Was that the
31:05I forget the name of the newspaper guy.
31:07I can't remember the name. Well, Keith
31:08Johnson, he's a former InfoWars
31:10contributor, right?
31:13Well, there's a lot of articles a lot of
31:14people who contribute like a letter to
31:15the editor articles contributor. That's
31:17not what I'm talking about, Mr. Jones.
31:18Keith Johnson was a paid contributor to
31:20InfoWars.
31:27Not not in my memory. Okay.
31:29So, there was this debate that Mr. Dew
31:31hosted.
31:33And that would you agree with me that
31:34sometime around 2015?
31:36I don't remember. Okay.
31:38Um
31:39Mr. Dew, in addition to those debates,
31:40has been provided written information
31:42from a lot of these debunking people
31:44seeking to
31:45stop the allegation that it's a hoax.
31:47You would agree with that?
31:49Yes, there was a big internet fight
31:50going on. We were showing both sides.
31:52Right. And so, in terms of information
31:55about these anomalies, some of the
31:56things that I've been showing you today
31:58were in Mr. Dew's possession, correct?
32:04I don't understand.
32:05There's been an ongoing debate back and
32:07forth on these issues.
32:07Okay. Do you know who a person named
32:09C.W. Wade is? No. Okay. You've never
32:11heard of that person's debunking efforts
32:13about what you've been saying?
32:14told you like I don't live eat breathe
32:17sleep this stuff. I get you. I'm just
32:19asking questions. I'm just really I
32:22Um
32:26I
32:27I had it all over to do. I could have
32:28done a better job, but I didn't do it on
32:30purpose to be malicious. And
32:32I and everybody wanted to have debates
32:33about it. And I said years ago like
32:35probably 5 years ago I said, "No more of
32:36this. I'm sick of it." It's a tar baby.
32:39I think it probably happened, but then
32:40we'd see stuff and the cover-up and them
32:42never releasing documents. And the
32:44Hartford Current saying, "Looks like a
32:45cover-up's going on. We don't think it's
32:47a hoax, but you know." And so, just this
32:49a tar baby. I'm sick of it.
32:51And so, that's why that's why I made so
32:53many apologies and statements that I'm
32:54sorry, you know, that I was even ever
32:56covering it because I don't want to be
32:58my identity. I'm tired of it.
33:01What question are you answering? I mean,
33:02I'm answering your question about uh
33:06you know, the the the the these debates
33:08and and this. And I'm trying to state
33:10So, what I'm saying is we invited
33:11everybody on.
33:13We had debates. You know, I remember
33:14that debate correctly. Isn't that when
33:15Halbig really got mad? Well, it was
33:17because we pretty much did I you know,
33:19disagreed with him. Can you scroll up to
33:21my period?
33:29I mean, I'm really trying to be helpful.
33:31Mr. Jones, I asked you, do you know C.W.
33:34Wade? I don't know, no. Thank you, sir.
33:42I want to talk a little bit about
33:44InfoWars LLC.
33:46Have you ever taken money from InfoWars
33:48LLC?
33:49Objection.
33:51Instruction is to privacy unless it's
33:53Sandy Hook specific or relevant. We'll
33:55instruct the witness not to answer
33:57consistent with the constitutional right
33:58to privacy protected under both the
34:00Texas constitution and
34:02Okay. I will take that up another day, I
34:04guess. Wow. I mean, I can go through the
34:06cases if you want me to. I mean, I I
34:08don't um at all, Mr. Burns. Um InfoWars
34:11LLC, has it ever had any money?
34:13Uh objection, same instruction
34:15to the witness not to answer on grounds
34:17of privacy. What is
34:20InfoWars LLC?
34:27I I I don't believe it's even an
34:28operating company.
34:30So, it's your allegation it's not an
34:32active corporation by the Secretary of
34:33State? You know, I
34:35I'm not the expert on this, so I I
34:37probably shouldn't answer this. I don't
34:38want to state it wrong, but I
34:41You made InfoWars LLC.
34:43You created it. Uh
34:46You know, I'm not a I'm not one of the
34:47lawyers, so I
34:48I don't want to answer it wrong. You're
34:50Nobody else is involved. It's nobody
34:51else's company, right? Objection.
34:53Instruct the witness not to answer on
34:55grounds of privacy. They could also
34:56implicate the privacy of third parties.
34:58Okay. InfoWars LLC, what does it do?
35:02What has it ever done as a business?
35:07I don't know.
35:09Okay.
35:11You have any job duties at InfoWars LLC?
35:21Um I mean, you have as you heard, I'm
35:22I'm I'm not going to get into uh
35:26structure of things. And And And plus,
35:27I'm not a CPA or lawyer. I don't want to
35:29say it wrong.
35:31Okay.
35:34Have you ever had job duties at InfoWars
35:37LLC?
35:39In the past.
35:43I don't want to say I
35:45I mean, I think I'm the only
35:48it's I'm the sole person.
35:54Has InfoWars LLC ever had an office?
36:00Um I really don't understand what I'm
36:02what you're getting at.
36:04You know what an office is?
36:06No, but I don't understand like asking
36:07if a corporation has an office. Mhm.
36:10Um
36:12The company has offices. It's Free
36:14Speech Systems.
36:16Well, we So, if I was asked you, "Does
36:18Free Speech Systems have an office?"
36:20Answer is yes.
36:21Free Speech Systems has an office.
36:22that Yeah, that's what's on the
36:23letterhead. Yeah, that's what the
36:26Okay, let's try it again with InfoWars.
36:27Does InfoWars LLC have an office? You
36:29know, I I don't want to inaccurately
36:31answer that, so I can't. Okay.
36:36Who
36:38Who would be
36:39the person at InfoWars LLC who could
36:42answer that? You know,
36:44those corporations got set up a long
36:46time ago.
36:48And I I'm not sure you'd ask those
36:49questions. Okay.
36:52Now, when it comes to Free Speech
36:54Systems LLC,
36:56you're the boss.
36:58Mhm. There's nobody with more power at
37:00Free Speech Systems LLC
37:02than you.
37:03I make all the major decisions. I'm the
37:05buck stops with me. You make final call
37:07on anything that goes to air.
37:10I mean, I don't sit there and watch over
37:11everything. I try to have good people
37:12who are smart and are trying to tell the
37:14truth.
