Knowledge Fight - #602: Sandy Hook Response

Episode Date: October 4, 2021

Today, Dan and Jordan discuss Alex Jones' response to the news that he lost multiple court cases.  Also, the gents chat with Mark Bankston, lead counsel for the Sandy Hook family members who sued Alex.

I'm sick of them posing as if they're the good guys saying we are the bad guys knowledge fight. Dan and Jordan, knowledge fight. I need money. Andy and Kansas. Andy and Kansas. Andy and Kansas. It's time to pray. Andy and Kansas, you're on the air. Thanks for holding us. Hello, Alex and Mr. Sinclair. I'm a huge fan. I love your work. Knowledge fight. I love you. Hey, everybody. Welcome back to Knowledge Fight. I'm Dan. I'm Jordan. We're couple dudes like to sit around worship at the altar of Sleen and talk a little bit about Alex Jones. Oh, indeed. My voice sounded weird there. That's why I was kind of lost for a second. No, I get you. You're doing great. All right. You didn't sound weird to me. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Hey,

come on. Keep it going. Okay. How's it going? How you doing, Dad? I'm all right. Hey, what is your bright spot? My bright spot today, Jordan, with a with a resounding capital letter is magic cards. I got some capital letters for a bright spot. Yes. Magic card gathering card capitals all across the board. I opened the gate with trying out the magic arena online. It was fun. I like the art style of a lot of these cards. I like the gameplay. I enjoy that, but it wasn't really exactly what I was looking for. And so I got on eBay and just got a big box of random cards. And that was what I was looking for. Yes, it's there's a tactile sensation to it and a looking at there's there's there's as I was telling you before we started recording, there's

almost like an implied story in all of it. That's that's just it's gripping and atmospheric and calming. I really, really, really enjoy it. And I wish that I'd been able to mess around with these things when I was 13. Yeah, I understand. That's that same feeling that like you would never go to a bookstore bookstore that's just filled with ebooks, you know, like you go to a used bookstore with stacks of books that are unorganized and you can smell the paper and you can touch it with your fingers and it's a completely different experience. We're getting dangerously close to talking about the warmth of vinyl. No, we're not. It's just things. We are but so I was considering checking some of these cards out and actually what pushed me over the

edge and made me like, yeah, definitely for sure was that Jason sent us something to the mailbox. Yeah. And that was two individually crafted magic cards. Insane based on Alex Jones will put up a picture of them. But one one is a sudden plug. And the other is overprepare. So good. They're so awesome. They're amazing. And these are just sort of one of a kind things. And I was like, well, why not build a collection around this? Yeah, of course. So I'm starting down there. I'm going to not go too crazy. But Jason in his note that he sent along with it also, he requested that we give a shout out to his uncle Kurt. And I say, fuck that. No, I'm going to give a shout out to both of you. Oh boy. Shout out to Jason. Shout out to uncle Kurt. I don't know. I'm

feeling a lot of aggressive energy coming from all directions. He's telling me I have to do something. You're telling me that I have to do something different. I'm just going to say you can you can sit out of this one. I'm giving both of them a shout out. I'm taking both shout outs away. We're going to even this out. We're going to equal it out. I'm giving them two shout outs each. Now we're in an evolutionary arms race. There's no way around this. Also piggybacking on some of this stuff too. I want to give a special shout out to Dylan Kay, who got in touch with me, and I was way too delayed in sending an email back about an idea for a card game. The sort of along these lines and Lucas H. Thank you so much. Put that battle hardened goblin. Yes, card on

Twitter that started a little bit of a thread. Info Wars personalities as magic cards. Fantastic. There's Larry Nichols. There's a Steve Pachennick. I believe it dawned to Grand Prix. Oh, so good. Yeah, so good. The really brightened brightened the spirit. Yes, indeed. So what's your what's your bright spot? My bright spot, Dan, is, you know, before before in the before times. All right, before covid before covid. Okay. My partner and I were going to see a magic show. Oh, with that place down on Clark. Exactly. We were going to see that magic show and a week before everything shut down. So this Friday, finally, we will be going to that very same magic show, my friend. Nice. It is happening. It's coming full circle. We're getting out of the pandemic. This is a symbol. This

is a meaningful thing to do. You're going to get lost in the laundry room. Absolutely. It's going to be a nightmare. It's never going to make it. It's a magic club. They don't have like a door or a sign saying magic. It's like they are like, okay, there's a door. You have to secretly find it. And you're like, this isn't the magic part. But yeah, yeah, I'm going to get lost. Yeah, you're never going to make it in the door. We're going to find that place. Yeah, that I really, really love that idea of this poorly advertised magic theater. Yeah, it's as Steppenwolfian vibes. Yeah. And I really, you know, of course, love that book. And so yeah, that place is always called to me. Yeah, I'm excited. I'm excited to go. I hope you have a great time. I'd love to hear all about it. You

will. So also, Jordan, before we get into too much business here, I want to give a shout out to Bobo D. Bayer, who adopted a raptor. Oh, a great horned owl that is now joining the family of Celine, not a re not a dinosaur. I'm just saying that they are traveling with Jurassic World. I'm having. Oh, there's just they're available. They're not touring with Jurassic World. That's Oh, that's right. What was it called? Dinosaur? Dinosaur is not the mama at the park. Yes. So, Jordan, today we have a bit of an interesting situation on our hands. We have Alex has just lost some suits. He has lost. And now at this point, I believe it's three Sandy Hook related lawsuits in Texas courts. And today we have a little bit of his response to go over happily.

Before we do that, Jordan, let's say hello to some new whori. That's a great idea. So first, Mr. Pickles. The dapper doxon. Thank you so much. You're now policy one. I'm a policy wonk. Thanks, Mr. Pickles? Next horse pants. Thank you so much. You're now policy wanted. I'm a policy wonk. I'm a policy. Thanks. Oh, thanks, Mike. You're now policy. I'm a policy wonk. Thank you, Mike, next. Ben, thank you so much. You're now policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk. Thank you, Ben. And we got a technocrat in the mix. Shout out to started at scathing atheist. And now we're here. Thank you so much. You're now technocrat. I'm a policy wonk. Crikey, Mike. That's fantastic. Have yourself a brew. How's your 401k doing, bro? We got to go full tilt buggy on this Watson. All right,

let's just get down to business. We ain't making that money off that heroin. Why are you pimp so good? My neck is freakishly large. I declare info war on you. Thank you. Started the scathing atheist. Now we're here. Yes. Thank you very much. Jordan. Yes, sir. So look, I mean, we all know what went down. Yeah, we were there. Yeah, we saw it all happen. Alex saw the news vindicated. Everybody has changed their tunes. Everybody realizes now the horrible mistakes they've made and they've treated him unfairly much like Don de Grand Prix. I have some bad news. Oh, no. Alex got he lost some of these cases. Yes, with prejudice. News came out at the end of last week that Alex had lost two Sandy Hook trials in Texas court with the judge in the case giving the parents

a default judgment. These two cases initially where the ones brought by Leonard Posner and Veronica de la Rosa and the one that was brought by Scarlett Lewis. It took a little bit longer for the news to break on it, but there's also a third case that Alex lost that day, which was brought by Neil Hesslin. I wanted to get deeply into the weeds on this development, but you know how I am with these technical issues. I sometimes drop the ball. So I just kind of embarrass myself sometimes. I get emails from people who are like, you don't know this term. I believe in our first deposition episode. I called the guy a prosecutor. Yeah, so I embarrass myself. Come on. So you know what I think would be great? What? What if what if what if we could get the Sandy Hook

parents lead counsel, Mark Bankston to come on our show and help explain it? Well, yeah, but I mean there's no chance of that happening. Never. That would never happen. Hey, everybody, welcome to this segment. We're going to do something a little bit very out of out of the norm. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We're thrilled to be joined by lead counsel for the the Sandy Hook families opposing Alex Jones in court. Yeah, that no, that's you're telling the truth. That's the weird part. See, when you when you announce something like that on this show, we're supposed to be being ridiculous. It's supposed to be a friend doing a character. Yeah, exactly. But no, Mark Bankston is here. Now we're going to throw it to him. Welcome. Thank you for joining us.

Thank you so much for having me. I'm glad to be here. I appreciate you taking the time. I know that I imagine there's some press requests at this point, but they're boring. They're absolutely boring. Who wants to talk to, you know, Anderson Cooper? That's not fun. Yeah, he's CIA. Yeah, fuck Anderson Cooper. Who gives a shit about that asshole? But if you did go on Anderson Cooper and talk to him, you could talk about his nose disappearing. And that would be in fact, well, it's funny. The reason I mentioned that is my partner Kyle Farah was on Anderson Cooper Friday night talking about the disappearing nose and that whole insane proposition that for those who aren't regular followers of this case, Mr. Jones contends that

one of my clients, Veronique De La Rosa, performed a fake interview on a blue screen in a CNN soundstage rather than actually being at Sandy Hook. Because his nose disappeared. Right. Because, you know, just a little little nose disappearing. I would love it if your your fellow lawyer who was on Anderson Cooper did the I got your nose trick. That would have been awesome. That is great. So I think the place I'd like to start with this, I guess, if that's what we're doing is what happened? What's the, can you explain the ruling that happened?

I'm not a legal scholar. So and before I say anything, let me also just say this, there's probably, there's some ground rules that we're going to be expected to follow today. The ethical rules regarding pre-tropology make me not be able to say a couple of things. For instance, I can't talk to you about things like the credibility of certain witnesses or my belief on the guilt or innocence of certain people, all these kinds of things. Sure. But there also becomes a sort of loophole when your opposing party completely abuses pre-trop publicity and says the most insane things publicly. That sort of frees you up to get to talk.

And so that's part of why I'm here today is that it's, it's, I'm a little bit freer than I would normally be because my opponent has made an absolute mockery. This is, this is the pot kettle statute. Exactly. There you go. Yeah, but you don't call in black all we want because we, this is a pot kettle situation. Well, let me just say in relation to that, if there's any point where anything feels uncomfortable or like past what you can talk about, just let me know and I'll respect that entirely. Dan, I'll lodge an objection and we'll get it ruled on. Jordan's the judge. I'll just, I'll just blobby Barnes it up in here and just objection form, objection form, objection form. Hey, good work, Barnes. Good work, Barnes.

A little call back to the deposition episode for the Knowledge Fight fans. Let me tell you a little bit about what just happened. It, it, it has never happened to me. It has never happened to anybody I know outside of the most insane situation. All right. Well, then I can cross one of my questions off the list, which was, have, have you ever had a case like this before? Never. The answer is never. Gotcha. Had a case like this. What has happened is for the past three years, we have been in a situation where Jones has had discovery obligations. That means the court will enter orders saying he has to produce certain documents, produce certain people for deposition, that sort of thing.

