Knowledge Fight - #641: Formulaic Objections Part 4

Episode Date: January 26, 2022

Today, Dan and Jordan break down the recent depositions that were done with Infowars corporate representative Daria and Alex Jones himself.  Also, Mark Bankston drops by to provide some surprising context.

I'm sick of them posing as if they're the good guys saying we are the bad guys knowledge fight. Dan and George, knowledge fight. I need money. Andy and Kansas. Andy and Kansas. Andy and Kansas. Just time to pray. Andy and Kansas, you're on the air. Thanks for holding. Hello, Alex. I'm a person calling. 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 George. We're a couple dudes like to sit around or should put the altar of Celine and talk a little bit about Alex. Everick Jones on the ongoing adventures of drain swirling. I don't know. That wasn't great. I can do better. We'll get there. It's 2022. We'll get something for it later. We'll figure it

out. Yeah, Dan, Jordan, Dan, Dan. What's up, Dan? What's your bright spot today? My bright spot today is it's actually a bright spot of anger. It's a bright spot of anger. Yes. The anger is that no one told me about a thing existing before and I stumbled across it and now it's all I want to do. I've found that on YouTube, there are a bunch of channels that are just like they set up a camera and animals show up. You didn't know that? No. That's the internet by storm since Fat Bear Week like 10 years ago. I knew about Fat Bear Week, but I thought that was a special event. No, man. I didn't realize that there were these cameras that you could just watch like live all the time. 24 seven. I found one that was in the Namibian Desert and it's a watering hole. All right. And so for

about five minutes, I'm watching this Ibex or Ibex or however you pronounce that drink from this watering hole like this is fascinating. Then a second Ibex showed up and I cheered sitting alone in the apartment. I cheered for the appearance of another animal. I'm telling you right now, you can get so many cameras that are just 24 seven on a nest with eggs in there and it is your entire life. I don't I don't want that. That's too much like tension entire life just sitting there being the who is it? I don't want I don't want to be like waiting for the egg to hatch or something like that. That's too that's too high stakes, but watching just a watering hole is great. I'm gonna I'm gonna be lost to the world now. This is this is where I'm heading like I like that you are in

some sense digitally retreating to the wilderness. You know, like you can't go and move into the middle of the woods, but you can through the vision of a desire has been there. Maybe this is the only way that I can manifest it. Also, one of the Ibex is walked past the camera. I'm like, oh, look at that guy. Look at him. Oh, you look at you. So what about you? What's your bright spot? My bright spot, Dan is no no no. My partner is a teacher and that means that right around this time of year, all of the Girl Scouts circle like vultures on weak teachers ready to ready to pounce. You gotta do your part. Right. Right. All right. So despite the fact that I'm sure it's in some way some sort of evil cartel, the Girl Scouts, right? It has to be. I would assume so. I haven't

read anything about it, but you're sure it is, you know. So now we have a shit ton of boxes. Awesome. Of our orders still open. I'm pretty sure I might need you to put me put it in an order for me. I've got some. Okay. Listen, you can buy the second hand at this point. If the cops came, I would be busted for intent to distribute. That's how many fucking boxes we have. I'm looking for some Samoas. I've got some looking for some tag alongs. You can't have any of my fucking tag along. Damn it. You don't get a single cookie. I don't want thin mints. That's that I've had my fill of those. Yeah. Yeah. I got some s'mores ones for you. What if s'mores ones? Yeah. When did they start this? You don't want to know. Okay. Anyways, that's my bright spot. That is that is a pretty

bright spot. Look, I like sweets. We've got some negotiations after the show. I will say that I like sweets when times are tough. When things are good, I have much less of a sweet tooth. Right. Right. Right. Hey, it looks like times have been tough. So Jordan, today we have an episode to go over that has been long in the works and we've teased this a little bit, but not very specifically. Things like I've mentioned that I have some side things. Indeed. I'm working on. Yes. And things like when beginning of December, we had two past episodes. We had a little break. Nobody knew why. Yes. And that's all will become clear on today's episode. But before we get down to business on that, let's take a little moment to say thank you and hello to some new walks.

So first, the Rev's Lang. Thank you so much. You're now a policy walk. I'm a policy walk. Thank you very much. I think that's the Reverend's Lang. The Reverend's Lang. Maybe I'm not sure. The Rev's Lang? Who knows? Okay. Next, Mother Gerald. Thank you so much. You're now a policy walk. I'm a policy walk. Thank you very much. Next, we have a technocrat in the mix, Jordan. Thank you so much. You are now a policy walk. I'm a policy walk. I thought you could trip me up. But we also do have a couple of technocrats in the mix. Okay. God damn it. So first, Jared and Alex's secret assistant Taylor and then in parentheses, inside joke. Thank you so much. You're now a technocrat. And sorry, Adam. Gigi made me give more money to Dan and Jordan because Bear won't stop howling

about globalists. Thank you so much. You are now a technocrat. I'm a policy walk. I have risen above my enemies. I might quit tomorrow, actually. I'm just going to take a little break now. A little break for me. And then we're going to come back. And I'm going to start the show over. But I'm the devil. I got to be taken out of here. Fuck you. Fuck you. I got plenty of words for you. But at the end of the day, fuck you in your new world order and fuck the horse you rode in on and all your shit. Maybe today should be my last broadcast. Maybe I'll just be gone a month, maybe five years. Maybe I'll walk out of here tomorrow and you never see me again. That's really what I want to do. I never want to come back here again. I apologize to the crew

and the listeners yesterday that I was legitimately having breakdowns on air. I'll be better tomorrow. He may be. So thank you all. Thank you very, very much. So Jordan, we have some breaking news in the world of Alex as we're recording this here on Tuesday. For instance, we have learned that Alex did go for the January 6th committee. Indeed. And these are pressing issues that we will talk about on Friday. Right. We have for you today an episode where we will be discussing some depositions from Alex's Sandy Hook case. And I felt like, you know, if we're going to be talking about this, we should probably check in and discuss how all this came about. Right. The circumstances are totally with the high witness on the scene. The point of saturn. Absolutely.