37:15But I mean, you have the authority. If
37:17something's going to air and you find
37:18out and you don't want it on air, you
37:20can stop it. Yes, I'm told you the buck
37:22stops with me. Okay. Okay, I have a
37:23water, please. Thanks. Sure.
37:26There's not an extra.
37:27It's fine. Um Excuse the coffee cut for
37:29you. Sorry. Thank you.
37:31I know.
37:35Is it okay to break for 10 minutes and
37:36eat?
37:37Yeah, you know what? This is not a bad
37:39spot. We're at 3:30 right now. We can
37:41take a
37:41I'm going to eat in 10 minutes. 10:15 is
37:43fine. I'm really If we can come back
37:45here by
37:473:50, I can get us out of here before
37:495:00. You're awesome.
37:50Off the record 3:38 p.m.
37:53Yeah.
37:57We're back on the record at 3:42 p.m.
38:01When was the last time you did anything
38:03for InfoWars LLC?
38:13I might I can't accurately answer that.
38:16Was that InfoWars LLC in the news
38:17business?
38:23I don't I don't think I can accurately
38:24answer that.
38:27We've talked a lot about Free Speech
38:28Systems employees today like Mr. Dew.
38:32Did Mr. Dew ever do anything for
38:33InfoWars LLC?
38:35Um
38:45InfoWars LLC is a real corporation. It's
38:48an active.
38:50And it was set up
38:51something to do with like intellectual
38:52properties or something like 10 years
38:54ago.
38:55And I and I was just trying to like have
38:56a basic corporate structure. It's it's a
38:59and it's pretty standard, I'm told, but
39:00I'm not a lawyer.
39:02And so,
39:03but I mean, it's filed with the state.
39:04It's up-to-date. It's a It's just not
39:08I I I think the things we were going to
39:09do with it we never did fully. I I think
39:12that's But But I'm not a lawyer, but
39:14that's the best
39:16That's the best of my understanding of
39:17that.
39:18Objection. It's non-responsive.
39:19I asked you if Mr. Dew had ever done
39:20anything for InfoWars LLC. Is that yes
39:22or no? Um I don't believe so. Okay. What
39:26about um
39:27Help me with this name. Tim Fruge?
39:30Fruge. Fruge. Did Tim Fruge do anything
39:32for InfoWars LLC? No.
39:35Does InfoWars LLC have anything to do
39:36with the InfoWars website?
39:40I don't want to state it wrong.
39:43But I I think so. Yeah, I think that
39:45that's that's the whole point is is the
39:48is the
39:50different things than that the different
39:52company. Okay.
39:59Regarding sourcing,
40:01would you put information on the air
40:04from a source
40:05if nobody at InfoWars knew their
40:08identity?
40:11No, not generally. Okay.
40:14And that's because if you can't verify
40:15their identity of who's telling you the
40:17information, you can't assess its
40:18credibility, can you? Well, if we got an
40:20anonymous call that that that that that
40:22there'd been a gas explosion in South
40:24Austin,
40:25we'd we'd go see if that was the case.
40:27Or we looked up and saw smoke.
40:29Not that I normally cover stuff like
40:30that, but we've actually got calls like
40:31that before. Like uh like like like the
40:34morning of 9/11, I got a call, "Hey,
40:35have you seen something flew into the
40:36World Trade Center?" Sure.
40:38That was that was I mean it was just it
40:39was
40:41I mean so so it's it's not
40:43funny answer the question simply, but
40:45if somebody calls up
40:47and says
40:49um
40:51somebody's a bank robbery and there's no
40:53evidence of that, we don't cover it. 99%
40:56of the time we report on what is already
40:57in the news. Okay. Or something is said
41:00in Congress.
41:01Or something that that's uh
41:03uh
41:04is already out there and we just give
41:06our comment on it. Let me go back to
41:07your example of say you got an anonymous
41:09call that in South Austin there'd been
41:11an explosion, right? Um
41:14you would take steps to confirm that
41:16that explosion had occurred. Send
41:17somebody over there.
41:19Um and in corroborating that, once you
41:22were felt confident that there was an
41:24explosion, I mean at that point you
41:26should notify the public cuz that could
41:28save lives, couldn't it?
41:29Sure. Okay. Yes. Now, if an anonymous
41:31person called you and told you that
41:33there was an explosion and you didn't
41:35send anybody out to go confirm the
41:36explosion,
41:37reporting the explosion on the air could
41:40cause problems.
41:42Correct?
41:42Yes. Okay.
41:47Let me just ask you really quick going
41:49back to this non-disclosure agreement
41:51that we discussed earlier
41:53that you can't tell me about the
41:54identity or or the subject matter, okay?
41:57I do want to know what did you agree to
41:59do?
42:03I can't get into the specifics of the
42:05loud and non-disclosure agreement.
42:07You were asking sources on Vegas.
42:10And we have particularly good ones on
42:12that. Okay.
42:13And then
42:17But in terms of your legal obligations,
42:19that's also something you're not
42:20prepared to talk about today?
42:24Yes, I had to sign a non-disclosure
42:26agreement before I was allowed to see
42:27something. Okay.
42:34I want to ask you a little bit more
42:35about Wolfgang Halbig.
42:38Now, Wolfgang Halbig was a former
42:40security officer at a school, correct?
42:43Yes. Um he has
42:47it's he has sold security plans and
42:50security consulting services across the
42:52nation.
42:53Yes.
42:55He was one of the
42:59You would agree with me he was one of
43:00the most aggressive people
43:02in trying
43:04to publicize the idea that Sandy Hook
43:06was fake.
43:07Yes.
43:08How did you meet?
43:10I've never met him. Well, no.
43:15I don't know he's ever been in the
43:16studio.
43:19I don't know if I've ever met him. I
43:20remember cuz you you you you get it all
43:21blurred with Skype or audio.
43:24But um
43:30I don't remember. So, your conversations
43:32with him generally aren't face-to-face.
43:34They were on air.
43:38On your radio or web show, you mean?
43:41Those those are the places you would
43:42typically talk to Wolfgang.
43:44You ever communicate in any other ways?
43:51I vaguely remember talking to him on the
43:52phone a couple of times. Okay. You think
43:54you've ever emailed Wolfgang Halbig? I I
43:56think we've responded back to his
43:57emails, yes. Okay.