Daft Punk albums. Right. For three years, it's been an absolute mess. So not only is he not producing the documents he's supposed to produce, not answering the questions. And I mean, when we're talking about questions where there's stuff like name all the employees who worked on these videos and name the videos themselves, right? Yeah, like factual based questions. Very, very simple fact stuff. Yeah. They are not answering in any way, shape or form. And then you have the, the documents they won't produce. And then you have the documents they do produce. I mean, when they end up giving us a bunch of documents and turn over them in electronic format, one of the consultants up in Connecticut found that they had given us child pornography in those

documents. Yeah. And so that was a massive affair. I mean, the bounty on, yeah, on a medi and all. Yeah, that one's great. That was, yeah. Well, it's, it's again, it's like one of those situations where it just nobody has ever seen anything like it. So, you know, we had a, we had an, and I think a credit to our judge in Texas, who just recently retired, we had Judge Scott Jenkins presiding over this, and he's an old scholarly judge who does things right by the book. And he was giving Info Wars and Jones every chance they had to, to get in compliance, to treat this correctly. I mean, a lot of other parties, they would have been done well before Jones, but you don't want to give Jones the ability to say, oh, I'm being railroad folks,

there's a railroad job. They got me all set up. That's, that's not what you want to do. And so we gave him every chance that he had, but after three years, now we show up into our last hearing, and they basically just pretend like we have no idea what we're supposed to do. You know, his lawyers are brand new. He's on lawyer number seven. What is law? Yeah. I mean, as far as pretending goes with Alex's lawyers, I don't know how law works is a legitimate thing for a lawyer that works for Alex to say. Honestly, that's, that's their best defense at this point. What we're doing a little while back, Norm Patis was saying he was going to get into standup on Alex's show. That's right. You know, it's interesting. You notice that there has been a cavalcade of lawyers

who have seen Jones as an opportunity to get themselves a niche carved out in the right wing media. I probably would too. I mean, I think that's a really rational thing to do. Yeah, why not? Oh, Bobby Barnes got it turned into a show on info wars for a while. Not the career changing opportunity that he was hoping for, but guess not. Well, who knows, right? Maybe it was exactly the career opportunity he was hoping for. I'll tell you this, when you're representing these cases, you never think you're going to get so lucky as to have your opposing counsel be an actual info wars commentator. You don't get that. That is, that is something that for us, we've known it so long. We've known it for years, but then you, you say it. I discovered

a person, a real lawyer, meaning it's in the real world and not just on our show. That's ridiculous. It is completely ridiculous. You see an amazing perspective on this or like sense of humor about it. Cause you know, watching the depositions that we did, it seems like it would be infuriating. Like you'd just be banging your head against a wall. And I mean, I think most people would probably look at that and be like, I'm miserable. You seem to find some amusement in it, which I think is probably healthy. Probably how you, Oh yeah. Yeah. Well, you got to, I, you know, I told people when I first got on this case, I had to watch about 150 hours and for worse programming. And, and as you guys know, that messes with your brain. Do good things to you. Yeah. And so after a while though,

you kind of have to take a perspective on it that you, you embrace the absurdity of it all. And, and it's, I'll tell you this, it's, you know, it's particularly easy to find a good sense of humor about it all when at the same time these things are happening, you are also just beating them up and down the courtroom. Yeah. And in this case, when I'm sitting in that Jones deposition and he is saying the most absurd stuff. Yeah. On some level, it's infuriating to watch him not take that process seriously. On the other hand, it's intensely rewarding when he says stuff like, Oh, we ourselves, we never even investigated Sandy Hook. And thank you, Mr. Jones. Thank you for telling me that. And that was really good. But, but to circle back, because I haven't, I haven't

really answered your question is they're done now. So this is over for all intents and purposes. The judge has said, these people have disobeyed the rules with such intensity and with such consistency that there's no way that my, my judicial rulings are ever going to have any impact on them. Yeah. So what she's done then is just declared judgment, which basically says I'm going to instruct the jury that what he did was illegal, unlawful and cause damage to these plaintiffs. And their only jobs figure out how much money that's worth. Yeah. So that's the next step, right? That's the, that's where the case goes from here into figuring out like, what's the price tag? Exactly. And another one of those where nobody has any idea,

because nobody has ever seen anything like this. Yeah. Well, one of the things that I know from Alex's response to the news of these, these default judgments was that he said he produced all of his bank records from like his entire life. Is that true? No, well, not to you, but to the Connecticut court. Right. Yeah. So there's two lawsuits going on just for your viewers. There's, there's, there's lawsuits in Texas and there's also a lawsuit in Connecticut. And he did have to produce some financial information in Connecticut. I, I haven't personally viewed it, but I know what was requested and what was had to be produced. And he did actually produce that. It was a, it was not a broad spanning financial inquiry

into Alex Jones's life. There were, there were certain records produced from free speech systems mainly because what you have to understand and there's, you know, different, different lawyers have different ways they approach cases, obviously. And in Connecticut, one of the big things that they're talking about, it's an interesting idea is that part of why Jones did this so often and so much is because he ultimately found it profitable is that if you can look at the records and see that sales for brain force and male vitality were higher on the days that Sandy Hook was being discussed, then you can show a motive that he had to do it. But personally, I also believe you can look at this and see that his motive is genuinely that he started to hate these parents, that these,

these parents became genuine financial threats to him. Because if they got strikes with YouTube, every time he put up a picture of their kids saying that they were fake, then pretty soon, just as we saw, he'd lose his, his life, his, you know, livelihood in terms of YouTube. And he started to hate these parents. And for us, that, that really was his motive is that, is I think there's a part of Alex Jones that knew it was trouble to keep talking about Sandy Hook this way. And he just couldn't help himself because he hated these people so much. Yeah, that fits about right. That's, that's an interesting perspective. I think, I think there may be something to that and there may just be like, he's never really had any meaningful consequences ever in the past.

That's also true. Why, why would he change his behavior if there's like, he keeps Dukes of hazarding himself out of trouble? Exactly. I mean, look, the guy's never been in a situation where the answers to the questions that people are asking him have any consequence or that he would be held to account for any of the answers. And for him being in a deposition was a completely new experience, one he did not like at all. It seemed like he loved it. So it's funny guys, you know, I came, I came up in, you know, my firm mainly had done corporate negligence, products liability, civil rights, these kind of big playups cases. And, you know, we have done big work in the past. I've gone after 3M for medical devices. We've had

large tread separation cases. We've had civil rights cases that were pretty egregious. Nobody ever in the history has done a podcast analyzing my deposition. That has never happened. Ever. I've had some media coverage in the past. I gotta tell you guys, sitting down and listening to y'all talk about that deposition. That is an interesting thing as a lawyer to go through. I could imagine. One of the reasons that I'm on this show right at this moment is I want y'all to go back at some point and listen to those episodes and viewers, y'all go back and listen to those as well. I want you to know that every single time that these guys say, all right, what's going on here? Let's let's offer our guests as to what this means

or what is going on here or what the strategy is 100% of the time you are correct. I want to go over some of them with them and just laugh about some of them because y'all were absolutely dead on target. I love particularly talking about the Paul Joseph Watson deposition. That one was that one was the one that was kind of the least funny, but very interesting. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Interesting because because like you pointed out, Watson is very aware of how bad this is and he doesn't want to be connected to it. And so in a lot of ways, it's strange. You would have never thought Paul Joseph Watson comes out being the good guy. You know, I mean, though it's interesting, was he really worried about it because he was worried

about the morality or because he was worried about the money, right? Like there's that that I feel like he came off like Stringer Bell, you know, like he was, he was above this fray and he saw his friend go into jail for, you know, eight years and he's like, I had nothing to do with this. I'm just over here on the other side. Well, you mentioned Stringer Bell though. And you got to remember though, there's that email from Watson where he says, Jones, the Sandy Hook stuff is killing us. These people are about shit crazy. And that kind of reminds me of Stringer Bell's warning of like, you are writing down a criminal conspiracy. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

It is wild. But I remember in that it almost feels like I'm sorry. Jordan had said in that podcast when you're done with Watson, you're sort of tempted to just go lightning round with them and just, you know, climate change and let's talk about every and believe me, I had a list of every story of Paul Watson's that I wanted to talk to him about. But you get to that point at towards the end of that deposition, you realize this guy's my star witness. What the heck? It's a really interesting thing that so many of the people inside him for worse, clearly the public record shows of these depositions that they don't know what's going on. They don't understand the hot water they're in. Paul Watson did. Yeah. And as opposed to Rob

Dew and Alex Jones, it's a very, very different situation. And what's remarkable is that those emails that Paul had show that he knew that then too. Right. Immediately. And that he tried to make others aware of it at the time. And so they have every reason to know that this is something that could be quite warm water. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. And what a contrast that is from what we saw from Rob Dew, my favorite thing. Rob Dew has a lot, a lot on his shoulders in terms of why we're at where we are at today. That's the corporate representative. I'm supposed to know what, right? That was, and again, for your viewers who haven't learned what happened in Rob Dew's deposition, Rob Dew, unlike the other witnesses, wasn't there testifying as himself?

He was there testifying as free speech systems, which is Jones, you know, subsidiary company that runs all this stuff. He was the assigned corporate representative to his shock. When you get that, when you're assigned that, you're given homework, you're given a list of topics, and you have the corporation has a reasonable duty to prepare you to testify about those topics and speak with the corporation's voice, give the answers for the corporation. Rob Dew had no idea he was supposed to do that. And the funny thing about that is, y'all remember, that's the first deposition, the first corporate representative deposition. Rob Dew shows up, he has no idea what he's supposed to do. He has no idea. He says, I don't know to everything. And then you kept having

to ask back, like, do you not know? Or does free speech systems not know? That's my favorite. So I have to give a shout out on this one because that was my other partner, Bill Ogden, did that deposition. And that one was in the midst of it, one of the most offensive and the amount of disrespect being shown for the process was infuriating. But the moment you get the transcript and listen to it, it becomes the most hilarious thing you've ever seen. Because you simply are incapable of understanding how a party could disrespect the process this much. But you can see it in his eyes that Rob didn't know. Like, I think if you watch that tape of the deposition, it's kind of coming over him how unprepared he is as it's going along. I think

he thought he could come in and stonewall or whatever. You know, the one thing I don't think that comes across in your podcast about it, because you did exert a lot of answers. In order to get the full spirit of it, you would have to include about 20 to 30 minutes of total silence during that. It was real. There are periods where you ask a question and you're staring at him for a solid two minutes and he hasn't opened his mouth. And in front of a jury, that stuff doesn't look good. No, they have to know that. But with so that's after the first time we did Rob do, you got to understand that six months later, they got called to do discovery again and they designated him again. No, they did not. They did. And this worked out last time.

Hey, throw them bones. Okay, here's topic number one. You're supposed to talk about the sourcing and research behind these episodes of emperors on these dates. Have you done anything to prepare for that? Nope. Didn't even know I'd have to do that. And so it was so offensive that the judge at the next hearing is just scratching their heads of like, I wrote an order saying that this was really, really bad. And then you just did it again. And at that point, even at that point, where we had gone through three cases with no discovery, child pornography had been produced, they had shown up to deposition twice and just totally ignored it. Nothing is going on. They still got another chance. They got to go on appeal, get this, they could have completely

won the case and dismissed all of these cases and still won on a legal argument, which they didn't. But they got to do an entire another appeal, come back and then get another chance to answer discovery. And it was only after they didn't do that that they were they were defaulted. So when I see Jones, for instance, getting on his show recently after this happened, and saying about how unfairly he's been treated or what a travesty it is. I've got to impress upon people. This does not happen. And judges don't want to do it. And it took three years of this for it to happen in this case. You have been given literally every available benefit of the doubt to the point now where the judgment used to be 100 pages long. And this is just one page of

an ASCII middle finger, just saying you owe money. Yeah. I mean, like I think anybody who listens to our show probably is aware of how like very clear from an outsider's perspective it is that his strategy has been kick the can down the road. Yeah. Basically to make sure this doesn't go to trial or like and partially, you know, what's the one of his legal strategies we've seen in the past has been, you know, if we protract this case, it'll cost the other people too much money and they'll want to settle. Yeah. And that seems to happen a bit. And I think he was banking on that happening here. It's tough to know what he was making. Yeah, it really is. Because I think there was at that time and maybe he's still convinced of it that he no matter what happens,

he's going to be a Larry Flint hero who goes up to the US Supreme Court and everybody, you know, it's all going to be saved and they're going to make a movie about what a hero he is, right? Like I think he might genuinely on some level have thought that the problem now, though, is that in order to appeal and go up to the US Supreme Court and vindicate yourself on the First Amendment rights, you have actually had to have made a First Amendment argument and had a lawsuit with trial that actually happened here. You've had no, you screwed around with discovery, you're done. So you don't, you don't get to appeal saying that your rights weren't, no, we never had an exhibition of your rights. We don't even know what the hell they are right now. So right now,

all we have is you have massively disobeyed a court and that's the only thing you'll ever be able to appeal. He's going to let me bruise that. He's going to do it. This is what happens when you have seven lawyers, right? Like a series of seven lawyers is you don't have a coherent legal strategy. You never had a coherent legal strategy. It was always about delay. It was always about just not facing this. And at some point you have to face it. And that's what we're looking at now. We're, we're set now for March 28th for us to go pulse and jurors. And I mean, basically put on psychological evidence of what happened to our plaintiffs, put on evidence of how far this spread, you know, we're going to have to go up to a jury of 12 people who, unlike us,

don't have a real firm understanding of what infowars cultural footprint is. Don't understand exactly how big this was. So we got to talk to a jury about that. But in terms of them being able to say what we did, we were justified in doing it. Absolutely not. That's gone now. Yeah, that chapter of this is over. Yeah, this is such Owen's fucking community service all over again. It's like all you had to do was 30 hours of committee. That is not a lot. All you needed to do was show up with the documents. You didn't even, and then you could have pushed it probably another year down the road, right? But that, that implies though, you know, that there's a reason he wouldn't want to do that. Yeah, exactly. I mean, everybody has to be considered

rational actors and they're doing what they do for a reason. We can speculate about it, but it's, you know, it's a challenge. Yeah. Yeah, it really is. Because I mean, and that's the whole problem is there's so many times in this case, you want to try to predict what's about to happen or by using a rational actor sort of scheme and it never works. Never once works. What you think is going to happen is not whatever happens. And so we basically, the easiest way to have some predictive control on the over this case is to at any juncture say, all right, if I'm Jones and I'm his attorneys, what would I do rationally? And then you can go ahead and cross at least that one off the list because that's not going to happen. Now you just got to now you're throwing darts

at your chaos board and figuring out which one it hits. Because this is really how it's been is there's no, there's no controller rhyme or reason over any of this. So again, that's how you get to the point where you go stir crazy like me and you just laugh at everything. Yeah. Well, I think that at least partially that response is the right response. You know, there has to be a little laugh somewhere. There is a part of me is if there's a time to take a break and reflect and look at this and go, wow, hasn't this been absurd? It's right now. There's there's next few months we're going to be gearing up to do the very serious lifting of telling the jury a very serious story about some people whose lives you just can't understand how they are. Right. And that that

honestly, there's where the anger comes from me a little bit is that in the middle of this absolute circus of absurdity that Jones needs to be put through that tends to distract in some way from the real gravity of what happened to these parents. And so when it comes time to put this on for a trial and this is obviously, you know, they're going to be media is going to be recording this trial, people are going to be talking about it. This trial is going to be deadly serious about something that has been distracted for way too long. Yeah. And to me, it is fantastic that this trial is not going to be about Alex Jones. Yeah. What Alex Jones did and what he's about is already decided. And what this trials is going to be about is about these families.