So let's throw it to a conversation we pre recorded with Mark Bankston. Well, joining us here in the the pod virtual podcast over over zoom. Do we have a name for our layer? I don't think we do. We should. We should come up with one. Should we? Like the honeycomb hideout. I think that's a great name for it. The Bishop Don Magic Juan. We're off track. Yeah. Already. It's quick. Joining us here in the honeycomb hideout. I'm insisting is the name. The lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the Sandy Hook lawsuits against Alex Jones. Mark Bankston. Yes. Hello, buddy. Welcome back. I'm not using the name, by the way. I'm not saying honeycomb hideout, but that's fine.

Well, you're not here. So frankly, there's a no boys allowed policy. So I can respect the rules. So welcome. We wanted to do a little preface to this episode because it's I think a monumentous occasion. I think it's auspicious is how I would describe it. Sure. Yeah. Some would say a narrative twist in things. And so why don't you take it away and present, give us the low down of what's up here? Well, sure. Regular listeners know that I've been following the podcast for a little while now. And they've been doing some analysis of our lawsuits and such. And so I actually came onto the podcast and talked to these wacky gentlemen. And I had become sort of, I guess you could say over the course of the lawsuit, sort of

peripherally aware of the work y'all are doing. People snitch sometimes. Yeah, they do. You know, mainstream media is even I've seen profiles in fairly prestigious publications describing the unparalleled knowledge. You're talking about the gray lady? Yeah. And you know, you can't really, you know, you got to take that with a grain of salt because they're the same, same newspaper. It took us to Iraq based on the wings of the lie. I went ahead and checked it out and it turns out, wow, darn, this guy really does know a lot about Alex Jones. And I was in the position of, look, I had to make myself an expert on Jones. Me and my partner Bill actually had to do that. And so we watched, oh gosh, I want to say nearly

like a hundred hours right off the bat within the span of a couple of weeks. And it probably flew by. Yeah. Time flies when your brain is melting. And I knew, right, like I knew it had a not trivial effect on my brain and perception of the world. So I was so excited to be used who's been living in this. And it turned out, Dan knew a hell of a lot about Alex Jones. As some of y'all know, we recently had a default judgment in our cases, but we're entering sort of the final phase of discovery, which is about the plaintiff's damages, the ways they were harmed by some of this conduct. And that's required to take us, you had to take a corporate deposition, deposition of Alex Jones. And in doing so, I knew that I could use Dan's knowledge in this process.

So that's why I reached out to Dan and asked, hey, Dan, would you consult on this case for me? And Dan said, you know what, I'd be happy to do that. And I'd be happy to do it for your charge, completely pro bono to the family. In my defense, I said no. And also like, I think you're making, you know, the way you're saying this is like, you asked and I said yes. And I don't think that's exactly accurate. I struggled with the decision because of the potential ethical implications of like doing this podcast and like inserting myself in some way. Exactly. Which is why, you know, I would never, I would never want to put somebody in your position who's a commentator and a person who has collected knowledge on Joe's in this way

in the position of testifying a trial or being a witness to jury, whatever you're from, or having any stake in the outcome. Yeah, I'll do it. Come on. You could testify from here just screaming. I knew I'd never be able to do that. And I think, you know, certainly experts who consult on cases like this and provide consultation, they, some of them do charge for their services. And that would have been totally above board to do, but I really, you know, I, it's been a lot of people. I mean, I'm not, I'm not gonna, it was definitely really appreciated. And I love the gesture of you saying that you'll do this for pro bono. But I don't want to put you on a pedestal because so many people have. I have had the kind

of support on this case that's unrivaled in my career where people will step out of the woodwork and say, I'm happy to do whatever I can to assist you here. And so, yeah, Dan's come aboard and has been helping me quite a bit in terms of doing this case. And one of the big surprise for the listeners out there is that Dan personally accompanied me as my consultant to the depositions of the free speech corporate representative and of Mr. Alex Jones. Yes. So your humble narrator for all of you was sitting in the room, not more than four feet across the table from Mr. Jones himself and from his corporate representative. And I want to be clear, just in case anybody has any kind of misgivings, I did not interact with

them in any way. Yeah, he didn't say a word in the entire room. I was a silent person in the room and I had no contact with them outside of the room. So it's not like I shook Alex's hand or like part of the reason I said no initially, because I was slightly worried for your physical safety to be in the same room with Alex Jones. No, he's a teddy bear. I mean, in real life, he's a teddy bear. Yeah, he's just a teddy bear. Very violent teddy bear. And stops people's guts in like a good old teddy bear. Well, we'll get to that later. Indeed we will. It's clear in that deposition when we take breaks and we're, you know, already Dan had assisted me in kind of helping me formulate a lot of the questions that I was going to be asking in that deposition. But as we're getting

answers, Dan's the kind of person who can put his finger on the spot of a fact and say no, I know that that isn't true. You need to ask about X or Y. So your service is really, I mean, I really want to emphasize just invaluable. There aren't, Alex Jones for as much of a phenomenon as he is, and for as culturally influential as he has become, he remains relatively understudied, both in academic and in pop culture settings. Like it's actually strange how much of his mythos is very shallow. Like people don't really dig down to what info wars is and how it operates and what it does. And so that was really, really valuable for me. So first of all, thank you for that. That's overwhelming. And thank you for the kind words. Jordan, yell something. You know,