43:58And he's emailed people on your staff?
44:01A lot. A lot.
44:06What did you do to vet him? Like why did
44:08you assess his credibility?
44:11We looked him up and he'd been on
44:12national television as an as
44:15expert.
44:16And uh he'd been in the state police and
44:18then he'd been in security
44:20at a security at a school
44:21uh and then I've been in and at first a
44:23lot of what he said sounded he was more
44:26credible.
44:27And I think he genuinely believed what
44:29he was saying.
44:31Uh and uh
44:34uh yeah, that professor coming out and
44:36from Florida, I forget his name. Just a
44:38bunch of other people.
44:39Uh it was it was it was just a big
44:41firestorm on the internet that we that
44:42we covered that firestorm and I gave my
44:45opinions on it. So, what I think I'm
44:46hearing from you is he's been on TV.
44:49He was a he was a
44:50he was a state police officer. Mhm.
44:52And then he was a head of school
44:53security at a school. Uh and then he was
44:57a nationally recognized, at least
44:58according to the big national shows I
44:59saw, I guess they're they're big
45:01mainstream, they must have vetted it,
45:03uh
45:04that you know he was this really big
45:05credible guy. So, are you saying that he
45:08had a resume of such that you did not
45:11feel the need to fact-check or
45:13corroborate his allegations? Objection
45:15as to form.
45:17We did try to fact-check it, but because
45:19it was such a wall of secrecy
45:21up around it around Sandy Hook that the
45:25Hartford Courant and others noted,
45:27unprecedented, it allowed that darkness
45:30uh for for for, you know, things not to
45:32be checked out.
45:35Well, let's take them one by one. Mr.
45:37Halbig said the thing about the
45:38porta-potties, right?
45:41You know what I'm talking about? The
45:42porta-potties?
45:42Yes. Okay. That wasn't hidden behind a
45:44cloak of secrecy. That's in a video
45:46that's been public for 6 7 years, right?
45:51Well, I I don't I don't think that that
45:53that piece of information has been
45:55proven one way or the other. I think
45:56they did deliver porta-potties pretty
45:58quick.
45:58EMTs were in the building, right? And
46:00that's been public for 6 or 7 years.
46:02Uh most of that report's blacked out.
46:05But do you know EMTs were in the
46:06building? That's borne out in multiple
46:08reports.
46:09itself, the police officer says it
46:10didn't look normal. Things didn't look
46:12didn't look right.
46:14That was the kind of thing we were
46:15reading. Okay, Mr. Jones.
46:18You know about what Mr. Halbig did up in
46:20Newtown, right? You know about his
46:21activities there?
46:24Um
46:26earlier you played the Bedondy tape.
46:27That was him Bedondy saying those
46:28things. We noticed.
46:30So, I'm not sure what you're going to
46:31describe to Halbig or me, but I'm not
46:33involved in it. No, I don't know what
46:34Halbig did in Newtown
46:35after a certain after about a year or
46:37so. You know he almost got arrested at
46:39the United Way. You know about that,
46:40right? No. You've talked about that on
46:42your show.
46:42I I don't remember. You don't remember
46:44what happened at the United Way with Mr.
46:45Halbig? I don't remember some things I
46:47talked about 2 weeks ago on my show.
46:48Guess so. You don't remember him almost
46:50getting in a brawl with a fireman at a
46:52firehouse in Newtown. No.
46:54You certainly knew he was harassing
46:56parents up there. No, I I remember
46:58hearing that there were some
47:00some fracases going on and that's what I
47:02said I don't want to have him on the
47:03show anymore. And then he emailed you
47:04about his associate Jonathan Reich who
47:07was up there with Mr. Bedondy and Mr.
47:08Halbig getting arrested for harassing a
47:11Sandy Hook parent. You knew about that.
47:13Um I vaguely remember back at the time.
47:15Yeah, you know who Jonathan Reich is,
47:17don't you?
47:18That's been told to you plenty of times.
47:19Mr. Halbig tried to get you to support
47:21his case, right?
47:23Um he sent thousands of emails. I
47:25haven't read any of them really.
47:29You know who Lucy Richards is, don't
47:31you? No.
47:33Even today? You don't sitting here
47:34today, you don't know who Lucy Richards
47:35is? I don't. Okay. You don't know that
47:37there was a woman, an InfoWars follower,
47:40who went to federal prison for stalking
47:42and threatening to kill Sandy Hook
47:44parents and that she's now barred from
47:45ever seeing InfoWars again by court
47:47order. Uh I read about a woman and that
47:50and and the media alleging that. And you
47:51know that happened in Central Florida
47:54very shortly after you disclosed Mr.
47:56Posner's personal email address and maps
47:58to where he picks up his mail. You know
48:00that, right?
48:00No, I do not. Okay. You
48:02You didn't know where that occurred.
48:04No, I did not do what you said I did.
48:06Okay.
48:13One of the things that you told me, Mr.
48:15Jones,
48:16is that Sandy Hook
48:18has been 1/10
48:20of 1% of what InfoWars covered, correct?
48:25Yes. How'd you determine that?
48:29It's a dead reckoning. I mean if you
48:31look at 4 hours on average a day,
48:345 days a week, couple hours on the
48:35weekend, well more than a couple,
48:36probably three or four every weekend.
48:38I mean you add all that we left out
48:40there and add up all the talk to her
48:41about her in the office, it's like
48:43we covered it uh
48:45somewhere it happened and then into it
48:47and then it just it was just all over
48:49the internet, the debates back and
48:50forth, and we looked it up and went over
48:53the videos and maybe there were
48:56part of maybe 20 shows
48:59or so.
49:00And then you look it's only like usually
49:0230 minutes to an hour. Some were a
49:03little bit longer and then you add that
49:06to just the
49:07300 something days a year we're on air,
49:09340 or so I'd say.
49:12And you look at all that and you add it
49:14into all the shows and everything and
49:16it's just
49:17like tiny. And then once
49:20Hillary announces that it's my identity,
49:22then the media
49:24kind of just took who I was and then
49:26InfoWars applied it to everybody else.
49:29And and it just did just the whole thing
49:30became this big tornado.