Yeah. Yeah. There could be no better poetic justice in that that the the moment that he thought was going to be his circus that he could use for himself. He doesn't even get that anymore. That is that is kind of gratifying. Yeah. As as something, you know, and I do think that there is too much that gets gets lost in, you know, Alex will blame the gun grabbers and stuff for coming at him. And, you know, it's just a way kind of I feel of deflecting from exactly what you're talking about the the reality that at the core of this is these people that have gone through something unimaginable. Yeah. And I think you have to do that if you're someone in his position, because how do you how do you look in the mirror? If you don't, how do you deal with

their real grief and your part in it? Like, it's very challenging that that the thing he wants most is attention. And that is the thing that is going to be denied him is delightful. It really is. He'll find a way. Of course, he'll find a way. But he's not on YouTube or Facebook. As long as as long as none of the major media outlets go to Infowars and are like, we're going to put you on TV, then it will be fine. Until then, what we always knew too, it would be it would be a spectacle without any content, of course, it was going to be something that was just because it brings me back actually something to Dan, you said about these depositions and why they're kind of surprising is that if Infowars is what it is, and it is what they claim to be, then these depositions should

have been the most exciting moment for them, because it was their chance to put up what they had to get. You know, they're saying they're right. It's finally put up or shut up. Here's the time you really get to throw down with, you know, some commie attorney like me who you get to like tell him in his place. Yeah, you're just wrong. Look at all the stuff we have. And instead, Jones and do even were like, I don't remember any of that. I don't know what you're talking about. We're not ready. We did no break. I remember the time Jones said in that deposition, I did no preparation for this. It gives me a headache. I don't even want to do this. This. Yeah. Yeah. Come on. This is never heard of globalism. I have no idea what you're talking about. Who the hell is Rob do?

Here's the other thing I'm sure you'll realize is I got ready for these depositions. I became a expert such that it is in the Sandy Hook hopes mythology. And I can go toe to toe with anybody who believes this bullshit, like a Wolfgang Howe big or a Jim Fetzer. And I was actually looking forward to going toe to toe with somebody who thought that they were confident about this stuff and destroying them. And it didn't happen. I mean, instead, what we got from Jones was, you know, Jones, you've said this before, didn't you? No, I never said that. Here's video clip of you saying that that's edited. I didn't say that's out of context. Media Matters edited clips. So we're going to say that, you know, and like, you can't get anywhere. Like there was this idea

too. I think that was really observant of you both that there's some things you can accomplish basically in that situation in terms of testimony. There are some admissions you can get very quickly. But that's done in 15, 20 minutes, really. Like there's not a lot of legal significance that can come out of that deposition that that that it happens very quick. But culturally, I think there is a lot of significance to that deposition. And I think you're going to see that at this trial too. So we'll get we'll get some. In other words, I don't want to say that the show is over. You know what I mean? Like there is a reckoning for Jones that's going to happen. And it's and it's going to be personal. It's it's not just going to be totally focused on my clients. So there's

still some more to come. Wow. That's that's interesting. I don't know. I don't know how to respond to that. That's amazing. That's great. It's hard. Yeah. And I think that it's such a testament to the families that they've been able to have the wherewithal to continue in the face. So yeah, like the the the difficulty of of living through, I mean, the last three years of this case, even, you know, I could not I wouldn't fault somebody for saying this is enough. I'm out. Yeah, totally. And it's it is really on some level for the for people who can't stand up to a bully. You know, it's it's pretty pretty hardening that they have. Yeah. Well, you know, I'd say there there are definitely families out there who were involved in all of this, who don't want anything

to do with this, you know, who aren't in lawsuit and all of that. Of course. And I completely respect that decision because why would you want to get into any of this in a lot of ways. But it's really interesting that that my clients down in Texas, you know, where you have Lenny and Veronique and Neil and Scarlett, those are those are two families who were really heavily focused on right like they put up the Posner's address to where they go pick up their mail. I said they were starting up anti First Amendment terrorist organization that was coming after Info Wars viewers. They they said that Neil Hassan was lying about holding his son with a bull hole in the head, you know, like it's this really personal crap. And so these clients have

really stood up with their like because they were these personal targets to be able to make this fight on behalf of everybody. And it's really been a brave struggle, particularly, you know, if Lenny has been in this since the beginning, yeah, within within a couple of weeks of this of the shooting, he wrote to Info Wars and said, knock this off. Why are you doing this? You know, this is Lenny is upfront about the fact that, you know, probably driving, once he dropped Noah off that morning, he was driving away, he might have been listening to Info Wars. He was actually kind of into that stuff just because it was interesting to him. And to have these people stick because people don't what they sometimes don't realize is that

we're talking about five years of straight harassment, followed by three years of them making a mockery of their lawsuits. It's been almost a decade they've been having to deal with this crap. Yeah. And the thing that Alex always plays games with is that idea of like five years of harassment. He's like, I didn't say that stuff for five years on air. It's like, well, it's it's not that every day you were saying this stuff on air, it's that they have been subjected to this harassment that was facilitated for five years. I think, you know, some people who aren't really up to speed like we are on Jones, they understand that he said things about Sandy Hook, but probably think it was it was a handful of occasions over a couple of years, that kind of

thing. I was questioning. Yeah. Questioning. So that's the other big one I have to address as well. But you'll notice that if you watched his statement about in reaction to these default judgments, one of the things he said is, you know, I only mentioned this a couple of times, only a few times that I ever talked about Sandy Hook. And we don't because of your audience may not realize, but because of we bringing the suit, and then they're shortly thereafter, YouTube and Facebook deleting all their profiles, Infowars has lost irreparably a lot of its videos and content, it can't tell us everything. So we've kind of had to play Sherlock Holmes using the public record and try to figure out what videos were made and when. And right now, our best

estimate is that they made 100 episodes about Sandy Hook, that and so we're discussing the thing. We know that they made about 350 pages of Infowars articles about Sandy Hook. And so this is we're averaging about two shows a month over the entire span. Now there are some times when he hits it like 2015 and 2017, he is really hitting it hard. So those those have more times. But generally five years of the straight harassment, that people just don't know unless you're a real, I mean, everybody's seen the media matters clips, right? But but God, when you really dig in there, I'm telling you, you have to sit there and you have to watch an hour and a half of an unscripted conversation between Jones and Wolfgang how big that will fry you. You're one of the most prestigious

policemen who's ever lived on CNN all the time school safety experts. Yeah, they talk to you about Columbine. Yeah, all of that. And you hear it. One of the things that I mentioned to Jones, because Jones was was telling me about how credible he initially thought how big was. And I was like, sir, you've done Skype calls with how big you've seen how big home you've seen how he lives, you've seen who he is. You know who this man is, right? At one point I even used I mean, look, I would never normally say in a deposition, look, you got 4000 emails from him and reading them, you would agree with me, this man is a raving lunatic. I normally wouldn't use that kind of language. But Wolfgang how big and, you know, look, I don't, I don't think that I think that

that statement is a matter of my opinion. It's not a statement of fact. But if Wolfgang how big is upset about that, please, please sue me Wolfgang, because you're a raving lunatic and you have caused enormous pain to these families. And Jones knew that like, because that's my other problem is people, the number one question I get on these cases is, does Jones believe the things that he said? And all I can do is point you to the public record. That's all I can do is point you to the public record into the deposition transcripts. And I think it becomes very clear that no, he never for a second thought these things were fake. You know, Jones talks a lot about you were one of the observations you made that was very, very observant was the

the idea of the media jumping on with both feet of this idea that he said it was a psychosis that caused it. And that's not, it's not really what he said, right? He was making a metaphor and it kind of was still pretty crazy. And it was a dumb thing to say. But there are people out there, there are people out there who popular institutions and and and the powers that be and just the shitty deal you get in life in America has made them distrust basically all official sources of authority. There's no question that that's a real thing that happens to people that did not happen to Alex Jones. No, he's done that to other people. Exactly. He is profiting off of that. He understands that phenomenon and wants to inflame and exploit it and then be able to

profit from it. And he can point to that as a justification, but he is not one of those people. He does not have that psychosis. No, but I think it shows us that he it all was malicious. Every bit of it was malicious. I think I think that, you know, when he could still be a slight victim of that, like that mentality in as much as he was getting caught up in it as he was producing that content and it was becoming more successful, like if he just wasn't aware of what was going on and he wasn't aware, he's not in touch with himself. Yeah. You can easily find yourself snowballing a little bit. Yeah. Well, look, I do think there are just radicalizing yourself at that point. There's some moments where Jones is he's he's he he detaches from reality and just

sort of free spins. And then that way he made be sort of just theorizing in ways that aren't totally grounded, like when he'll talk about an interdimensional shadow government or some shit, you know, like that, that's out there. And then there are other times where I think he has somewhat convinced himself of his own BS, you know, some very basic world events. Oh, the Syrian chemical attack was faked or something like that right now, convince him of that. But when it comes to something like Sandy Hook was not an operating school, I don't believe Jones ever believed that or that there were there were kids who were recruited to play the parts of different dead children and they were shot. He didn't believe any of that.

I don't know. You know, what the scarier thought that I have is I don't think he ever cared about the truth or falsity of it. Yeah, he never cared enough. Like the expedience and the usefulness of this claim is more important than whether or not it's true. Yeah, that's really interesting. And just the level of conspiracy theory is such that I have no doubt that to a certain extent he was just on autopilot, you know, like he wasn't even paying attention to the fake shit he was saying, because it's the same stuff he said the last time, you know, that's something our expert has really harped on is that you can look at every single mass tragedy and it follows the same script. You can't really pick one. You know, it's interesting when

Watson was in deposition, I asked him, can you name me a mass casualty of any didn't say was a false flag? And he goes, well, I think maybe more of the recent ones like the El Paso shooting and then on the podcast, you don't know. We've heard him do it over and over again. And it is. It's in the law views it as when you have a person who is engaging in a course of conduct that shows a consistent form of behavior to advance their business, you can assume that they made the same the same justifications for this latest thing is consistent with everything else they've ever done. So the fact that he is within hours is going to call one of these events a mass tragedy shows you that it's a reckless disregard for the truth. That's not what's really important.