Dan, I'm, I'm surprised that when you came back, you didn't report to me how invaluable your work was. You kind of downplayed it, which is not like you at all. Usually you come back boastful. Like if it weren't for me, this whole thing would have fallen apart. That's you, right? Well, I got the flashiness out of my system before I went because I bought a new suit. Yes. That was kind of my way of like, all right, this is, this is a little walk around with some swagger. Yes. When we, when we got you a suit, it was an adventure for the both of us. Right. Let me tell you listeners, this gentleman cleans up well. Not great. And I get dirty real fast, but I clean up. Okay. But you know,

one of the things we had talked about before you had decided to help me and consult with me on this is that if you were going to be offering me advice on this and seeing some of the proceedings, you know, part of your insistence was, look, I'm a commentator on Jones. I critically analyze what he's doing. I need to be able to continue to do that about this lawsuit. And if you were an expert witness who's going to be testifying to a jury, you probably, you probably shouldn't be doing that, right? Because eventually your testimony is going to have to be considered. But if you're just an outside consultant, and when it comes to things that are in the public record now, I couldn't stop you if I wanted to. Like legally, you have a First Amendment right

that trumps anything that's going on. And so it's loves the First Amendment. I know he loves it. So yeah, yeah, take that mark. You can't stop us even if you fucking want it to. Well, I can get creative, right? You know, we'll never know what I come up with. But no, it's, it's, it's, I knew coming into this that you were still going to be talking about Alex Jones. And I knew, for instance, that these, these depositions, if they did become public record would be part of that. And what happened so that your listeners understand is that there's a protective order of confidentiality in the case. And it provides a process by which, if a party gives testimony or documents that it believes it wants to maintain confidentiality,

not have them be public, it provides them an avenue for them to do that. And in this particular situation, much as they have in the past, infowars chose not to do that. So very recently, the deposition of Alex Jones and the deposition of Ms. Carpova, the corporate representative, passed into the public domain when they became unchallenged public filings in these cases. And so there's been some news reporting on them and some of the documents contained within those depositions already. And so all that's now out in the public record. So now listeners, you get to hear a little bit about it and Dan's going to be able to talk to you about it. And I want to stress too that like, it's it, I can't like one of the downsides of me do like being in the position

of like doing this episode and being there, sure, is that, you know, obviously, I experienced things. And some of those things I can't talk about, because they aren't part of what is in the public right. Right. Right. And so there will, you know, there will be a lot of things that are not really material to the analysis of the depositions themselves. But I, you know, I have, you know, some thoughts that I just can't share. I mean, if you wanted to, you, you couldn't even talk about the mutated second human being coming out of his chest. Kowato, I believe was his name. I told you that in confidence. I mean, no, I'm saying you can't talk about Kowato. Okay. That's my try to get sued. No, no, no. The deep, deep pull there, Jordan. Oh, my gosh. Yeah. No. And in

fact, I think that's one of the reasons I want to come on this to kind of not not for you, because you know, but but so that the audience understands how you're talking about these, there are some ground rules that that Dan has to observe when talking about these things. And one of that is that because his consulting position gives him access to things that do not become public record, as he was saying, there are some things he can't talk about. Like conversations we had in between breaks and stuff like that. Exactly. Any of that kind of stuff. Anybody's actual, you know, the thing is, is you go into a deposition room and 90% of what you do is what they call on the record. There's a, there's a videotape roll and there's a transcript roll and there's somebody

typing it all down. 10% of that downtime is off the record. And there are things that happen there too, off the record, obviously anything off the record is not something Dan can talk about. But now we're in a position where, and I'm glad free speech made, or I'm sorry, info wars, I call them by their corporate name, sometimes free speech systems, which is just the irony of ironies that they named themselves that. But the fact that info wars made the choice or however they came to the conclusion to not make these depositions confidential, I am very glad they did, because I believe that for those people who are following this case, who understand the public importance of it, there is a lot of enlightening information. Oh, nearly. Yeah, these are going to be an

interesting discussion. Yeah, I'm glad Dan can do that. And it's what part of the wonderful parts of our process is that when things do get into the public record this way, that court proceedings can be critically discussed. And that's something I'm glad Dan can do. But yeah, there are there are certain things that there may be gaps. I'm sure Jordan will sometimes ask a question that Dan would have to be no comment to. I'll probably edit this out. If that comes up, I'll probably edit it out for us. You'll never know. But yeah, like if you ask me what Alex smelled like, I'll have to cut that out. Like a gentle lavender wind, like like the like freshly done laundry in the spring of normally. Yeah. No, none of that kind of you know, then that's the thing is, is you Dan got

to see sort of an inside baseball process of illegal proceeding that a lot of people don't normally get to see, which is how a deposition is done, because that's like testimony, but it's not in a courtroom. You know, we were we were in a friend of mine's law office in Austin. And and you know, you're in this very tight quarters, where you have a videographer in the room, a court reporters taking everything down. You've got all your pairs of lawyers in the room and you've got the witness and you're all in this this room together. And and you know, for one of these depositions, I think when as long as like five, six hours. Yeah, yeah, the corporate representative run with Daria was most of a day. Yeah, yeah, it was very interesting. But I'm actually, you know,

the thing is, we've talked about these depositions in the course of us talking for consulting purposes. And and I'm, I was, that's all from our legal perspective of what we're doing in the case. And I'm actually interested as these become a little more public to hear what people's reaction to the minimum broader sense is. Yeah, because unlike I think, Jones's first deposition, and the first corporate representatives and all of that, which was very shallow and very guarded and very mockery. I mean, it was just a kind of a farce of a thing. This is a farce in its own way to a slightly different farce. Yeah, slightly different farce is how I would describe it. Comedy of errors. We, we all let your audience know that we recently had brought a motion for