49:32Uh and I mean I so this since then it's
49:36been somewhat more maybe responding to
49:38it and things. And then
49:40then I learned the media was editing
49:41what I was saying
49:42uh to be to make it look like that I
49:44was, you know, making the
49:46statements they wanted to be hearing.
49:48Uh so, it's been an ongoing thing. And I
49:50really woke up when Parkland happened
49:51and they said that I was saying nobody
49:52died and they were all actors.
49:54Um I was like, "Whoa." Cuz I was dead
49:57clear on that Sandy Hook that happened.
49:59I just said they picked the kids from
50:00the drama club. They did an interview
50:01saying we're in the drama club, we're
50:03anti-gun. I said they picked
50:04good-looking, well-spoken people out of
50:063,000 who would be spokespersons against
50:09guns. Didn't mean that the event didn't
50:10happen.
50:11Uh and I I did Well, we did break that
50:14the that the the police stood down and
50:15that's now come out.
50:17Um I don't know why they stood down.
50:19We did point that out. So, I really was
50:21like, "Whoa."
50:22You're not going to say every mass
50:24shooting that happens that I'm saying it
50:25didn't happen.
50:27Keep going back to my question.
50:34That was a scary point with me. Every
50:36mainstream media was like saying I was
50:37like, "Wow, these people really are
50:38crooks." Thank you.
50:41Here's my question, Mr. Jones. How in
50:43the world would you know how much you've
50:44covered Sandy Hook, 1/10 of 1% 10%, when
50:47we, the plaintiffs, have asked you to
50:49produce us every video that has Sandy
50:51Hook in the title and you can't even do
50:53that?
50:54You haven't produced those 10
50:55Every video from where? From you. No,
50:57no, no, no, no, from after after you and
51:00other law firms lobbied to have us taken
51:02off the internet, which had the index of
51:04it on YouTube and other platforms. And
51:06then like Roku, "Oh, he's doing it right
51:08now. Get it off right now. He's coming
51:09after the kids right now." You know,
51:11knowing full well that's not going on.
51:13You're lobbying against the First
51:14Amendment.
51:15And you are then at the same time trying
51:17to take down
51:19all of what I really said so you can
51:20then edit things together and that's the
51:21only record. And we went and looked,
51:23there's maybe 20 shows, maybe another
51:26probably a 50 times callers calling
51:28about that we know of. I'm sure there's
51:29more we don't know about. But then we
51:31added all that together with a
51:32calculator and we looked at the number
51:35and it's literally not even what it
51:37maybe 1/10 of 1% of all the airtime
51:39we've done is Sandy Hook. So, you found
51:42you found some shows, 20-something shows
51:44with Sandy Hook in it?
51:45That's a dead reckoning, but yes. Why
51:47haven't you given them to me, Mr. Jones?
51:50Objection. In fact I I I We have given
51:53you uh
51:55everything we can find. It's cuz the
51:57truth is you can't even search by title,
51:58can you?
52:00You don't have an index. You have no
52:01idea.
52:03Correct? You can't search by title. No,
52:05but we have we Well, actually we do have
52:07it and it's it's it's prisonplanet.tv
52:09and we can search and we searched all
52:10the names we think that are in the
52:11title. But that doesn't mean that a
52:14caller didn't call in or you know, that
52:16didn't get said somewhere. But we've
52:19We've we've we've we've done the best we
52:21can to go through all that stuff.
52:22Really? If you go to tv.infowars.com and
52:24you search Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed,
52:26that'll come up?
52:27Uh
52:28tv.infowars.com
52:32is a defunct URL that pointed at
52:34prisonplanet.tv. Okay. So, you you know
52:37that. We we put You guys made a big deal
52:39about that.
52:40Yeah, I got I just got sent a link that
52:41said
52:42Okay, well, I mean there's no Listen,
52:43we've never we don't take our stuff down
52:46unless Twitter
52:48because
52:49the lawyers on your side complain
52:52and say, "He's doing this. Take it
52:54down." And then Twitter doesn't take
52:55your stuff down, they order you to. Mhm.
52:58Okay?
52:59But that's the same thing as taking it
53:00down.
53:00And when that happened, Mr. Dew, when he
53:02tried to preserve that, when he it
53:04deleted that stuff.
53:04No, we we had we had a preserve when we
53:06did it.
53:06Yeah, but he said in his affidavit he
53:08lost user comments, didn't he?
53:11He Those are us. Twitter's us, not user
53:13comments.
53:13No, I know. There's user comments on
53:15your Twitter threads and they were lost
53:16when you deleted them, weren't you?
53:17You guys are the ones lobbying to have
53:19me taken off the internet.
53:20I'm not I'm not I don't care about any
53:21of that, Mr. Jones. I'm asking you, were
53:22those deleted?
53:24Those comments are lost. They will never
53:26be recovered and Mr. Dew admits it.
53:28Sandy Hook lobbied to have my Twitter
53:29taken down. The whole thing was taken
53:30down. I knew it.
53:31do anything to preserve it before that
53:33happened, did you?
53:34Oh, so you get it taken down and then
53:36it's my fault.
53:37I No, I'm asking you, when did you you
53:39reasonably anticipated litigation the
53:41moment you were sued, right? When you
53:43were sued on April of 2018, you knew
53:46that all of that information was
53:47relevant, right?
53:48Well Objection. Calls
53:51as to form. Also, objection to the
53:52degree any of the the questions are
53:54asking about attorney-client
53:56communications, then you're instructed
53:58not to answer or to disclose any
53:59information that comes from
54:01attorney-client communications.
54:02Let me ask it a different way, Mr.
54:03We sent letters to Twitter and to Google
54:05before requesting that they not take us
54:07down and that they save it. When they
54:09did, we said, "Please turn it back on or
54:11give us the full records."
54:13Let me make it very clear. After you
54:16were sued, the information existed, it
54:18was available to you,
54:20and then later it was deleted and those
54:23comments are gone. That's true?
54:25Objection. By Twitter.
54:26took the account down. Right. I
54:28understand that.
54:30So, befo- before Twitter took that
54:32account down, you took no efforts to
54:33preserve any of that information.
54:35Uh yes yes, we did. It's also I think
54:38all that stuff's saved on their sites,
54:39too. Okay.