Yeah. And to circle back to something that we touched on a minute ago, it's not questioning things like there's such a distinction that he abuses when he says like, I was just questioning events and it's like, no, you're coming to conclusions. You're advancing a conclusion in the guise of pretending your question. Yeah, exactly. When you say there were men arrested in SWAT year, that's an assertion of fact. If that didn't happen, you're a liar. Like it's not just you have a bad opinion, right? Or the another one that he'll try to do a trick on you is he will put it in a question, but it will be a but it will be a why do you still beat your wife question? Yeah. And it's and it's that sort of thing. Why were there why were there no paramedics

allowed in the school? Well, I'm just questioning things. Yeah, but your question is based upon a lie that there were no paramedics in the school, right? And so there's it's never a matter of questioning. These guys, they don't question that's not what they do. They state false facts. And there's that classic clip of him saying that he had didn't believe it was fake at first, but then he looked into it deeply. And it was all fake, all actors. And that's not questioning. No, no, no, it is not. I mean, there is somewhere it's it's so unbelievably unequivocal of at first, I thought they killed real kids. Yeah. But now I know it's completely staged. And this is all totally synthetic and fake and hoax. And then it's coming in deposition. Yeah, I mean, I question

some things, but I never questioned it in totality of saying whether it was staged or and you could just play the clip right afterwards. It's just out of context. Yeah. And it's it's unbelievable that he can do it. And for me, I think what it came down to for Jones is, okay, so this is a scary part about jokes, the scariest part about him to his neck, it's freakishly large. He is a very large man. And he takes a lot of supplements, which could make him strong and fearsome in a fight. But the thing that really scares me about him is that I think that he deduced, perhaps correctly, that there are things more potent, more powerful, more useful in our current political dialogue than truth or verified facts, that that there are magical narratives that can represent what we want

and what we hope to achieve in our political agendas that are way more effective or useful than anything we could ever report truthfully. And so when the info war, there are six Supreme Court Justices who would say it's all about fairness and earning your way. I'm sure that it's about truth and honesty. I guarantee it. If the heart of the land is filled with truthful, honest people. But that is the scary part to me is that, you know, look, I think you could probably imagine you get involved in these cases as an attorney a couple years ago. And I started to get really enthusiastic about maybe some of the changes that could result from here. Not like, not only am I going to do something for these families, but maybe there is a cultural change into how we

talk about information. And then over the past three years, what have I seen? You know, I've seen a man who has been able to use his own frivolous disrespect to delay this process for three years. So there's no accountability. And over that same course of time, all of his more industry established contemporaries begin copying his formula. Are you talking about Mitch McConnell? You know, the one that springs to mind most potently to me is Tucker Carlson. Of course. Yeah. Yeah. Of course. Carlson looks more like info wars now than he did three years ago. And that's scary to me. He looks more like info wars than Glenn Beck did in 2009. Yep. That's true. Right. At least at least Beck had this sort of pseudo stage production of he's writing on

chalkboards, and it's just all kind of silly now. Carlson's is terrifying. And that's the same. Hopefully, there's so much overlap that Alex will just play long segments of Tucker's show on his show. Yeah, it's amazing. It's right at home there. Well, somebody used to tell me there was one of my one of my colleagues, Genevieve Zimmerman, was involved with the lawsuits against Jim Fetzer in Michigan, where Lenny Posner was able to win a defamation suit against Jim Fetzer. Interestingly enough, by result of default judgment, when Jim Fetzer refused to participate with court proceedings, so sort of birds of a feather flock together situation there. But Jen, when she was helping out with closing arguments had come up with the line for Jake

Zimmerman to use, which was calling what Jones did an alt right opium. Right. And I now I was really resonated with that phrase. But then over the past three years, I told her that phrase no longer works because it's not alt right opium anymore. It's just right opium. There is no alt anymore that what Jones did and what his flavor for how to manipulate facts and stuff is now just lingua franca for the entire conservative movement. And that's terrifying. It does feel like that. And I also think like just from my sense of things, just from my looking at everything, I don't think that he may even be aware of that, like that he discovered something more powerful than truth. I don't think he discovered it necessarily. But I mean, I don't think he knows what he's doing.

Ultimately, we have the same problem that you had in the depositions, which is this. They know, you know, they're lying. You know, they know they're lying. So all there is, the only question is, are you going to tell me that you were lying or not? So Alex is going to not say that he's lying and he'll accept any default judgment, anything, because then he doesn't have to say what everyone knows and why he's in the courtroom. I'm lying to you. That's right. You know, it's y'all didn't a discussion of perjury and civil versus criminal cases that was dead on point that if I was a criminal lawyer, I could, I could roast these people. I could have them against the wall in no time. But here in civil law, it's different.

So the best thing that I can do is to hopefully make sure the jury understands that they also know that they're lying. Yeah. Unless you see what their reactions are, because the reaction is the important part. That's what we were trying to do. And I think you could probably fully demonstrate quite a bit of that to a jury based on those depositions. Absolutely. No, it's going to be really interesting having them seeing them react to it. I'm excited for that. Yeah. So one thing we touched on that we haven't gotten to yet that I was really hoping to get your perspective on was how you felt the coverage of the case was. Do you feel like the media at large focused on the right points? Do you feel like, I think that's one of the things that

definitely become very interesting to me over the course of the time that we've done this podcast is seeing how people cover Alex. Right. And seeing the ways in which, you know, there's sometimes unforced errors and then sometimes people, you know, are like, this is, they, they got the right point there. To answer the first part, do I think the media has typically gotten this right? No. No, I do not. And that's, that's a shame. A lot of the media that's involved around Alex Jones is very clickbait media editors know that if they have a story about Alex Jones and the Sandy Hook lawsuit, it's going to get clicks. Psychosis. Exactly. Same deal. And the big problem for mine, look, I'm not, a lot of people would say, all right,

well, if you're getting my coverage wrong, you're usually almost always getting it wrong in a way that's critical to Alex Jones. So maybe that'd be good, but no, no, it's not. And the problem is, is that Jones knows very acutely that his ability to identify mistakes made by the mainstream media is, is one of his best defenses is that if you overshoot the target on Jones, he uses it as a way to martyr himself. There was, in fact, that, so I was just talking about the Jim Fetzer verdict up in Michigan, where there was, you know, one of his sources was, was helpful that a lot of newspapers ran a story that that was Alex Jones. You've got that. And Jones got on this show and made mainstream media look stupid because he said he was going to sue the Associated Press.

Yeah, that never happened. You know, that's, uh, there's, there's been a lot of threats of lawsuits all over the place that never materialized, but it always gives him a good sounding board to say for not being accurate when these people aren't being accurate about me. And that's, that's a good point. But what Jones never understood about me personally is that I'm not, those media, that's not, I'm not aligned with them. You give me a CNN story to fame in one of my clients. I'm suing CNN in a heartbeat because I guarantee it's way easier than suing this guy. Yeah. CNN's got insurance policies and lawyers who don't mess around. They're going to pay. Yeah, they might help with discovery. Yeah, exactly. You play another example. You remember,

um, uh, Boston bombing when the two Egyptian young men were identified on the front page of the New York Post, which is not a paper that you would, is, has a great reputation in terms of things like that in terms of reliability. Um, but they've got a big insurance policy. They've got lawyers. They got a lot to lose. They took care of those young men without even filing suit. Yeah. And, and we've got the exact same situation in this case. I'm not sure if y'all are aware of the other suit that I'm handling right now. It was actually the first one was Marcel Fontaine as a young man in Boston who was falsely identified as being the Parkland shooter. Right. Same deal as, I mean, worse than what happened to these Egyptian kids because they

were just like, they're pre people of interest. They might be the, you know, they, they put a picture of Marcel and said, here's the guy because he was, he was wearing a communist themed t-shirts. Yeah. Yep. Yep. There it was. That was the one that like had its roots in like 4chan, right? Exactly. Yeah. They took a post off of 4chan and reported it with no cooperation, which is they do that a bit. We've, we've, we've stumbled on a number of instances of that kind of journalistic integrity. Yeah. And it's, it's, it's, it's, they are even, you know, as even at one point Jones was trying to define what a source was in deposition. Source, source could be, you know, she saw the bathroom wall. I could be a source. Hey, I had

a dream. Yeah. That's, that's basically 4chan. That's what you're saying is, you know, the bathroom wall. Think about, think about the idea of that, that they want to say that journalism should be protected to the extent that if I see Jane's call for a good time called Jane Smith on a bathroom wall, I can go in the paper and report Jane Smith as a prostitute. And I'm okay. This is in the public interest. You're just asking questions about what's going on with Jane. Yeah. Exactly. The people are talking about it. Right. You know, I'm just talking about what the people are talking about. Someone other big excuse. Someone's passionate enough to write on a bathroom wall. We have to silence this voice on the bathroom wall. We have got one of the most

important whistleblowers in the world. Their information is so powerful. They couldn't put it anywhere but a bathroom stall. Sure. So it was, it was, it's funny that in Neil Heslund's case, they were relying off of, or relying, they had cited a blog post from a blog called Zero Hedge. I'm not sure. Oh yeah. Oh, we know. Hedge is an anonymously run libertarian financial freak out blog. I beg your pardon. All of the articles are written by Tyler Durden. Yeah. So, Zero Hedge had a blog post saying that Neil Heslund didn't help hold his kid and they, and that blog post itself cited Jim Fetzer. So it's just garbage in garbage to garbage, right? But, but that was their blog post. And then Owen Shroyer gets on and puts that on air and says,

Hey, I'm just reporting on what Zero Hedge is saying. When he puts up the Zero Hedge blog post, you can see the page. It has three shares at that moment, right? Like, nobody in the world has seen this. This is obviously Infowars and Zero Hedge are hand in glove and like doing this sort of thing. But to say that you're just reporting on what other people are saying. So I'm just going to bring on old Dr. Steve P and just let him go nuts. Just wind him up. Just let him go. And, and you know what you're doing. You knew we have the emails that are in this case that have been filed with the court that show that before they put Dr. Steve P on, they knew exactly what he was going to say and encouraged him to say it. And you got, you got to get him in a deposition. Oh God,

I want it so bad. I would love that. We would do a whole series of episodes. Everything, everything. You know, it's, there's so many names that you can't get to a Johnny Bravo would be just a wonderful guy to have on the show at some point. You know, this whole thing. But yeah, Dr. Steve P is a great character. If I haven't, I haven't, if you could ever get Alex back under oath, I'd like you to ask him if he believes he's fighting the literal devil. I don't, I think that might be unprofessional of you to do, but it's something I'm very curious how he would answer. No, I think that speaks to a state of mind. Don't you? I mean, he's led me to believe through listening to the show that he definitely believes he's fighting the literal Christian devil. Yeah, the literal one. Yeah,

exactly. And that's what I kind of want to know is in the deposition from his standpoint, do I smell like sulfur? Can you get it from across there? Like that's a good question. I'll tell you this though. You're assuming that we don't see massive contempt of court in the next couple of weeks. Your wish will be granted because he is currently set to be deposed again on October 22. I can't wait. I hope that video ends up on YouTube as well. Look, here's the other thing you have to remember is that in like when I deposed Paul Joseph Lawson, you'll saw that I had emails, right? Like I had internal documents, I had some things to talk to him about. When I deposed Jones, I did not. At that point in the proceedings, they had not yet produced

anything. I was flying completely blind in that Jones deposition. It was based on my own research, nothing that came from the company. Now we're in a very different situation. Now we have things. So, you know, a lot of the song and dance that a lot of people saw was Jones's hymning and hawing about who Dan Badandi was and whether that was an employee, whether he sent the Kraken to go harass the people of Newtown. Independent contractor, never met him before in my life. Spoiler alert, he hired him and he calls him the Kraken. Nope, no clue what he's talking about. Never met him. Because it shows my frustration with how Jones talks about this case publicly and how it comes out in the depositions and all of this. When you don't

have the documents, he'll say, yeah, we got rid of Dan Badandi. We didn't like what he was doing up there in Newtown. That just really bothered us. We had to get rid of him. And then six weeks later, you get the emails and it shows, no, they were still paying him through 2016. They fired him because he embarrassed them at a Trump rally. Apparently he was making some inappropriate comments to a female conservative journalist at a Trump rally. And they were like, you can't have that anymore because we got to preserve our relationship with these conservative media outlets. And we got to make sure we can still get into Trump rallies. And so they didn't care that Dan Badandi chased a bunch of people around Newtown, right? They didn't care they hung out

with Wolfgang Halbig, where you've got Halbig showing up in a white unmarked van taking video of children at the Catholic private school. Like none of that do they care about. He was a made man after the Boston bombing press conference. After he disrupted that and got so much traffic to Info Wars. Yeah, that one he dined out on for years. Yeah, literally. Yeah. Well, you realize Owen Schroyer tried to make the same mark. He basically tried to do the same thing by the proceedings. Yeah, with the impeachment. Exactly. Right. So and that's why, you know, one of the things that we brought up at our last hearing is we were granted in 2018, we were granted an order saying that we were supposed to have Owen's deposition along with

several other people and we never got them. They refused to produce them. And now I'm in a position of who I really want Owen Schroyer's deposition and I'm not sure I'm going to get it because there's a very good chance he could be in federal custody by the time I want it. And because right now he's in a situation where he's facing these charges for breach of basically federal trespassing. Well, it wouldn't normally be that serious except he did it a year ago and didn't show up for community service. Yep. We told the judge to look, we're concerned not only about that deposition, but that's why we want this deposition of Jones in October is because we're a little worried. If you look in Schroyer's arrest affidavit with all the pictures of Owen Schroyer being places

he's not supposed to be, Jones is standing right next to him. So we're speaking in arrest fairly soon. I wouldn't expect anything from Alex because the reason that Owen got in trouble was because he had a restraining order that because he didn't do the community service, he was barred from being in all of those places. Alex being there with him, I don't think it matters as much because he didn't have that sort of. Yeah. He wasn't trespassing. That's the theory anyway. I mean, look, people say a lot of stuff and I don't know what's happening in the federal investigation, but people say whatever they could get Jones off of those pictures is such a minor crime as to not even be worth the trouble. And as you can tell more than anyone else, it would be trouble.