sanctions based on this corporate deposition. One with Daria with Daria. Correct. And that was because they had been ordered four times to give a corporate deposition in the course of these cases. The first two times they just didn't show up. And then the second two times they sit Rob do both times and Rob do seem to be oblivious to the fact that the law required him to prepare in any way for this deposition. I think what you meant to say was a fucking legend. Yeah. That's going to go down in history as making one of the greatest episodes of all time. They call Rob the sharpshooter. Doesn't make it. I'll say like this was on for those because they also tune into the hearings that we have. We just had a hearing on Friday and our judge just straight

out said it was it was a market. It was an offensive deposition. The Daria one. Yes, exactly. In the wake of an already offensive depositions from Rob do. And so it's like to get your act together for this. They still haven't done it. I think you'll see that. But we recently brought that motion. We had a hearing on Friday. They were sanctioned yet again. And I want to say that this is now gosh, maybe the seventh or eighth time they've been fined before ever actually having the trial happened. I mean, it's pretty wild. And so we're still trying to see what the full fallout of all of that is going to be. But yeah, this did this did not go well for them. It felt you know, it's I was disappointed when I showed up in Austin, because you had only told me there

was a corporate representative. I didn't know who it was going to be. I was really excited for the possibility that we'd get another round with do. Yeah, I thought that would be a lot of fun. And then learning that it was going to be Daria was like, man, she might be competent at this. And then it was so interesting. And we'll get into this like in more minute detail in the course of the episode. But it's Rob do ish, but in a very different way. It's beautiful. Yeah, it's it's very different. It's shocking. Yeah, it's it's really interesting. And I'm yes, like I say, that's why I'm glad it's public. I think that this was I want to say this, you know, for the audience's benefit. I think this was one of the more difficult things

that I've had to do. First of all, to not talk about this. Yeah, for this we did this at the beginning of December was when I came down to Austin and not being able to mention it or not being able to be like, but you know, all the information that I had that was in those depositions, I had to not know. Sure, sure, sure, sure. That was hard for you. But that's easy for you. I didn't say anything, which is the real fucking accomplishment. That's what I want to get across here. Somehow I didn't break up. So who are you going to tell your dog? But like it was really challenging. And I'm glad that, you know, we're on the other side of it now because it is a bit of a relief. And then the second the second challenge was really

like questioning prior to agreeing to come down whether or not this was an instance of like sort of affecting the content of the thing we're covering. Right. And I really wrestled with that. And I struggled with that question because it's been something that we've a policy that we've tried to maintain as it relates to Alex's show. Yeah, we don't want people to call in to his show to fuck with him in order for us to cover it on the show. And I felt like this was important enough of a thing to do. And it's a once in a lifetime opportunity, of course, any, anything I can do to help the families is something that is more important than our show. I mean, it's hard to say no to fighting evil. So there is that. And also it wouldn't have the same

actual presentation as someone prank calling him or something. It wasn't a prank. No, this was assisting in these are questions that may be fruitful to ask this is these are ideas to check in on. And I think that is materially different than the way that we've had a non engagement in the past. Yeah, I think it's close. But I think it's on the right side of it. This case is so different than most forms of litigation because of its subject matter that when you need, for instance, an expert on, you know, pipe metallurgy and a plant explosion, there's no chance that that same person is going to be critically critically covering in the media. You're different. Like that's not a thing. But what's interesting about

this case is when you're in this kind of media litigation, the only people in this country who are genuine bona fide experts on Jones are those who have followed his media career and engaged in the criticism to fight back against it. And in our first depositions, you know, one of our consultants have been Brooke Benkowski, who was the managing editor of Snopes, now at Truth or Fiction.com. And she had been one of, I mean, I feel like she's sort of a modern day Cassandra of she was saying in 2015, 2014, here's what fake news and what enforcers is doing is about to do to our country. Right. And so she I knew from the get go she would, and she had sat in on some of our depositions too. And we had the same sort of discussion of

there. There is this scientist view that says the subject of your inquiry should be kept in isolation. And you shouldn't let your interactions with it affect your observations of it. Right. And then there's the idea that Brooke had, which is no, the entire point of critically covering him and learning more information about is because of the danger of harm that he presents to people like my clients. And therefore, to offer that expertise to people who are trying to vindicate that in the court of law is a noble collar is how she felt about it. And that's why I felt that this is such a different type of litigation. It's so strange that way. And I think it makes it very difficult for people in your position to ever testify at trial because of that. Right.

Wow. I could be impeached as a witness so easily based on 100 things I've said on my podcast. I mean, like, why should we believe anything you said? Right. Like it doesn't, there's no exactly. But I mean, I'll stand by everything I've ever said. I think I screamed at you about alien phones getting pregnant. Yes, we have been there. Yeah. We'll end up playing on the stand. It's no good. Yeah. No, I'm thinking about Jordan on the witness stand. And I'm just thinking bad law and order episodes. Let's go. Let's go. You can't handle the truth. You just do that. No, that's not nice. I would be far more clever. You would do the scene from the critic. Oh, yeah. Mustard gives me gas. It does taffy. All right. Very obscure.

People to testify as experts. We had to go to academia, right? Like to people who are far out of it, right? Who kind of view it from a distance. And as much as they study his effects, it's legit true. Nobody in this country has studied the internal mechanics of how and forwards works, how its stories works, how its editorial process works. Nobody's done it like you guys. I mean, it's just there's nobody who's in and it's it's weird that there was this vacuum that when people saw what you were doing, the reason it was so well received is because there is such a need for that. Nobody has gone into that kind of depth. So that's how you became what you are. So I'm glad you're going to be able to do this today. And I'm going to jump out the

window. See, I thought, I thought the way it worked was if you're fighting against Godzilla, you don't go to like a regular old army or whatever, you have to get Mothra, right? So if you're going to depose Alex Jones, you can't just go with some expert somewhere at a goddamn university. You gotta get Howard Stern Mothra. I'd rather be King Ghidorah. You can be King Ghidorah. This might surprise you Jordan, but my my litigation strategy has not been mostly informed by 1960s RKO Tokyo pictures with monster movies. We've had some different choices in there and Godzilla did not immediately spring to mind when I thought of Dan. Hmm. I guess we have some differences of opinion that may not be resolved at this time.