54:40Full service is to copy it and what
54:42you're saying is not true.
54:43And Mr. Dew admits that in his affidavit
54:44that InfoWars didn't save that in its
54:46local cache. It didn't.
54:48Right?
54:49Objection. Calls as to form.
54:53I I'm not an IT person. I can't
54:55accurately answer all that.
54:56Okay. So, in terms of whether InfoWars
54:58failed to preserve evidence that might
54:59be relevant to this claim, you're not
55:01the right person to ask.
55:03Objection as to form.
55:06I mean, I think despite the
55:09coordinated effort by the media and then
55:11the universities establishment to take
55:13all our content offline, we've done a
55:14pretty good job of saving almost all of
55:16it at infowars.com and
55:18um prisonplanet.com. So, I
55:21I really actually just not not an
55:22accurate statement.
55:23But you can't even search it by title.
55:25You have no idea how many videos have
55:27Sandy Hook in the title.
55:28Objection as to form. As we we know
55:31there's videos of Sandy Hook in the
55:32title that don't show up on these planet
55:34infowars.com searches, right? We know
55:36that. Objection as to form. There's no
55:37planet infowars. I Whatever you want to
55:39call it, Mr. Jones. You have a video
55:40archive that's up right now, right?
55:43You have a video archive that's
55:44searchable online. Agree or disagree?
55:46Objection as to Yes. Okay. On that
55:49archive, there are videos that have been
55:51produced in this lawsuit with Sandy Hook
55:52in the title that are not in that
55:54archive.
55:55Well, that's cuz you're getting other
55:56people's videos offline. Like like you
55:58you get them from Media Matters and then
55:59you say that's our video and then you
56:00want us to produce some of those edited
56:02videos. Sorry, Mr. Jones. When you
56:04upload a video to YouTube, you choose
56:06the title, don't you? I don't think you
56:08understand.
56:09I don't think you understand. No, so
56:11let's take an example of a video. Sandy
56:13Hook Narratives,
56:15False Narratives versus the Reality, a
56:17video that has that title should be
56:19showing up in your archives, right?
56:21That's what you're saying?
56:21No, the vast majority of videos of us
56:24are not us. Other people get our videos
56:27and then put them together with other
56:28things. You understand that.
56:30No, no, Mr. Jones, that's not what I'm
56:31saying.
56:36You have Zip Zap Affidavit in front of
56:37you.
56:41Mr. Jones, do you have Mr. Zip Zap
56:43Affidavit in front of you?
56:48Hold on. No, in fact, Mr. Jones, I don't
56:50need to make you run back through that.
56:52Let's not even worry about it.
57:00Just got a couple more questions for
57:01you, Mr. Jones.
57:10The year before you were sued,
57:12you said that everything I've heard is
57:14that the parents weren't allowed to
57:15touch the children.
57:17Who did you hear it from and what did
57:18they say? Objection as to form.
57:23I I don't know the specifics of what
57:24you're talking about, so I don't want to
57:26state something incorrectly. Okay. So,
57:28this statement, "Everything you've heard
57:31is that the parents weren't allowed to
57:32touch the children." You can't comment
57:34on that today.
57:35Objection as to form.
57:39I I don't want to state it exactly
57:41exactly right or I don't want to state
57:42it.
57:43So, so that's the I mean, you say
57:45everything I've I've I've heard. I don't
57:47I don't know the specifics, but I
57:49remember complaints and things that the
57:51parents couldn't get to their kids until
57:53they'd been taken later to the morgue
57:55and things like that.
57:55Can you tell me any one human being in
57:57the world who told you the parents
58:00weren't allowed to touch the children? I
58:02believe that was in the newspapers.
58:04Okay.
58:06What about they're finding people in the
58:09backwoods that are dressed up in SWAT
58:12gear?
58:13That's not true, is it?
58:15I saw it on the
58:16national news.
58:17somebody in SWAT gear in the in the
58:19woods. I've got black and camouflage.
58:21The police arrested them and then they
58:23said there was a SWAT drill in the area.
58:25No, Mr. Jones, I'm asking you, did you
58:27see a video of a man in SWAT gear being
58:30arrested?
58:34I saw the helicopter talking about it
58:36and they said they later arrested the
58:37man.
58:43So, when you told your audience he was
58:44dressed up in SWAT gear,
58:46that's just something you made up, isn't
58:48it?
58:49There's nobody dressed up in SWAT gear.
58:51I I do remember that being on the news.
58:53What being on the news? The helicopter
58:55and the man behind the school and the
58:56report of the guy in the SWAT gear and
58:57the police saying they arrested him and
58:59later they said they didn't. Yes, two
59:01reporters with with cameras. There's
59:03reports about it. There's no man in SWAT
59:05gear in that video. Is there? That's
59:07just something you made up.
59:09Nope, I didn't make it up.
59:11So, you think you can produce to me a
59:13video of a man in SWAT gear in the
59:14woods. I remember that's what was being
59:16reported on the news. Okay, so now it's
59:18not you saw it in a video, now it's
59:19somebody else said.
59:20But I remember seeing a guy in it looked
59:21like the video he was in camo and black.
59:24Okay.
59:25Ca- First of all, camo in black, what
59:27does that mean? He has camo pants on? I
59:28mean, I I would tend to think that means
59:30kind of paramilitary outfit. Okay. So,
59:32anybody you see in camo pants when
59:34you're walking down the street, you're
59:35like, "Mhm, that guy's paramilitary."
59:37Objection as to Is that Is that your
59:38belief? Uh Objection as to the form. I I
59:40I really have I've told you what my
59:42memory is.
59:42Is it fair to describe any gentleman
59:44wearing camo pants as being dressed in
59:46SWAT gear?
59:47Do you think that's an honest and
59:49accurate way to describe that? Objection
59:51as to the form.
59:54No, I don't think that's a fair way to
59:54describe it.
59:55Oh, so you What I'm trying to get at,
59:56Mr. Jones, is you don't think saying
59:58that a man who's dressed up in SWAT gear
1:00:00found buying the school when he's not
1:00:02actually wearing any SWAT gear is in any
1:00:04way alarmist or dangerous to say.
1:00:06Objection as to the form.
1:00:22Oh, you can answer, Mr. Jones.