But I think we've all seen enough mafia movies to know why the federal authorities might go arrest somebody like Owen Schroyer. I think we know what they're thinking about what Owen Schroyer could give to them. A could lead to C could lead to exactly. Yeah. You follow the crazy as we want that I patched Oathkeeper and this is where we start. All right, we're going to get Owen and then we're going to get that fucker and then it's going to be over. Bring me. I mean, the thing about it is, it is it's a distraction to my case, right? Like it's not great to have this criminal stuff going on alongside of it because it is a distraction. And I want this over. I want this to be done as soon as possible because it is for these families. They're ready. Boy, are they ready just to have it.

You know, it was interesting a couple years ago, we got them to admit under oath that Sandy Hook happened. That was sort of like a big step for the family is just they were like, okay, that's that's one step, but we got to get to the end here. Yeah. Finally, maybe happening. I don't I don't know. I was getting real pessimistic. I'm gonna be honest with you guys. Really pessimistic, not about our case, because I knew I would pursue Jones to the end of the earth and grind them in dust. That was never a question to me. But was it actually going to make a difference to anybody anywhere? I mean, first, could I make a difference for my own clients? Could we even collect from him? All those sorts of things. But then I started seeing, gosh, when I started

seeing coronavirus hit and I started seeing just the absolute insanity of the false facts being put out there. When I saw January six go down the big lie around the election, I'm like, are we too far gone? Did these lawsuits need to be brought several years ago? Or is this too late? What's going on? But I'll tell you, the last couple of weeks, I'm feeling a little more optimistic. I think I've taken notice of this. I bet that there's a real like feeling of exhaling, you know, like that at least on some level, it feels like you're on the way up at least instead of instead of on the way down to even lower wherever it can go. Because you're at the mercy of somebody who's dragging their heels as long as they're allowed to drag their heels. Exactly. And really is that way.

And once the judge orders no heel dragging, then everything starts moving a lot quicker. One of these things too that occurs to me about it is like three years later, and it's finally they are the cause of their own demise. I feel pretty good about how I've handled this case. I feel like I've done some really good work in it. But the truth of the matter is, they are the cause of their own demise. I think anybody who spends a bit of time listening to infowars or knows it semi critically would never expect anything other, you know, like I do feel like they would always be the root of their destruction. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, I think that's true. When Jones was really mad after our deposition, he got on and talked about me for a

couple of hours. One of the things he was saying is, you know, they're all calling this lawyer the new Perry Mason, you know, and all this stuff. And I'm like, I'm like, that's cool. I'm glad you're saying that. I love it. But honestly, most credit goes to you, man. Like, I wish I could take more of the credit than I am. But it really is a man who is self-destructing in almost an epic Greek tragedy sort of way. And I'm just here as a conductor on the train. Like, I'm just driving up to the station. At this point, there's no turns to be made. It's just a track going to one place and we're just going down the track. When we go back to the 2003 episodes, there is a certain feel of like, you're looking at the man who is inexorably going to wind up where we are

right now, you know, like his behavior then will eventually lead to where we are now. That's fascinating. That's just going to happen. I knew I was doing some of that. I saw that you were looking at some of those earlier episodes. And I haven't, I mean, that takes me back to my college days, you know, like when I was in UT around like 99, 2000, that's when Jones started to become kind of huge, moving from public access to what he is today. And I really want to now go back and listen to some of those episodes from 2003 because to see the sort of embryonic chaos agent starting to take form. They're bizarre. One of the recent ones we went over, he interviewed a guy who had gone to heaven.

And it was fantastic. It was fantastic. There's a waiting room in heaven. Your best friend is your imaginary friend. And he's also the guy who's snitching on you to God. He's your guardian angel. Yeah. Is your childhood transition, though, that occurs with Jones that I know that y'all seen it through the history. I mean, look, one of the things that becomes obvious to me when I'm watching these videos is you watch a video in 2013 versus 2015 versus 2017. The sets are different. And you can see the evolution of the show through its sets. And now it's this big gaudy CNN looking set. And it's, it's funny to me how there are so many things that I know from what I think of Jones, from what I came up with him in the 2000s is not who he is today.

Because to me, Jones is the guy who's about to be in tears over the alien fish hybrids. They're in the tanks and they're moving their flippers. And oh, my gosh, I never seen it. Sad human eyes. Sad human eyes. Right. Right. And it's so silly. It's so, and people, for so many years, people made viral video clips and stuff that were just making fun of these silly things Alex Jones would say. And then somewhere along the line, and it happened almost, I mean, John is faced on Sandy Hook looking both directions. It's from Sandy Hook forward, it's a completely, he's starting to edge into a completely different thing.

There is not just so, he's not a lizard person, silly, Jeff rent style absurdity. Now there's something more sinister because it's being portrayed as hard news. Right. Like, I'm not going to be showing my jury a lot of videos from him in the 2000s talking about the gay frogs or the fish hybrids or that kind of crap. Because what they need to see is that ever since then in the last few years, he's tried to sound self office legit news. How many times a day infowars says you're getting the real truth here at infowars. The mainstream media is fake news. We're tomorrow's news today. Oh, wow. Yeah. Exactly. Right. Yep. News of the future. Now admittedly, he shares a lot of news from six months ago, but it is tomorrow's news.

Often blog posts from six months ago. There's something almost or welling in about tomorrow's news today. Right. Like this idea that he's creating it himself. Oh, man, that's wild. I had one question that I definitely needed to ask you. So I want to just, I want to, I want to jam this in. And is that what's your favorite Sunday? That was it. He and Alex's defense after these default judgments came out, he said that in this case, the opposing council was demanding that he produce something that he referred to as Sandy Hook marketing material. What can you talk a little bit about what he could have been referring to? All right. So he's mostly talking about the Lafferty case in Connecticut. He's

mostly talking about that Connecticut case. And it's not even with this stuff that happened. Not even with what just happened. In other words, the discovery requests that were at issue in Texas that made him default the case. None of this has anything to do with that. So just to make that clear right off the bat. But in Connecticut, they had asked him, it wasn't really Sandy Hook marketing materials. Basically what it was is they wanted any, for any episode that Sandy Hook was discussed about, they wanted InfoWars internal analytics, right? They wanted to know what did they get off of Google ads? What did they get? How many hits did they get? These sorts of things. And then InfoWars also uses things like an internal Google analytics

program. It has some other metrics that it uses there. And they wanted to request all of that, which I think makes sense. Pretty fair request. You got to know particularly the amount of views, right? Because if you want to establish how these people were damaged, you have to know how many people saw it, right? So ultimately the total audience of InfoWars is important. They asked for also, I think if they had, if there were any emails that referred to special marketing initiatives for Sandy Hook. And by that, I mean, we're going to make a special promotional page or we're going to, can you make sure on this video, can you promote some Sandy Hook videos? Because they've been really popular. If there's an email like that, obviously we want

to see it. You have to remember that despite InfoWars revenue and its sets and everything, ultimately at core, it's not a very sophisticated business. Yeah. We're not like, Hey, can you produce us your marketing director that you don't have one of those? So like, don't. Yeah. And the way he's going to be Rob Do again. It's just going to keep being Rob Do. Can you produce anything for me? It's going to keep being Rob Do. He's just going to show up. Rob Do in a silly hat. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Because the way Alex makes it seem is like they're demanding that I bring like to them, like these flyers that we printed up with Sandy Hook sale going on. That doesn't exist. How can I produce that? No, I mean, there is, there's

obviously a lot of, when you're a digital web business, you publishes on the web, you're going to have some, some statistics about what happened to your videos. Sure. And those are things they want. But what's, what's mind blowing about it is that, is that in my case, we aren't even there yet. Like, like we have, we have just recently got started to broach some of those issues. But in my case, it's like, okay, here would be a sample request that they're not answering is identify every video in which info was discussed, the Sandy Hook tragedy that that has never been answered. Right. Like these are very, very simple things. And that was what I think was most shocking to our judge is that you have these requests that were supposed to be answered in 2018. Like at the

very beginning of the case. So you can even start feeling your way around in the dark, right? Like, like this is so basic. And so for Jones to go on there and pretend like he has been unjustly had his right to a jury taken away. This is a flatly absurd. Yeah. I agree. I was just, I, I, the cap, he, that's one of the sticking points is that he really makes me think that there's something out there that he doesn't want to give us in terms of that. Cause he really is focused on this whole Sandy Hook marketing thing. And I don't understand why he's so hung up on it. It might just be that he doesn't understand what he's being asked. Have you guys ever run a Sandy Hook 50% off sale is probably a question he doesn't know the answer

to and definitely doesn't want to find out the answer to. We could have done that. So I just don't want to find out. I do, I do love, I do love the judge being surprised when you asked that give me all the videos where you have said something about Sandy Hook and the judge is surprised they didn't do it. Immediately my thought was just like, Oh, they said that sounds really hard and just didn't do it. Right. Right. That was like, how could you guys be surprised by that? I know these people. They said, that's hard. I won't do it. And then maybe you'll go away. But it's half of that. It's half of, it's hard. It's half of, we've been so insanely negligent ever since being sued that we have caused massive amounts of evidence to be destroyed

and can never produce it to you. And if they ever have to really fully just be up front and admit that, that also has some pretty severe consequences. Yeah, yeah, that's not good. I mean, at this point, you know, that's, that's honestly the challenge is going to be as for those of people who I know your, your audience is for those who watch this, this, these proceedings, the challenge going forward is if there's any more shenanigans, how exactly do you punish them? Right. Like there's not much more you can do at this point. Yeah, that was, that was a question I had in my head too. Like, you know, because you still have the process that you have to go through in terms of getting to the jury deciding the damages. Absolutely. And he does have the some ability to drag his heels on that

still. Absolutely. He does. And in order to cause other crazy problems, you got to remember my, my plaintiffs are going to be asked to give testimony soon. And some of the things are going to be tested about testifying about our confidential private health information, that sort of stuff. And they've already made a mockery of that stuff up in Connecticut. You know, they, I don't know if y'all followed this one, this one was fascinating to me of just how detached from reality their strategy has become is they were in the middle of deposing a plaintiff, Sandy Hook parent, right? And the deposition itself is designated confidential attorneys eyes only at the start of the deposition. She means this doesn't get released to the public. And in the

middle of that deposition, Norm Patis, their lawyer starts live streaming. Basically. Basically, that's what he did. He did not start doing it. I mean, didn't live streaming. What he did was he started writing down the things that the plaintiff was saying, the confidential testimony, inserted that into a motion and then filed that motion publicly with the court on the court's docket where everybody can get a copy of it. And okay, so now the part of this that's going to make you just your jaw drop at this is not only is that insane, the motion that he was filing was a motion to request that the court compel the deposition of Hillary Clinton. Yes, because apparently, according to Jones, these lawsuits, the only reason they happened

is because Hillary Clinton was mad. And then for some reason, like about two years after she lost the election, she decided to go recruit some attorneys and the Sandy Hook families to pursue a vendetta against Alex Jones and that apparently I'm under Clinton payroll and all this stuff. It does not sound like something a malignant narcissist would invent ever do. Right. That sounds crazy. I think I think he thinks that Hillary said he had a black heart or something like that. And that was the sign that she's coming after him. Well, you know, in Jones' own feverish sort of construction of all of this, Hillary Clinton is a big reason why he said some of the things he said about Sandy Hook, particularly after 2016. Because when she used

him as a prop to attack Trump and to say Trump's associated with this guy and this guy's a mess, right? And this guy said Sandy Hook didn't happen. And everything she said about him was 100% true, but she was using him very clearly as a campaign prop to try to score some points. And I got no problem with that, whatever. But but once he did that, that enraged Jones. That was it. Because Jones at that point was on this trajectory to become very mainstream. He had he had got Trump on a show. He was being credited at that time with Trump's victory. And so that's why just after the election in November, right after the election, he did a broadcast called Alex Jones' final statement about Sandy Hook. And basically he couldn't stop talking about it because Hillary

talked about him. So he had to respond back. So his genius idea was to get on there and go, well, look, here's all the reasons I thought it was fake. And honestly, if it hadn't been for that, like some of this case would have never happened, right? If the parents, they were of the position that if Jones had stopped after 2016, they probably wouldn't have pursued this, right? But it was this vendetta that kept up is that not only did he do it then, but then just a couple months later in the new year in 2017, he did a video called Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed. Yeah. And you know, that's the one that accuses my clients of faking a blue screen. So here we are in 2017 and he just can't stop because he's also pissed at these parents. He's so pissed at Hillary Clinton.