I think I think Mark strategy probably speaks for itself. Maybe not approaching this like a Godzilla movie. Well, I want to say thanks for inviting me to do this and also thanks for coming to do this little intro piece. I think it's important to, you know, recognize some of the the the cants of what's going to come up now and laying the ground rules is important. And I don't think I could have explained how this was made public record. I don't know if I fully understood it. Here's the best part. I don't think infowars fully understood it. That's the hilarious part is it was the one they proposed and I don't think they understood it. But they just think it keeps happening. I mean, it's the same fun for every deposition. So,

you know, if that's where they stand, they want to let it all be public. And they've said that from the beginning, you know, we've had we've had documentary crews covering every court proceeding. We have HBO's film and everything. And they've been receptive to that. And nobody has even asked for a gag order. Because gosh, look at what Jones is saying. I mean, if you just if you just turn on his show any day when he talks about this, wow, it's out the window. So it's nice to counterbalance that with them with a good thorough and non shallow look at what actually happened in those rooms on those transcripts that day. I'm glad you're going to do it. Well, awesome. I think I think on that note,

unless you have anything else to add, we should get to that thorough. Yeah, let's look at these these depositions thorough. Yeah. No, I can't get it wrong guys. All right. Thank you so much, Mark. Thank you for having me. So that's the that's the the setup for this rundown. Yep. So I was there. Yep. You were there. I knew about it. I can't hide that or mask that I considered the the idea of like just going over these and not mentioning that I was there. Right. Right. Right. But I felt like that was very dishonest. Yeah, that'd be a little disingenuous there. And the transcripts of these depositions are my name is in them. Right. So if someone were to stumble across that, right, it would have the real air of impropriety that I would have

covered them and not that up. Yeah, you know, it would it would almost necessitate a show about us with a host so dedicated as to find the transcripts from this deposition and to discover that you were there. Probably Harrison Smith. Yeah, it's probably would do it pretty sure. So today what we're going to be doing is we're going to be going over the two depositions. Yep. One is the Corporate Representative Daria Carpova. Right. The Russian Daria. Alex's assistant. Mysterious. Great cake song. Very mysterious person in the world of Info Wars. And now we get to see what she has to say for about six hours. It's a long deposition today. And then the other

deposition is of Alex himself. And we are going to be going over Alex's first and then Daria's for sort of structural reasons. And here Jordan is an out of context drop from Alex's deposition. Jar Jar Binks. You know who that is? No. Liar. We know that to be alive. Alex saying under oath that he doesn't know who Jar Jar Binks is. How dare he. Alex knows that he has a Caribbean black accent. Alex knows damn well who Jar Jar Binks is. So we start off the deposition. Mark is bringing up some of the talking about Sandy Hook stuff and Alex gave us his response to this general question. One thing you just talked about is that you have

since this lawsuit has started, you've said some things about Sandy Hook. Correct. I've said things about organizations and groups that want to get rid of the First Amendment trying to use me as a case to do it. Okay. Well, what I'm really talking about is you've said things about Sandy Hook itself. Correct. I have I have talked about I mean I've talked about the coverage surrounding it and the lawsuits and that ongoing process. Yes. Well, I actually want to ask you about a little something else. Hold on. Back up for a second. One thing that you have said a few times is that in terms of when you did say that Sandy Hook was completely fake, synthetic, there were actors, etc. You've said that you've apologized for that. Correct. Well, first off, I said I could see how

people see that. And I also when people said please apologize to us and I'd seen some of the anomalies that I think were wrong that weren't what people were questioning online. Then I'm like, yeah, of course, I'm sorry for questioning Sandy Hook, but it wasn't intended, you know, in a false way. I mean, I really thought maybe it didn't happen. And then and then the attacks intensified and people began falsely saying that I was currently saying those things and then exaggerating what I'd said as a way as a political weapon that Hillary Clinton was using to beat me over the head with it in 2016 on record and run national political ads against me playing edited tapes of me talking about Sandy Hook. Okay, first of all, objection non responsive. There are a couple of moments and

this is something that does happens a bit where, you know, there's an objection of non responsive because you're just rambling about. First of all, first of all, yeah, the question is, you know, you've talked about Sandy Hook itself after you. Well, well, well, well, well, well, that's not look Hillary Clinton wanted to use me as a pillory. Now what you think is yes or no question actually involves Hillary Clinton and here's where we begin. Yes. And there are a couple times where it's just like it's it's outrageous. Like Mark will have to ask between Alex and Doria sometimes like, do you know what question you're answering? And there's slight confusion. Repeat words back to me. Right. And so, you know, the question then comes up of like, you're saying

this is your your understanding of how you covered Sandy Hook. And then we're going to be able to play for the jury. The opposite. Right. Right. You know that this is why should they not see you as a liar? Good question. Yeah. And so here's here's where Alex goes with that. Okay. First of all, objection non responsive. Second of all, you Mr. Jones, you understand this jury is going to watch the videos of you saying unequivocally, not I see how people could think this but unequivocally saying Sandy Hook is her completely. Oh, no, Mr. Jones, you don't get to interrupt me. You understand that, sir? You're here to answer questions for this jury. And I want you to listen to the questions. You know, this jury is going to watch videos of you saying multiple times over and over again,