1:00:25I mean, I I It's This is like 7 years
1:00:28ago. Yep, 7 years ago. So, I'm trying to
1:00:31I remember, but I
1:00:32I mean, I remember seeing the guy look
1:00:33like what I'd call police gear or kind
1:00:35of paramilitary gear. I remember like
1:00:38camo and then like a black or something.
1:00:40I'm not Again, I'm not living this every
1:00:43day. I'm not I'm not and I and I wear
1:00:46and I'm and I'm very sad for folks, you
1:00:48know, who have had to go through it and
1:00:49I'm sorry for tragedies and and I might
1:00:51kind of feel sorry for you having to
1:00:52live through it all the time and knowing
1:00:53every detail and every angle and
1:00:55everything else, but I I just
1:00:57It's hard.
1:00:58Um Mr. Jones
1:01:01what we were just talking about, men
1:01:02being arrested in SWAT gear in the woods
1:01:05think I said men.
1:01:06But if I if I said that, I misspoke.
1:01:08Okay. Well, even if you said man in SWAT
1:01:10gear in the woods, you said that just a
1:01:12year before you were sued. That's not 7
1:01:14years ago, is it?
1:01:16I I was going over why people had what
1:01:18the anomalies, some accurate, some not
1:01:21accurate, what by people I questioned.
1:01:22Yeah, but it's real recent, Mr. Jones.
1:01:24This thing about oh, it's 7 years ago, I
1:01:26can't
1:01:26Well, just three I questioned Jussie
1:01:28Smollett.
1:01:29Just the the day it happened. And now
1:01:31can you That was just like a month ago.
1:01:33Exactly, and you know about that. You
1:01:35have no any memory problems there. I'm
1:01:36proud of it. Just have memory problems
1:01:38when it comes to Sandy Hook.
1:01:39I think well, the
1:01:407 years from now, the specifics of like
1:01:42if I've done 20 broadcasts on
1:01:44Mr. Jones, this isn't 7 years ago. I'm
1:01:46asking you about 2017. I don't know, but
1:01:48is it okay to question Jussie Smollett
1:01:49or was that act evil?
1:01:51I'm asking you about 2017. Is 2017 so
1:01:54long ago it's hard for you to remember?
1:01:56Objection as to the form. Um
1:01:58I have gone over the anomalies and I
1:02:00remember seeing that footage and I
1:02:03That's why people questioned. Who was
1:02:05involved in fact-checking those
1:02:06anomalies? Tell me all the employees who
1:02:07would be involved in that.
1:02:10I think myself and Rob do and a few
1:02:12others. Like I said, uh
1:02:14Um normally we're just reporting on news
1:02:16that's already out there.
1:02:18I'd say it was 98, 99%
1:02:21It's just going, "Hey, look, this just
1:02:23happened.
1:02:24Trump just said this. Hillary just said
1:02:25that. What do you think?"
1:02:27Okay, Mr. Jones.
1:02:30You will admit to me
1:02:32that of all these things that you have
1:02:33said
1:02:35all the factual claims you've made about
1:02:37Sandy Hook over the years
1:02:39that if you were wrong about them
1:02:41that it would be reasonable to
1:02:42understand that the parents would be
1:02:44very upset.
1:02:46Objection as to the form.
1:02:51I am not the only person to question
1:02:53Sandy Hook.
1:02:55And
1:02:56I legitimately asked those questions
1:02:58because I had concerns.
1:03:00And I resent the fact that the media and
1:03:02the corporate lawyers and the
1:03:03establishment of the Democratic Party
1:03:04tried to make this my identity, brought
1:03:06it out constantly repeated it, tricked
1:03:08me into debating it with them so they
1:03:10could say that I was injuring people.
1:03:12And I see the parties
1:03:14uh that continue to bring this up and
1:03:15drag these families through the mud as
1:03:17the real villains, the conscious
1:03:18villains attempting to destroy the First
1:03:20Amendment the process. I I do not
1:03:22consider myself to be that villain. I
1:03:23could have done a better job in
1:03:24hindsight and I've apologized for that.
1:03:27Uh but I've seen the very same corporate
1:03:29media and lawyers continue to say that
1:03:32I'm saying all these things and
1:03:33exaggerating and using it against the
1:03:35First Amendment. I think that's very
1:03:36dangerous and despicable.
1:03:38Mr. Jones, do you think I'm a corporate
1:03:40lawyer?
1:03:42Well, I I know full well that when
1:03:43Hillary Clinton lost the election is
1:03:45when all this started and I'm like,
1:03:46"Hey, I think Sandy Hook happened." And
1:03:48you and others continually are in the
1:03:50news.
1:03:52I remember when you first did this
1:03:53lawsuit, you're like, "All Jones needs
1:03:55to do is say sorry and sorry to some
1:03:56parents." Then they're like, "I am sorry
1:03:58that this is all been out of context."
1:03:59And I believe you guys did. And that was
1:04:00only that was all ignored. So, I've seen
1:04:03the real disingenuousness
1:04:05and the fact this is all just
1:04:06cold-blooded uh
1:04:07you know, fit cuz Hillary lost the
1:04:09election. So, you Do you think I work
1:04:11for Hillary Clinton or something? Or
1:04:12George Soros gives me money or something
1:04:14like that?
1:04:14Well, I mean,
1:04:15I know this is when Hillary lost, a
1:04:17light switch went on. I'd never been
1:04:18sued and I got sued a bunch.
1:04:20And then you got all the corporate media
1:04:22Wait, wait, wait, wait.
1:04:22working in working in tandem and I know
1:04:25you're working with the Connecticut case
1:04:27and doing all that and and and
1:04:28triangulating all that stuff. So, I
1:04:29mean, let's not let's not And there's
1:04:31going to be some other things coming
1:04:32down the road where all that will come
1:04:33out. When were you sued?
1:04:35I think it was uh early last year. Yeah,
1:04:37like
1:04:39year and a half after Hillary Clinton
1:04:40lost.
1:04:42But they had But they hadn't ever put
1:04:44the final report out. You needed the
1:04:45report cuz they never would put the
1:04:47report out. What report? The report came
1:04:49out a month before you sued me.
1:04:51Okay, Mr. Jones. The What Wait, what
1:04:53report? Who? What entity
1:04:55Sandy Hook report.