Also rough name. I would, I would fire whoever named these videos. Sandy Hook Vampires Exposed doesn't look good just as a title. Not great. You know, though, like, I mean, I can understand him being mad at Hillary. You know, she's been his villain for 20 years or so. Right. Also, she lost and ruined everybody's life. Exactly. So I mean, I'm sure he's mad at her about that too. Yeah. Well, I don't know if there's any other points you want to get to, but I feel like yeah, is there anything that the media has not said at all that you want to that you feel like there's some information that nobody has really touched on? I'm really surprised that nobody in the media reported that in his 20, his November 27, sorry, November 2019 deposition,

his second deposition, that he ended that deposition by saying Epstein didn't kill himself. And that to me is hilarious. It's like you, you have made this, you understand what a mockery you've made of this, that you're willing to do that at the end of that deposition. This is just promotional. Yeah. During that deposition, he was so eager to talk about Epstein. He really, really wanted to talk about Epstein. And then I kept telling him during the deposition, no, don't, we're going to get to Epstein. I believe there was a point where like, I promise we'll get back to that. And I'll tell you, there were several points in there where his eyes glaze over because he

doesn't know what's happening because he's like, oh my God, I'm agreeing with a lot of this thing this guy's saying right now. I don't know what to do because I'm sitting there telling him like, I think you and I agree that most of the people who run this world, who are in the ruling class of this country in the world are mainly psychopaths and criminals. And he was like, yeah, I do. Yeah. It's very strange because of course, he still wants to cast me as something that I'm not, right? Like he's really, really interested in making it seem that I'm a democratic operative or something like that. You know, we were talking a little bit about his motion to depose Hillary Clinton and his sort of obsession with this idea that these lawsuits were entirely motivated by

Hillary Clinton's vendetta against him. Yeah. Persecution complex. It's weird because it's like, do you think there's really that shortage of many people who'd love to do these lawsuits? Like only Hillary could hate me. There's no one else in the world who could want to bring me down, right? It's funny because, okay, so just some inside baseball on this is that as a plaintiff's lawyer, what I do is when people come to me for help, they don't pay me any money, right? Like I'm sort of thinking of it like a pirate, right? Like somebody comes to a pirate and says, these Spaniards took all my gold and I want you to go get it back. And I'm like, okay, I'll outfit a fast ship with a lot of guns. I'll try to go get your gold. I'm keeping a third of it

and I'll front any expenses. And if I don't get the gold, you don't know me anything. I'll eat that expense. You're working on spec as they say in the industry. The way plaintiffs lawyers say it is, you talk to these lawyers who bill by hours and you say, that's not me. I'm a plaintiff's lawyer. I eat what I kill. And that's basically how it works. And so for most of my cases, I'm going to say if I'm involved in a medical device case or if I've got a product case, I've got to pay experts. My firm, we're putting in $200,250 into a case before we see a dime on it and trying to make that happen. Alex, this case hasn't cost as much. And honestly, it's just different than a lot of cases that we do. And Jones is convinced of this idea that it must be

funded by Hillary Clinton or something. And we've been really upfront about it since the beginning. My firm, Farron Ball is fronted at every expense on this. We're happy to do it. We're excited to do it. There's not many law firms who do what I do who wouldn't love to do this. I mean, Have you produced the Hillary Clinton marketing materials? I have not. You know what else is waiting for a request for production on all my George Soros emails? Sure, sure. Those come in. But yeah, what they never figured out, look, you know, it's interesting, you look at the law firm up there in Connecticut, who's doing that Connecticut case, the Costco firm. And they're a very button up, very normal kind of law firm, very respectable,

you know, have their have their ties on really nice. I'm the guy on a profane podcast about slightly different approaches. Right. I'm a little bit of a different lawyer. A little bit. And what I don't think they realize is I came into their lives representing a young communist out of Massachusetts and not San Diego. Doesn't the San Diego parents came to me because I brought a suit on behalf of this young communist. And I am not a Hillary Clinton operative. That's there's no way shape or form. But they never get this. And they they the entire Info Wars organization is convinced that this is all about a political vendetta against them. When when really, they just open themselves up to this. Yeah, it could have been

anybody who did this to them. It's a terrifying combination of just like narcissism and black and white thinking, you know, like just absolute and everyone is against me because I'm the greatest. It is. It is funny. He talks about international global politics all the time, thinking that he's a big time show. But really, he only knows like 10 people. So yeah, exactly. Okay. So who's bringing this lawsuit? I don't know any of these people. So it's got to be one of the 10 people I know. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. When you have that simple of a worldview, it just you cram everything into it and run out of characters. He has a really small world. It's just a really small place in his head. It's like a sitcom with a low budget. Yes. Not a lot of locations,

not a lot of characters. Yeah, mainly my documentary style. My other kind of final thoughts and this is addressed to the state bar of Texas when they finally review this and listen to me talk on this is listen, guys. I know we've we've been a little loose and wild today in little profane here. I know that I did my my imitations Alex Jones. I know I did a couple of those just wanted for the record. He imitated me first. So I think it's fair. He compared me to golem and said that I was a gremlin. He even said he was gonna make a little goblin bankstone doll. And I just that hasn't happened yet because I'm I am number one who's gonna buy one. Oh, yeah. He started it. Okay. So I just I want that to be

fair for the state bar. He started it. And though in all seriousness, it has been a situation where his public statements have been absurd. I've for somebody, look, I have the opportunity to be on national television whenever I want. If somebody wants to talk to Sandy Hook lawyer, it's going to happen. And I haven't done that. I've done it fairly infrequently. You know, I've when we first started, I went on the Today Show the very first time. I've done a PBS frontline appearance about this issue to talk about it. But other than that, like we don't, that's not where we're fighting this. And I wanted to come talk about it with y'all's audience, because one, your audience is never going to be on the jury. If there's anybody who watches Knowledge Fight, they're getting taken off

the jury. They're not going to make it. Very. I feel heard of interest or strong feelings in Alex Jones. You will not be on this jury. So I'm not worried about influencing the jury pool or anything. But I did want to come talk about it with y'all because I feel like this suit has been really interesting to the wider culture and not enough really hard analysis is being done on it. Not enough real attention is being paid to it. And I know y'all guys come out and like to have fun with it, but y'all are doing a really big service. A lot of people have learned a lot more about what this show really is from Knowledge Fight. And I just wanted to thank y'all for that. Oh man. Yeah. I'm overwhelmed to hear that. And thank you. We reject your thanks completely. Your positive

statements have no place here. Get me from me. I was talking to a friend last night about how we were going to do this interview and I was like, man, I hope he doesn't compliment us. That's the thing I'm most anxious about. Nope. Two shitheads in Chicago. Thank you. Goodbye. It's I was telling somebody last night, I'm going to go on a show. There are, there are, you can count on one hand the number of people in the world who know more about Alex Jones than I do. And I'm currently talking to two of them. You're talking to one of them. Jordan, I don't know. I think you could do some callbacks that I probably could do. I bet, I bet you know more about Alex Jones than most, but you're probably not in the top five. I've got a lot somewhere

in my head. I don't have action. I don't have like the ability to call it whenever I want, but it's been, now I'm being a petty narcissist about this. No, I'll take it. Well, thank you so much for joining us, Mark. I hope at some point we can reconnect and maybe check in another time. Well, I'm sure, look, if Alex comes on and says some more crazy stuff between now and trial, I'd love to come back and talk to y'all about that. We play a video and talk all about it, but otherwise let's try to plan on me having a verdict sometime near the end of April and we'll come back and talk about what that means. Awesome. Maybe writing time for my birthday. I'm all about it. I'm all about it. Awesome. Well, thank you again, Mark. It's been

an absolute delight to talk to you and I wish you and everyone on your side of the case, all the best. We're going to keep doing what we can do. Awesome. Thank you. Thanks, guys. Wow. That was illuminating. What are the odds? Who would have guessed? That was a lot of fun. Thank you so much to Mark for joining us and having that little chat. And for all the work, I mean, spectacular. Just spectacular job. And congratulations too, I think. Huge congratulations. I'm not sure if we articulated that enough in our conversation, but it's got to just feel great. At least that chapter to have come to a close. And just sheer and just talking to him. He pulled it off like

he hadn't spent the last four years in hell, you know, like he pulled it off like this wasn't a crushing, miserable thing to do on a daily basis filled with abuse, bullshit, and it looking like it might never end, you know, and he fucking did it. Yeah. Hell yeah. Maybe a little bit of that humor armor can help. Yeah. Yeah. But Jordan, we are not just here to have an interview with Mark Bankston. We are also here to discuss Alex's immediate response that he put out the night that these, you know, these yes, these summary judgment. That's not it default judgements came around. And so he put out he put out a little piece and it's not good. It's it's not not a very compelling piece of business. Any, any bounties, any, no, any threats. I think he learned his lesson on

that one. Also, Norm isn't there watching Alex just drunkenly spiral. That's fair. That's a good idea. So let's start at the beginning. Here is where we're at. It's the left. The left in this country has completely weaponized the legal system and the judiciary. There are so many examples of it. But just in the last few days, a decorated Lieutenant Colonel who came out and criticized the hasty, horribly organized withdrawal of Afghanistan is sitting in a military stockade in a brig in a prison without even being charged with a crime yet. And he's already been there five days. This is about Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Sheller, who had criticized the Biden administration's handling of the withdrawal from Afghanistan in a video that he posted on Facebook. He was relieved

of command and put in the brig a camp Lejeune in North Carolina awaiting trial. This is pretty messed up and I can see how this would worry anybody, but has nothing to do with the left or the judiciary. This has to do with how there are different rules of conduct when you agree to enlist in the armed services. There are military rules and they they apply to you and not to non enlisted persons. And when you break them, you get in different sort of trouble. These are martial laws. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You can't even really say no to him. Yeah, yeah, because he violated a gag order after being relieved of command by posting the videos he put on Facebook. Sheller is accused of quote showing contempt towards officials willfully disobeying a superior officer, failing to obey

lawful orders and committing conduct unbecoming of an officer. Yeah, I can agree that it might be a productive conversation to discuss how weird it is that the military has these own rules that it has for its members to be subjected to. But in terms of Alex's response to, you know, like he's getting on air to talk about losing these multiple Sandy Hook cases. This has nothing to do with anything. I was about to say if I was directing this, I would have been like, Alex, quick cut. All right, we're going to start over. Okay, we're going to take this again. It's just real quick. We're talking about your Sandy Hook lawsuit off track a little. You've already left the station. Okay. If this is the way he's deciding to start discussing this.