Sandy Hook is completely fake, completely synthetic. It is not real. Right. And you're going to sit here in this chair and say, Oh, actually what I said, actually what I said is I could see how some other people could think it was fake. You know, the jury is going to see those videos. And you know, they're going to hear your words. Do you think that they should take you seriously whatsoever when they can see you saying the things you said you didn't say? I know I know that the jury is going to say I always heard that people are innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven how guilty they choose that the systems actually scared for me to put on evidence. The truth is deep down, I have still have real questions about Sandy Hook and a lot of

the anomalies. Yeah, now's the time to bring that up. And the CIA visiting Adam Lanzom before it happened and the FBI, that was in mainstream news. And just all the bizarreness that went on, the public still has real questions just like to do about Jesse Smollett or the Roe v. Wade baby that never actually died or WMDs in Iraq, or just the Gulf of Tonkin or Operation Northwoods, or Bubba Wallace or, you know, so many of these things that have happened, most of these hate crimes and type things end up being false flags. So I still, when I look at events, question it and say, could this, could this be staged? And we look for telltale signs. What does that mean? Here's what it means. It means that he is going to take some lettuce and

cheese and put it between two big slices of chicken. Call that a sandwich because he's doubling down. So this is such a bizarre like response to this question because I understand that what he's trying to say is that like, Hey, events sometimes are suspicious and people should ask questions about them. But then his list, like the Roe v. Wade baby, that's just a situation where he doesn't understand the conversation. People didn't think that the Roe v. Wade baby was dead. That's the whole point of the case. Right over this. And this was one of the storylines that was kind of a big talking point for Alex in the beginning of December, which is why it's appearing in this definition. But I'm pretty talking about it on air recently. Yeah, we have. Yeah, I'm pretty sure

he still thinks the Roe v. Wade baby was DB Cooper though. So I think he does believe that that is a false. Everything's connected. Yeah, exactly. It has to be. So you've got that. That's just him misunderstanding things. And then you have the, the Gulf of Tonkin course, the WFDs in Iraq. Why wouldn't you? And that is in the same conversation as Jesse Smollett and Bubba Wallace. Yeah. Two examples of racially based antagonistic narratives. Right. Right. Right. I don't, I don't know if Bubba Wallace's situation, the NASCAR garage is on the scale of lying about weapons and mass destruction. I would say there is, it's, it's different. I would also say that that now in the deposition for damages for the case you've already lost, not the best time to

say I still have questions about whether it's a strange move. But, but, but more to the point what I'm trying to say is like he's giving these examples and he's like all of these hate crimes end up being staged or whatever. And then it's like, are you compare a Sandy Hook, a hate crime to you? Is that, is that, is this the connective tissue? It makes no sense. It's just, I mean, all crimes involve hate. So aren't all hate crimes, crimes and crimes. Let me hit that blunt. Yeah. I mean, it's, it's, it's a strange tactic that's being deployed and I would have advised against it. No, I think it's great. Okay. I'm loving it so far. We're two clips in. I think he's going to win this thing. So there is, there does seem to be a trend of like you're describing

it as doubling down. It's like, why don't we just reopen this? Why not? It's really, I mean, we've already lost. Yeah. And so, so Mark kind of pushes on that, that angle. All right, Mr. Johnson, here's a video of you. It's like the New York Times lying about WMDs on purpose and all of the evil things. Oh, but I questioned one of the big events they hyped up because of a lot of the anomalies and I have a right to question that. In fact, I for a while thought it didn't happen. Then I thought it probably did. And now seeing how synthetic everything is, and my rejuvenation, maybe Alex Jones is always. I'm pretty much right. 9% of the time. So, so are you. We all know this is easy to look at and see what's happening.

So now you're back to feeding your audience this lie about San Diego, right? Correct. No, that's an, that I'm proud of the video and I'm proud of my statement and it's full context and I'm sure we'll be able to show the jury and yeah, baby time too. They will see what I had to say and see that I'm speaking up to the American tradition of being able to challenge authority. That's just a story. It almost always turned out to be at least partially wrong. Please keep that promise and play the whole October 1st video. Please keep that promise. Okay. I will be vindicated. I'm liking, I'm liking Mark's, you can hear Mark's smiling. You can hear the smile. If you pay close attention, you can hear a laugh a couple of times. There is,

there is a, a jocular nature going on here. And so this, this is a good, this seems to be a good line of questioning. Yeah. And so this gets pursued. Like you lost this case by default. Right. So now you're back to suggesting that Sandy Hook was fake. Why not? Because there's probably no consequences for it. You're going to double lose. It doesn't matter. And so this, this is pushed on a little. Please keep that promise and play the whole October 1st video. Please keep that promise. Okay. But second, what has happened here is now that you got beaten court now that a default has been granted. No, I didn't get beaten court. I got beat by an organized crime syndicate. Now that a default has been granted, you don't have to pretend anymore, do you?

That's what's going on, right? Injection form. No, that's not what's happened. A death penalty sanction with all the stuff we produced, I believe is a fraud. And it's because they're scared of the real evidence coming out and want to be able to tell a jury that this man is guilty. Now you decide how guilty no juries are supposed to decide if someone is guilty or not period, not how guilty they are. So you guys can try to do all your anti free speech stuff. All you're doing is waking up the American people. So there's a, there's a real trend here at the beginning of the deposition of like, like allowing a bit of going back and forth. Yeah. Let's have a little bit of getting this out of the system. Sure. Sure. Yeah. There are more actual solid questions and

like pieces of evidence on the back end of this, but it almost feels like let's, let's warm up a little with, uh, with some, some sparring because obviously Alex will want to do that. Oh, the whole time. He kind of bait him a little bit and he, he gets, he gets to throwing out stuff like, you know, Hey, but people do have questions. Yeah. I'm proud of this statement that maybe I actually was right. It's like when, uh, when I used to host shows, you know, it's like, get all your heckling down out of the way. I'm up top. We'll get all, get it all out of your system. Mark asking Alex if he has a birthday coming up. Totally. 100%. Anybody celebrating anything? Yes. Absolutely. Yeah. So this, this line of questioning does even continue. All you're doing is waking up the American