1:04:56What entity issued this report? Uh it
1:04:58was put out by the locals, state and the
1:05:00federal government. So, you you are
1:05:02going to sit here today and deny that
1:05:04there has been an official Sandy Hook
1:05:06report, books of it, online since
1:05:08December 2013. Uh there have been some
1:05:11redacted reports put out, but it was a
1:05:12big deal in in in in one of the It was
1:05:15in the to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
1:05:17It's a hugely litigated situation of of
1:05:19this being so suppressed. Okay. So
1:05:22you and your attorney have appeared on
1:05:25your show to talk about this entire
1:05:27lawsuit being a conspiracy against you
1:05:28to take you down. Objection as to the
1:05:30form. Correct.
1:05:35It's a conspiracy as Clarence Thomas
1:05:38admits to to get rid of uh
1:05:40New York Times versus Sullivan. And
1:05:43you've called me and members of my law
1:05:45firm devil people.
1:05:47I don't think specifically, no.
1:05:50Okay.
1:05:54You've made money from every single one
1:05:57of these broadcasts we saw today, right?
1:06:01No, we actually lose money on really
1:06:03controversial stuff. We can actually see
1:06:05it.
1:06:06Oh, so you can produce that to me?
1:06:07Absolutely. We'd love to. Okay. And you
1:06:09have supplements you sell, too, with
1:06:11these videos, correct?
1:06:13No, that that advertisement separate
1:06:15from the news.
1:06:16Well, I mean, in these news broadcasts,
1:06:18you advertise the sale of supplements,
1:06:20right?
1:06:22It It's the the the the the the two
1:06:24don't go together. How do you mean they
1:06:25don't go together? You're talking about
1:06:27the news and you put the news down and
1:06:28all of a sudden you're talking about
1:06:29bone broth and male vitality and
1:06:32fluoride free toothpaste and everything
1:06:33else.
1:06:34Well, they're Well, they're talking
1:06:34about WD's. Hold on, Mr. Jones. And then
1:06:37you pick that back down and you pick up
1:06:38the news and you start talking about it
1:06:40in the same video, correct? Well, it's
1:06:43like It's like saying the Super Bowl
1:06:44goes to and then and the Super Bowl has
1:06:47Budweiser ads on the walls.
1:06:48Yeah, NBC makes money off of its
1:06:50broadcasting, doesn't it? Uh but that's
1:06:52that technically that's not how our
1:06:55advertising is separate from what is
1:06:57going on during the program. We don't do
1:06:59product placement. And so, no, the
1:07:00answer is Sandy Hook before I was ever
1:07:02sued lost money.
1:07:049/11 Truth lost me almost all my radio
1:07:06stations and lost money. Those type of
1:07:09really controversial stands, people
1:07:11don't like them
1:07:12and they have crippled us before these
1:07:14lawsuits.
1:07:15And and and I mean, in fact, we went
1:07:18back
1:07:19and you can see where we talk about
1:07:21Sandy Hook and the listeners, everything
1:07:22goes down. I mean, and really I mean, if
1:07:25we look at this at the end of the day
1:07:27I mean, really
1:07:29you're the victim, aren't you?
1:07:31No, but I I I I've certainly learned a
1:07:34lot in the in the in the process.
1:07:36You've learned how to not be a reckless
1:07:38journalist, right?
1:07:39Objection as to the form.
1:07:42Well, I think certainly
1:07:44I have um
1:07:47I've experienced real fake news watching
1:07:49the corporate media lie in my name and
1:07:53and and put things out that I never did
1:07:55in a concerted effort.
1:07:57And so, I've learned what I certainly
1:07:59the polar opposite of what I want to be.
1:08:01Cuz I've never consciously tried to lie
1:08:02or hurt people. And I did not make money
1:08:05off saying 9/11 was was a event where
1:08:08where we allowed the Saudis to attack
1:08:10us. So, that's now come out. I lost out
1:08:12of 120-something stations, went down
1:08:14about 30.
1:08:15Um
1:08:16uh a lot of stations dumped us when we
1:08:17were talking about Sandy Hook. So
1:08:21if the statement is I say these things
1:08:23and do these things to make money, that
1:08:25is not what we are are doing.
1:08:28Money coming in is to fund the operation
1:08:30to promote really questioning things
1:08:32and to build an alternative system and
1:08:34and and it doesn't mean then when you're
1:08:36being an alternative system that that
1:08:38you're perfect. Uh but that's basically
1:08:40where I stand on that. Okay, I just do
1:08:42want to make sure you it's not a
1:08:43nonprofit situation. You're not You're
1:08:45not doing this for the
1:08:46charity of your own heart.
1:08:48No, I'm not like the nonprofits. The
1:08:50whole conspiracy where they the
1:08:52they're buying the college admissions
1:08:55and they call that a charity or
1:08:56Hillary's foundation. No, I'm not
1:08:58running anything like that.
1:08:58I've no idea what you're talking
1:09:00where all these people make millions of
1:09:01dollars on their tax-free charities. No,
1:09:03I don't do that.
1:09:05Okay. So You were asking me if I was
1:09:07running a nonprofit scam and the answer
1:09:09is no, I don't I don't do those. I pay
1:09:10taxes.
1:09:23Mr. Jones, I think we're about wrapped
1:09:24up today. If you'd give me just a small
1:09:26break, make sure that we're all wrapped
1:09:27up. I think we got about 45 minutes left
1:09:29in the day, but I'm not going to use it
1:09:30for you. I'm going to let you get out of
1:09:31here.
1:09:31I'm happy. I mean, hey, if you want to
1:09:33stick around and talk, we can talk.
1:09:35But
1:09:36might need to do that off the record. We
1:09:38might not need to put that on the
1:09:39testimony. But, I'm happy to do that.
1:09:41But, let's take just a quick break, and
1:09:43why don't y'all give us about 5 minutes?
1:09:44Okay.
1:09:45We're off the record 4:14 p.m.
1:09:54We're back on the record at 4:28 p.m.
1:09:58Kind of things I was curious about, Mr.
1:09:59Jones.
1:10:01Do you think that there's a question
1:10:04that I should have asked you today in
1:10:05deposition that I didn't?
1:10:10Hmm, that's a good question.
1:10:12Uh
1:10:14question you should have asked me.