Exactly. I don't have a lot of faith that this is going to keep going or reach anywhere. Listen, I know everybody's read the news, but what they are not talking about is that it is still Fat Bear Week and the weak Elv Fat Bear should be held sacred. Okay. If I could be clear about this, I think Alex should be more productive and less dangerous if he did just cover Fat Bear Week. Everybody would have a much better time. Yeah. So yeah, this was not good. I thought like, well, we're not going to get a whole lot here, but what we do get right off the bat is a little bit of a confused timeline of events. Unsurprising. Now, if you go back almost 10 years ago, we saw the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook,

and it was hard for Americans to believe that someone would go in and execute a bunch of elementary school students, and the internet quickly had questions and talked about anomalies. It was something that I only covered a few times on air, but what years later, evidence came out that some of those anomalies were not accurate. And I said, I believe Sandy Hook actually happened. It was the minute that I said, I thought it happened that the mainstream media said, Oh, you said it didn't happen for attention. When in truth, I almost had employees quit over it. A lot of people disagree with me, including some of my family. And it was not a popular view on my show. I can speak as someone who listened back to the

entire period after the shooting. And with absolute confidence, I can say that that's bullshit. It's a good spin for Alex, because most people won't actually go back and check. And idiots like Joe Rogan fall for this kind of line. But that is definitely false. But even leaving that aside, that clip makes no sense. Alex is trying to make two claims simultaneously. And it's really hard for both of them to be true. The first is that he barely ever talked about Sandy Hook, maybe just a few times. And he was just covering what the internet was saying. And then the second thing he's trying to claim is that the coverage of Sandy Hook was so unpopular that some of Alex's family disagreed with him and staff almost quit because of it.

That seems convoluted. I don't know how both of those can actually be his accurate retelling of events. Well, I mean, he did it two or three times. And then there was such an uproar over it that he never talked about it again until several years later, whenever he finally said that he believes it happened. And then everybody was like, haha, now it's time to take you to the cleaners. Well, what about those years in between where you're, I mean, he mentioned it maybe 70, 100, 200 times. I mean, yeah, but I mean, but other than those other than, yeah, like I feel like you're the one being obtuse here. Fair enough. I should probably get off my damn high horse. I should probably stop thinking like, hey, Alex is just questioning things, man. Yeah.

Just why am I so uptight about this stuff? Everybody hates the questioners, but they're the ones who lead us forward. Right. So the idea that I questioned Sandy Hook because it was some master plan of minding it famous was completely asinine. I questioned WMDs in Iraq. I was right about that. I questioned babies and the incubators being thrown up by Saddam. That wasn't true either. I questioned Jesse Smollett and that was a fraud. I questioned Bubba Wallace. I questioned hundreds of other events out there that have turned out to be staged like the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964 that got us into Vietnam. First of all, no one's claiming that Alex had a grand design to get rich and famous by way of lying about Sandy Hook, or at least that's not a matter for the

courts. Right. Immediately. Right. Alex is trying to implant that idea in his audience's head because it's a more defensible straw man than dealing with reality. Alex's list of things he's questioned is a little bizarre, though. For one, I don't think he was the one who questioned the Gulf of Tonkin incident if only because it happened 10 years before he was born. Yeah, but he was the first person to really look into it. Second, the cases of Jesse Smollett and Bubba Wallace are the only two recent examples he comes up with. And those are both times that he just had a knee jerk denial about allegations of racially motivated crimes. If you listen to our show, you'll find way more examples of times when Alex was very wrong about denying racist violence.

He doesn't bring those times up. Oh, no. You're always batting a thousand so long as you pretend that all the times that you struck out didn't happen. And that's what his audience allows him to do. It's amazing. Of course. What a cheat. Just a cheat code. 100 percent. 100. Well, now he does get things wrong. He's a 97 percenter. Alex is playing like propaganda with a game genie. Yeah, it's not fair. Totally. Now we're old. That one was definitely that one's definitely world. Shit. That's the one large issue of his comment. But then there's another one, and that is that Alex is not questioning things. He comes to conclusions. It would be one thing if Alex's coverage was what he imagines it was. It would still be dumb and dangerous. But if he was

dryly reporting that online conspiracy communities had questions about alleged irregularities in the Sandy Hook case, that could be argued to just be questioning. What Alex was doing was persuading, which is different than questioning. Questioning seeks truth through asking sometimes unpopular questions. Persuading has a conclusion that the audience is supposed to be drawn to. And oftentimes, you can ask loaded questions as a tool that you can use in the path of your persuasion. And that's what Alex does. Yeah. And it's nonsense. You're not questioning shit. Yeah, that's why in court you can't do that. It's called a leading question. You're not allowed to do it the way. If if Alex wasn't guilty of stuff, then he would be able to do the same stuff he does in the courtroom. The

fact that he can't do any of the things he does, the moment he steps into a place where it means something should tell you all you need to know. And it seems to happen over and over and over again with all these people. Yeah. So look, man, Sandy Hook wasn't that big, big part of Alex's career. It's no big deal. Look, man, please. It's not a big deal. No big deal. Sandy Hook is a blip on the radar screen in the different stories, the tens of thousands I've covered. But it's not a blip on the radar screen for the lobbies that are anti-gun, the big corporate institutions that seek to disarm the American people, the families of those able to use. Oh, you didn't of those children. You didn't have to sue Remington into bankruptcy and to demonize the

idea of self-defense itself and to try to basically destroy and steal the birthright of self-defense from all Americans. That's just so fucking callous and just insulting. That's insane. He's saying that his actions are just like a blip in his career, but it wasn't a blip to the evil gun grabbers that he's against. And they're around every court. Your response is exactly the same thing that I was experiencing when I was listening to that. Yeah, you know who else it wasn't a blip for people who lost their loved ones. You asshole. No, I mean, it's straight. This is crazy. But what he's literally doing in that sentence is denying that there were victims at Sandy Hook. Well, he's at least ignoring it. And then another thing he's doing is he's taking away their agency.

Yeah, exactly. They're being used as pawns in the game that the gun grabbers are trying to play. Again, they're not real. They're fake. No, no, no. They could be whether or not they're they're literally real. Yes. But their intentions are fake. Yes. Again, their concerns are being weaponized by the gun grabbers in a way that would lead one to believe if you believe Alex that their concerns aren't real. Exactly. And that is fucking disgusting. It is him doubling the fuck down. If you if you meant any of what you said about any of what you're saying right now, you'd say I'm sorry to the victims. Yes, that's it. Also, this is like how supervillains talk. Like this is like it was just a blip in my career. Totally. Isn't that like from a street fighter

the day Bison visited your village was a day you'll never forget. But Bison, it was a Tuesday. Nothing. It was nothing to me. Yeah, that sucks. This guy is a piece of shit. He is a real piece of shit. Unreal. Unreal. Fuck me. Yeah, that clip was where I was like, well, we're off the rails. That's that's going in the money. That's going in the money hearing. I'm putting that play that shit right there. See, even after he fucking lost, he's pretending they're not real. Yeah, Jesus. Yeah, it's wild. Wild. But Alex is really the victim here. I can't see any possible way that's true. But I will give him a story that I'll show you in a moment. Even their top legal expert says that these death penalty sanctions are basically a myth because you're guaranteed

to be able to try the facts of the case. So this is a legal theory they're trying to get through to get rid of due process using the straw man of the demonized villain Alex Jones. This endangers everybody's due process. Everybody's free speech. Wow. The system is hoping that they can have the Alex Jones law. That's what they call it to get rid of people's free speech selectively while protecting the corporate media's free speech. That's not how history works. Everybody is going to get burned by this. This is nonsense. If anything, Alex has been given excessive due process and given every opportunity to cooperate with the case. And he's shown himself to be unwilling at every turn. This isn't the court depriving Alex of his rights. It's him shooting

himself in the foot. Yeah. In the court order for default judgment, they specifically say that they have gotten no response and discovery request since July 2, which was months ago. This isn't the court failing. It's Alex's sabotage. And it's pretty funny too. Like the order makes it clear that this is not a lawyer problem. It's Alex quote. It is clear to the court that discovery misconduct is properly attributable to the client and not the attorney, especially since defendants have been represented by seven attorneys over the course of the suit. Regardless of the attorney, defendant's discovery abuse remained consistent. Also, the Huffington Post article that Alex is talking about, it wasn't quoting their top legal

expert. They were quoting Bill Ogden, who's a lawyer at Ferrari and Bell, which is the law firm that Mark Bankston works at. Yeah. He's Bill Ogden's the guy who he referenced was doing the Rob Dewey deposition. Yeah. Yeah. So their pictures are even right next to each other on the law firm's website. This isn't a lawyer saying that this is just a legal theory. He's saying that it's taught that way in law school because it almost never happens. Quote, it's extremely rare that a party in the parentheses, Alex Jones and infor's is ordered by the court to comply with discovery is sanctioned for failing to obey with the court's multiple orders and then continues to blatantly disregard the court's authority by continuing to refuse to comply. Yeah, it's it's

like if let's say, okay, how about this? Okay, so I murdered somebody and then I took the knife home with me and they arrested me and they were like, okay, you just got to bring that knife and then we'll get this all done with. No. And every time I didn't bring the knife and I was like, no, I'm just not going to go. No. And they were like, okay, well, we have to do something. So I guess there's a fine or maybe just bring the fucking knife, bring the knife. And then I was like, no, no, no, how about instead I go stand outside your courthouse and waggle my dick in your face and then go while holding the knife above my head and then throwing it around and then spinning. And then whenever you grab me and arrest me and put me in jail, please pretend you have

denied my due process. That's true. While we're on the topic of due process, let's talk Rob due process. Yeah. All right. Yeah, there was my one pun for the day. That's the one. So Alex wants to set the record straight. He's he's given everybody everything. He's sure, sure, sure. He's been the king of discovery. Sure. A judge issued default judgments, a rarity in the legal world against Jones and info wars. After conspiracy theorists failed to produce discovery records. Ladies and gentlemen, first let me set the record straight. My lawyers told me in Connecticut, they said, you shouldn't even produce what they're asking for. No one's ever done this. And I said, I'm going to do it. They want to default me. I released all of my company bank records going back to Sandy Hook

and up until now. No one has ever done that. So that sounds like Trump at the end there. No one's ever done anything like this is the best lawsuit anyone's ever done. So we talked to Mark a little bit about this and this who cares has nothing to do with the cases he lost that's in the Connecticut case. Yep. Yeah. So this is just sort of like, again, throwing confetti in there. Yeah. It doesn't matter. This is a distraction. It is a it is a shotgun blast of bullshit at any wall that it might stick. Yeah. So Alex thinks that there is a that the case is really about trying to prove that he's paid by the NRA or the Mercers or somebody. I don't recall that, which again is just another side deflection. They have this weird crazy theory that I'm secretly being paid off by

the NRA or something to do this. Let them see it all. Let them see there's no money from the Mercers or the NRA or the Republicans or anybody. And so we did that because the judge in Connecticut demanded it right here in Texas is all coordinated. They asked for less, but it was still substantive tens of thousands of emails, thousands of records. It went on and on, but they kept demanding the Sandy Hook marketing records. I don't do marketing around news we cover. I have products and sponsors that I promote and market for. And we gave them in Connecticut and Texas that basic information. Yeah. So that one flummoxed me, which is why I had to bring it up with Mark because I didn't I didn't know what the fuck he could possibly be referring to. What is he talking about? Yeah.

And I think that there's just a fundamental misunderstanding that he thinks that like it's about the source of the funding as opposed to tracking whether or not your analytics show that you know that you benefit from. Yeah. Okay. So the day after we did the first Sandy Hook story, we had a huge increase in traffic. And then the more we did Sandy Hook stories, the more we saw an increase in traffic versus when we weren't doing Sandy Hook stories. It's a very clear way to establish a pattern of malicious behavior for money. It doesn't even take it's not even hard. And it's kind of tough to imagine, you know, the image we have of Alex that he would spend any time pouring over that data. Totally. He has employees. Somebody did. Yeah. Somebody did.