people. All right. So let's just be honest about what this is. You got mad after you got defaulted and you lashed out by saying that Sandy Hook was fake again. That's what happened. No, I have privately, uh, I mean, I told my crew and I've, I mean, I've, and I've always said, I really have real questions about this, but I can't 100% prove it was totally staged, but the CIA was definitely involved and, and that came out. And then I was, I was told again by high level folks in the CIA that it was staged back at the time. And so I went with them and also what Wolf King Halbig said and others. So I really believe that, that, that, that, that it should be looked at. I'm going to guess the CIA person Alex is referring to might be Steve Pachanic. Yes. I don't think it's an actual

real source. No, but Alex has brought up that CIA involvement thing a couple of times. So I want to just touch on that really quickly because I don't think I'm not even sure if that came up necessarily in episodes that we've done. So it might be new to some ears. The CIA wasn't involved in the shooting, but when the FBI released the redacted reports of the invest investigation, it included interviews with people who knew Adam Lanza and his mother. There's one interview that they conducted with the person whose name is redacted, which was filed in a report that was dated December 16, 2012. This was a friend of Lanza's mother Nancy, who had her over to the house periodically. Quote, when Adam Lanza was in ninth grade, Nancy told redacted that Adam

had hacked into a government computer system. Adam had made it through the second level of security. And when he tried to breach the third level, the screen went black and the authorities showed up at Lanza's door at 36 Yogananda Street. Nancy believed that the authorities that showed up at her door were either the FBI or CIA. Nancy had to convince the authorities that her son was just very intelligent and was challenging himself to see if he could hack into a government system. If you consider this on a larger picture of that full interview, it's fairly clear that this was not a reliable assessment that Nancy was making. Then that's where the CIA comes from. It's Nancy saying that these people were CIA that showed up. One event that's described in this interview

involved that friend leaving invitations to a dinner party in all the neighbor's mailboxes. Nancy never RSVP'd, so this person asked why. And Nancy said it was, quote, because there was no return address on the envelope. She had thought there was anthrax in it. This is what Alex is using as the foundation of his assertion that the CIA was involved in the Sandy Hook shooting. He's spinning conspiracy theories about the shooting while under oath in the deposition where he's being sued for things related to his spinning of conspiracy theories about the shooting. It just seems like he can't stop. I don't even know why you would do this. It works in an argument setting. If you're arguing with somebody on a podcast or like,

it appears Morgan or something, this is a great strategy to use, but I don't know about in court. Yeah, I'm already through the deposition so far. I'm like, okay, he is clearly established that learning is not a possibility. You know what I mean? It's not going to stop. I think the probably learning is counter to his business model. Yeah, probably would have been a maladaptive strategy early on. Right, right, right. That's a why change. Which is, which to me says that if I'm, if I'm like, Hey, here's how we punish this guy. If you want it to stop, you have to bankrupt him. That's the reality of it because he's not going to stop. He's or and if he's, if he does stop for the Sandy Hook families, it's just going to go somewhere else and he's

not going to learn from the behavior because in the depositions for the behavior, he's already lost. He's doing the behavior. Yeah, it does. It does feel a bit like that, you know, the dead end in terms of trying to turn a lot, learn a lesson. You got to bankrupt him. Otherwise, there's no lesson to be learned. I feel that's, that's your perspective. That's my perspective. So Alex is pretty mad because he has been defaulted and he's lost these cases by default and he believes that he's complied with everything that's been requested of him. Of course. So this turns a little bit embarrassing. You've repeatedly said that this, this court process, this lawsuit, what just happened is all a sham because you turned everything over and that court still

defaulted you anyway, right? Yes. Oh, and Shroyer, you never sent him one deposition, one document request, one thing and he was defaulted along with me. And if that isn't fraud, then nothing is. Okay, hold on. I may have to pull this order for you because I need you to understand this. Do you understand that in Mr. Neal Hesson's case, there was a court order requiring Owen Shroyer to appear for deposition? Do you know that? I know he appeared for a deposition. Yesterday. After, you asked for it after the default. No, sir, Mr. Johns. Do you understand that there was an order in August 31st, 2018, asking Mr. that requiring Owen Shroyer to appear for deposition. Did you know that? I don't know what you're talking about. Yeah, you didn't know that.

So you got on your show without even knowing what the discovery was. Yeah, so the claims that Alex is making of like complying with all this stuff when confronted with like, this is something from three and a half, four years ago that you just ignored. Do you know that? Nope. Don't know that. I mean, I was waiting for him to say what I would have said, which was just like, really, it's been going on that long, huh? Wow. How the time flies. What a strange trip we've been on, guys. Am I right? You know, like, let's just stop and take a moment to appreciate where we've all gotten to. Let's just forget about this case. Isn't it great that you and me have become friends? We've been doing this for so long. Let's just go get a drink. Come on. Look at how many lawyers

I've got to meet over the course of this thing. So many new friends. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The real default judgment was the friends we made along the way. Yeah. And actually, I was thinking about this. I want to, I want to make one really important clarification in terms of the preparation of these clips. I have done a little editing, but the only things that I've cut out are when there'll be a call for an exhibit and then there is a long stretch while the exhibit is being procured. Yeah, out of a binder. And so there are long stretches of like just finding shit basically. So I have cut those down for the sake of listening, but not taking out things that would provide greater context or lead to a misrepresentation. They're available if you want to go check dance work.