1:10:24I don't I might not be able to think of
1:10:26any.
1:10:27Okay, Mr. Jones.
1:10:29You would agree with me that
1:10:32when some damage happens,
1:10:34when you break something,
1:10:36when you
1:10:37you cause something to be lost, when you
1:10:40hurt somebody,
1:10:42whether it's intentional or whether it's
1:10:44a mistake,
1:10:45there's consequences for that, right?
1:10:48People should be accountable for the
1:10:49people they hurt.
1:10:51Objection is to form.
1:10:56Well, sometimes people claim they've
1:10:57been hurt and they haven't been.
1:11:00So, you have to look at the agenda
1:11:01behind things. You have to balance
1:11:03things
1:11:04about why is the mainstream media lied
1:11:06so much, why have governments lied so
1:11:08much, the fact that the public doesn't
1:11:09believe what they're told anymore, and
1:11:11we're going to criminalize questioning
1:11:12Jesse Smollett or WMDs or babies in
1:11:15incubators.
1:11:16And it really is the fact that we've
1:11:18allowed the government and institutions
1:11:19become so corrupt that people lost
1:11:22any compass of what's real.
1:11:25And I've you know, my my myself, if you
1:11:27know, almost had like a point of
1:11:28psychosis back in the past where I
1:11:30basically thought everything was staged.
1:11:32You know, I'm now learning a lot of
1:11:33times things aren't staged. So, you
1:11:35know, I I I think as as a pundit and
1:11:36someone giving opinion,
1:11:38um that you know, my opinions have been
1:11:40wrong, but they were never wrong
1:11:42consciously to hurt people.
1:11:44Uh and so, I think it's the part of that
1:11:45process of me growing up.
1:11:48And Rockwall, Texas, and watching the
1:11:49police steal drugs and then conduct
1:11:51anti-drug programs at the school. I
1:11:52think that shook my opinion of police in
1:11:54general.
1:11:56And I was very anti-law enforcement till
1:11:57I grew up and learned more things, and
1:11:58now I'm pretty much pro-police.
1:12:00So, it's it's it's it's it's been a
1:12:02process.
1:12:05You said false things about Sandy Hook
1:12:06cuz it was psychosis.
1:12:09I'm going to say
1:12:09Objection is to form.
1:12:12Correct? Well, I'm just saying that the
1:12:14trauma
1:12:15of the media and the corporations lying
1:12:17so much, then everything begins you
1:12:20don't trust anything anymore.
1:12:22Kind of like a child whose parents lie
1:12:23to them over and over again, well,
1:12:24pretty soon they don't know what what
1:12:25what reality is. So, so, so, long before
1:12:28these lawsuits, I said that in the past
1:12:30I thought everything was a conspiracy.
1:12:32And I would kind of get into that mass
1:12:34group think
1:12:36of the communities that were out there
1:12:37saying that. So, now I see that it's
1:12:38more in the middle. Uh and so, that's
1:12:40where I stand. I'm a little concerned
1:12:42about something I heard in your answer
1:12:45that it seemed to be you suggesting
1:12:48that you weren't sure
1:12:51if these parents have suffered pain from
1:12:53what you did.
1:12:55Well, I I was studying that I was
1:12:56reporting on
1:12:58the general questioning and what and
1:12:59what others were questioning. And uh you
1:13:02know, it's painful that we have to
1:13:03question big public events. I think
1:13:05that's an essential part of the First
1:13:06Amendment in America. And I do not take
1:13:08responsibility uh for the entire train
1:13:11of things that lawyers, the media have
1:13:13said I've done. So, I do not take the
1:13:15responsibility. I do not take your
1:13:17indictment or your your your presumed
1:13:20conviction of me as the villain or the
1:13:22star of Homeland cuz I'm that's not who
1:13:24I am. And so, I reject it.
1:13:27Saying the school is closed
1:13:31and was closed for years, that's not
1:13:33questioning. That's a statement of fact,
1:13:35Mr. Jones, isn't it? Objection is to
1:13:37form.
1:13:39I was going off what other people were
1:13:41saying and the fact that the the records
1:13:43were not forthcoming and
1:13:45the Hartford Current headline, why is
1:13:47there a cover-up? Why are no documents
1:13:48being released? Why is it taking so
1:13:50long? The EMTs weren't allowed in the
1:13:53building. That's not a question, Mr.
1:13:56Jones. That's a statement, correct?
1:13:58Objection is to form.
1:14:00And again, that was my my I my going off
1:14:02what someone else who I believed to be a
1:14:04credible expert was saying. Mr. Jones,
1:14:07are you finally prepared to admit that
1:14:10you have indeed caused these families a
1:14:13substantial amount of pain? Are you
1:14:15prepared to admit that? I I am not
1:14:18prepared to sign on to whatever you and
1:14:20the mainstream media make up about me.
1:14:23All right, Mr. Jones, that'll have to be
1:14:24it.
1:14:25I'll see you next time. I want to just
1:14:27do just put this on the record just to
1:14:29make on the confidentiality part. Is
1:14:31that okay? Oh, yeah, to say that you're
1:14:32designating on the protective order?
1:14:34Yes, thank you.
1:14:34Please go ahead and respond. Um so, the
1:14:37what we have in the protective order is
1:14:38that for the 30 days following any
1:14:40deposition, the parties must treat all
1:14:42of the deposition testimony and exhibits
1:14:44and other documents produced at any
1:14:46deposition as attorney's eyes only, and
1:14:49so they're marked confidential till that
1:14:50time. Thank you, Garrett.
1:14:52So, so, no designation of
1:14:54confidentiality is being made today or
1:14:56would it take? Absolutely. The whole
1:14:57thing's confidential right now. It's
1:14:58presumed until 30 days.
1:15:00order, and we have 30 days to designate
1:15:02confidential thereafter. Absolutely.
1:15:04Very well.
1:15:05Sounds good.
1:15:06Any other Okay. I think we're done. All
1:15:08right, Garrett.
1:15:08need any structure 4:33 p.m.? Thank you.
1:15:13Do you need a protective order
1:15:14signature?

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of PART 2: Alex Jones / Sandy Hook Video Deposition by Kaster Lynch Farrar & Ball LLP, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 13,121 words across 2,181 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.