Otherwise, how are we here? Yeah. Is any of this real? If nobody has handled his traffic, then fucking I quit. It's just coincidence. This is bullshit. Yeah. This is all lies. This everything. So look, man, part of the problem is that this judge in Texas, right? The judge won't let Alex have his lawyer that he wants. They say I've covered up. They say I haven't given them any information. And so this judge and the judge previous, because when I'm retired in Travis County, will never let me have the lawyers I want that are well known, famous first women lawyers like Mark Rondaza and others. Oh, what? And so we have local lawyers, most of which are brand new. They'll take the case and they go in and they get yelled at and they roll over and say,

I'm sorry, we'll do better. We'll give you more. When the judge in the opposing side say we know you've got the information. This is like asking somebody for a confession that doesn't exist. And that's what's completely crazy about this whole thing. Wow. That's an interesting spin. I mean, you know, that's that's a question that I guess they just didn't answer in the they didn't ask in the depositions. It's just like legitimately you and me, man to man, tell me why you're here. Oh, that would be interesting. Just just just keep going. What is your perception of what's happening? Yeah, what is happening? Yeah, I want to know before we go anywhere, what do you think is going on right now? And are there as there like spinny lights around

me? Is that do I have horns? Something that I remember learning in some philosophy class in college was that like the beginning of any kind of discussion that you can have with someone is like agreeing on the definitions of terms. Yeah. And like if you do really kind of have to establish like first principles about one hundred percent. Yeah. Yeah. Is this a chair? Yeah. You say this is a chair. We agree. This is a chair. We can move from there. Good. Now next word, we're going to go through the dictionary. Yeah. All these lawyers were just like little worms. They were afraid of the judge. So funny. So funny. They're brand new lawyers because that's all we could get to take this case. A good lawyer would be like, no, we'll never do this. So then they're like, maybe we

can figure something out. A lawyer takes on the case, gets involved, realizes Alex's. This is a huge mistake. Gonna maybe get them disbarred. Yeah. Yeah. They skedaddle and someone else comes in. Your Honor, I'm representing Alex Jones. Can I stop? Yeah, the court says fine. Sure. Reasonable thing to do. But look, man, one of the other problems besides Alex's lawyers, he doesn't get to choose the lawyer that he wants because they're maybe not. Where's Cochran at? Well, isn't he dead? Yeah. But other people are. Where's the ghost of Cochran at? We're at the court of heaven. That's where it's being tried by Johnny Cochran. Some people are not qualified to practice in Texas or not allowed to. They've passed the bar in Texas or whatever. And that's a problem.

But the other problem I think is probably even more serious. And if Alex is to be believed, this judge does not know the law. The judge also, who is known as a bomb thrower, who's known by the Democrats that I've talked to as well, is just unbelievably ill-informed about the law. They even quote it here in the Huffington Post of all places who's attacking me that it's unheard of. Lawyer Bill Ogden with Far Ball told Huffington Post that Gamble's default, that's the judgment ruling, is a bit of a myth in the legal world. But not if they can make it real with me, where a judge just decides, wow. Bad sign that Alex didn't recognize the name of the law firm for R and Bell. Yeah, that's not good. That's not good.

That was weird. Are you alive? I recognize that name and I'm not being sued by them. You are not being sued by them for what could be a ridiculous number of monies. Yeah, and for a long time. It seems like if you're in a protracted case and the law firm, you'd know the name of the law firm against you. To a certain point, they have been in this case so long, you would halfway expect them to have developed an almost collegial relationship, like we'll go out and eat lunch together. We've just spent every day together for four years or whatever. Nope, still doesn't know their name. Doesn't seem to. So Alex is being sued for defamation for things he didn't do. And it's simple. They don't want me to have a jury trial.

Did you know that in the you don't want you to have a jury trial? I'm being sued by people and they say in the court case that I've never said their names. Texas law says you can't sue somebody if you didn't say their name for defamation, but it's right there. Do you hear me? So this is sort of true, but Alex is still lying. So the cases that were brought by Neil Heslin and Posner and De La Rosa, those are defamation cases because infowars and Alex did say their names specifically on air. Conversely, the case that's being brought by Charlotte Lewis isn't for defamation because her name was never said, but her child was invoked. And thus she accused Alex of intentional infliction of emotional distress, which is a different charge because

the defamation statute probably would not apply. Alex is playing fast and loose with these details knowing that his audience will never look into it or try to figure out the difference, or why it's like, I never said her name. I'll be in charge of defamation. Well, not in that case. Yeah. Yeah. And in any situation like this, if you would, if, if you're a listener of Alex, just based on all we've had to do to like narrow down what's actually happening and how many different complicated things are happening simultaneously, Alex is giving you a very simple answer. Yeah. They've never heard of the law. Yeah. This judge is a bomb thrower who's ill-informed on the laws. Yeah. So, so I, okay, that's a simple explanation. I think I'm going to

go with the simple one. You know what? Keep it simple, stupid. That's the, that's the philosophy. I think, I think you probably self-select for an audience that is really into easy answers. Very easy answers. So congrats. There you go. Anyway, Alex is insisting that he's never going to get a fair trial. Oh, woe is me. So they're not going to give us a fair trial, just like they're not going to give America a fair trial because tyranny has taken this country over, especially in blue cities and blue states. The Republicans have their own problems, warmongering, surveillance, police state stuff. But with the left, all of that and more is fused together with their righteousness that, that they're in control of society and that they rule the

world. Alex has had every opportunity to have a fair trial. This is nonsense. Yep. Also, it seems really weird that Alex seems to be brushing aside the problems he has with Republicans, when those problems are quote, warmongering, surveillance, police state stuff. Sure, sure, sure. Okay. So the, so the Republicans want to take over the world, watch us at all times, and control our behaviors. Hey, buddy, how many documentaries have you made called police state? Yada, yada, yada. Sure, there's some problems there, but it's the left. Right. Because there's sanctimonious or something. They just want us to have food. All of us. They want a police state and they're snooty. Oh, okay. Okay. So no one's going to starve in the streets. Really? No one?

Well, what's the fucking point of living in America? Ridiculous. Ridiculous. I find this defense to be laughable. Like it's, it's a really dismal display. Yeah. But it gets a little bit sadder. And again, it's been years since I've even talked about this. So I'm venting a little bit, but in a way, it's a good idea. Idiocracy. It's so insane. It's almost comical. So we're going to play a clip of the court seat from Idiocracy at the end. And that's how I stay sane. But first, let me read you a statement from Norm Patis. I actually got my hands on this statement from Norm Patis. Okay. Knock, knock. Who's there? No, seriously, knock, knock. Who's there? Orange. Orange. You? Orange. You glad you bought woke insurance? Man, it's hard to be white.

Good joke. Oh, boy. Okay. So you got one pun. You got a knock, knock, joking. What else? What else? Under the guise of it being written by Norm Patis. Yes, I know. I know. This has been a good day for you. I got a call back to woke insurance in the mix, too. This is fantastic. Yes. Yes. You get five points. Yeah. Oh, man. Oh, boy. So we have one last clip here, and it's the end of Norm's quote, which is not the knock, knock, joke. It's exactly what you would expect from Alex's lawyer. And then, man, it feels like Alex is about to go to an ad, and he doesn't really, but kind of soft doesn't add. It is not an overstatement to say

that the First Amendment was crucified today. We fought King George back in 1976, and today we fight judicial tyranny. There are still some good judges. There's still some good FBI. There's still some good Justice Department in this country. And we're not going to fight these people with violence or with muskets like we saw 240 something years ago. We're going to fight them with the truth and justice and educating the public and taking our country back through elections and through other legal and lawful processes. I appreciate the listeners keeping us on air. I haven't made a big deal about this the last few years. We've been incredibly persecuted by these people. I've hired some of the top lawyers in the country. They've never

seen anything like this in their lives. And so I just trust in God, and I trust in you to support us, and I appreciate you all. So that does kind of like, that's a soft ad. And he goes out with the adiocracy clip and just yelling about how he's going to fight the New World Order. I don't know, man. I found this response to be, I would be underwhelmed by this if I was a fan of his. I would find this to be... You would need to more directly rebut the allegations against you. I would feel like this was a little, little weak. Yeah. I don't know. And he's not even really theatrical. He's not, he's not full of bombast. Just kind of, just kind of a, just a wet noodle. He's fucked. I think that's what we're hearing. We're hearing a guy who's just like,

whoa. I mean, the moment he said, my lawyers have never seen anything like this. I was like, every single lawyer on the planet has never seen anything like you, Alex. No one has seen anything like this as well. No one has seen anything like you. You have ruined the legal system for lawyers. And they love that shit. It's just a perfect storm of narcissism, enabling and... The political situation we're in. Well, and craft. Like he has, he has, you know, some ability, whether it's in a loathsome area of expertise, it's still talent. Yeah, I don't know. He's fucked. I'm just saying that over and over again thinking, he's fucked. Like there's no, there's no... We've thought that so many times in the past. I know, but there's no way. God,

I can't even say it. If I say there's no way, then I'm, I can't do it. We live in a world where that you can't say there's no way this happens. Yeah. I have two thoughts about this kind of, and one is that Alex kind of won in as much as he didn't have to reveal a lot of information that I bet he would not want to be public. Yeah. Yeah, totally. The inner workings of how they made their news, let's say could be a lot more damaging to him than any financial penalty. Sure. So I do feel like there is that angle of this, but at the same time, that might be me being too pessimistic because he still has the Connecticut case that's still going. Further, as you get into the figuring out the damages and the jury trials in Texas, if he does not cooperate, they may

levy a penalty that is huge. Yeah. I mean, beyond anybody's capability of paying. He did. There is a decent chance you could end up seeing this bankrupt him. Yeah. I don't know that that's the case, but he has a financial incentive to cooperate in this phase of the trial. Yeah. Because if he doesn't, he's leaving it up to chance kind of what they believe is a fitting punishment and what he's worth. Yeah. And I think that he kind of gives off the air of somebody who's pretty fucking rich. Seems like it. Yeah. Yeah. No, I mean, the first thing I thought was I was like, throw out 250 million. Just say it. Just say it. Fucking do it. Because that's what that's what I would do. That's what happened with who was at Miles Kwok when you sued Roger Stone. Yep. He was like $100

million and Roger was like, man, I'm so sorry. Yeah, exactly. I did not mean that. Whoa. Never. I never said anything and I apologize for all of it. Yeah. I think that that's probably going to be one of the more interesting things to follow is does his tune change in terms of cooperation when it comes down to like, now this is going to hit your bottom line a little bit. Yeah. You have a you have an interest in this. No, I know it's not just obfuscating because eventually a decision is going to be made with or without you. Right. Right. I mean, it just seems like this. It's too much. It's too much happening all at the same time for them not to come back with something that is massively punitive because we're dealing with somebody who's everybody is

saying that this is never fucking happened. This is this is something taught in schools because it doesn't actually happen. So you've got that already. So your your summary, your your default judgment money should be like up to double just for that just for the extra three years it took or whatever. You know, on top of that, you've got this guy who is essentially created the blueprint by which democracy has been demolished. But you can't punish him for that in this case. You have to keep it. But what you can do is make an example out of somebody who behaves the way he does. I mean, I don't want vengeance to come into it, but I do think I do think that absolutely not vengeance. I mean, straight up like this should be a simple like, hey,

fuck around and you're going to look at a two hundred and fifty million dollar judgment. Like I don't think two hundred fifty million is unfair. I don't think so either. I think it's actually kind of low, honestly. Yeah. Well, I just, I don't know. I'm fascinated to see where this all goes. And I was going to get into like his actual show from after the period. But because we had this conversation with Mark Bankston, I didn't want to overburden the episode and make it too long. Totally. And so for our next episode, we will get into some of the actual show response. But for now, I'm just like, I could see a number of directions this could go. I know that he'll obviously try and use it to raise money. He'd probably have another money bomb.

Oh, yeah. And maybe Mike Lindell will swoop in. I don't know. I don't know. There could be all by the way. Mike Lindell was just on a telethon on Jim Baker's show. He was just a guest on Jim Baker's telethon. What is it? What is it about? It's very close. They're all the same very close to covering that. The same shit. They're all the same shit. Yep. Doesn't matter where you go. The far right is the same shit. Yep. So we'll be back, Jordan. But until next time, we have a website. We do have a website. It's KnowledgeRite.com. Yep. We are also on Twitter. We are on Twitter. It's add knowledge underscore fight and that go to bed Jordan. Yes, we'll be back. But again, thank you so much to Mark Bankston for joining us. A very rare guest appearance. Yeah. Yeah. Worthy.

Worthy guest. Yeah. But until next time, Nio and Leo, I'm DZX Clark. I'm Daryl Rundis. And now here comes the sex robots. Andy and Kansas, you're on the air. Thanks for holding. Hello, Alex. I'm a first time caller. I'm a huge fan. I love your work. I love you.