I just want to, but I did do that, whereas I usually don't. No, I just wanted to be totally clear. Understood. So Alex has been confronted with the fact that Owen Schreuer did in fact get called for a deposition in 2018. Yeah. And they just ignored it and in terms of they ignored a whole bunch more stuff. Uh-oh. So you got on your show without even knowing what the discovery was. Did you know in Mr. and Mr. Pozner's case, in Mrs. Delarosa's case, you understand they're suing you, right? I've never said her name. I'm never going to say it. I'm not asking you about what you said. I know they're suing you, don't you? Correct? Let's just start there. You know there's a lawsuit. I know I didn't get a jury trial. I know a judge said I was guilty. I don't believe

that I live in the Soviet Union. Mr. Jones, you're not answering the questions. Let's just admit it right now. You're not answering questions. I'm asking you, do you know that Leonard Pozner and Veronique Delarosa sued you? Yes. Do you know that? Yes. Okay. Do you know they served you discovery? I believe so, yes. Yeah. You know you didn't answer it, ever? That's not true. It is true, Mr. Jones. And I bet you when you go back and you talk to your lawyers, you're going to find out a lot of things you don't know. I'm not going to tell you, Mr. Jones, not like you got a bad grade on your homework, like you didn't turn it in. You didn't know that? What were the depositions we had and all the 81,000 documents? That's in Mrs. Lewis' cases.

That's when Mr. Barnes came in. And we'll get to that. Let's talk about that in a minute, but first let's take on Mr. Pozner and Mrs. Delarosa's case. You don't know that you never answered discovery, do you? You don't even know that, correct? Again, I don't have that stuff in front of me. Right. Ooh. A little bit of less gusto and bravado once the actual factual information is... That's not good. No, that's going to break your heart. Yeah. And I see Mark broke out his tap dancing shoes upon which to dance on Alex's grave, I believe. I think you can tell there's a tone of this is after the case is already decided. And this isn't the first time that

Mark has been deposed, like he's deposed Alex. Right. And so there is kind of a familiarity that maybe wouldn't be there in the first time that they interacted. And so the list just goes on of stuff in discovery that Alex claims he was on. He did everything for... Everything. But did not. You've got Mr. Pozner and Mrs. Delarosa's case where you didn't even answer discovery. You got Mr. Heston's defamation case where you didn't show up for defamation, answer any discovery or show up for deposition. Neither did Mr. Shroyer, neither did the company. You've got Mrs. Lewis case where you wrote an affidavit saying your lawyer screwed it up. And you've got Mr. Heston's IED case which you just got sanctioned because you sent Rob

due to the deposition. He couldn't answer any questions. And if all of those things are true, when you get onto your show and you tell your show that this is all just a kangaroo court and you completely complied but got railroaded, that's not true. None of that's true. No, it is true. I mean, I remember giving you guys all sorts of stuff and you would say you haven't been given it or you weren't given the way you wanted it. Just, I mean, look, it should be on the issues of what did I say on air. It should be maybe... You don't want it to be on that either. And that's not fair, is it? Mr. Delarosa, excuse me, Mr. Delarosa and Mr. Pozner have the right to ask you questions, right? Do you agree with that or not? I mean, I've sat for these depositions. You have not sat for a

deposition for Mrs. Delarosa and Mr. Pozner and they have that right, don't they? I don't know. You really don't, do you? That is probably a difficult question for Alex to ask or to answer either in the affirmative or the negative because I think either introduces more questions that he probably doesn't want to answer. What a bad day. Just especially in your deposition where you're fucked up, to have the lawyer remind you you're not even a third of the way through the number of cases that you've ignored. That you have ignored. Yeah, it would be challenging. Listen, not only have you been getting an F in my class, I'm here to talk to you about your other classes as well. And now we should also talk about a class that you took previously, which is, in this metaphor, the

last deposition. Yes. Because we went over that. And if you'll recall, there were a number of times where citation and sourcing was discussed. And Alex would make a claim in a video or on his show and Mark would ask, where did you get that from? And Alex, he responded on a number of these cases with, I don't know, but I could get it for you. If you give me time, I could get it for you. How did we do? Well, we get the circles back. Do you remember we talked in that last deposition about the Bloomberg email, where Bloomberg sent an email out to his people, said, get ready in the next 24 hours, there's going to be a big event. You remember that? That was a new story. Yeah. Yeah. And then we talked about it for a while, because you had brought

that up to me. You were like, look, I don't have the email itself. That was something I was reporting on. I had, there was a story about it. And I was reporting on it. You remember that? I do. And then you remember you told me you could find it for me, right? Yeah, I believe I said that. And then you never gave it to me, did you? I'd be honest with you, banks, and you don't really inhabit much of my mind. I've much respect for any of this process, do you? None of it. I don't think you have respect for America or anything. Oh my God, what a whitey, baby. But nailed it. Oh, he did. He did. That was well delivered. I'm going to give him that. You don't have respect for the proceedings that are going on here. You don't have respect for America. That was his, that was his, you can't handle the

truth moment. And I get it, but he earned it, but it was also delivered. Like that line, you know, you couldn't handle the truth or whatever. If it was delivered like that, it would not be a classic no movie moment. No, no, no, absolutely not. It was sort of muttered. If it was a whiny baby doing it, you can't handle the truth. You can't handle the truth. Not as electric. No, your truth is dumb. Yeah. That was, that was pretty interesting. That response, I think was shocking. It's just outright cabattiveness. Yeah. That is, it's fun for the sake of a podcast or maybe a show, but like it's for the sake of a functioning legal system. No, terrible. It's awful. I don't think it impresses anybody. Really bad. Really, really bad. Yeah. So now we get to a discussion

about Alex's audience size. Right. And this, this might have been a mistake on Alex's part. I want to play you a piece of audio from now, from your radio show. So there's not going to be any video to show you, but this is going to be exhibit three. It was 3% the volunteer of the Revolutionary War back in 1776. But if you look at the Info Wars audience, it's maybe 10% of the United States, another 10% or so worldwide, the 10% of the conservative estimate. That's true. That's a guesstimation. It's probably a lot higher than that. Right. I don't know. So you need to find an audience that somebody tuned in once a month, once a year, once a day. You're the one who said it, Mr. Jones, you tell me. It's a very short clip. I need to know the

context. There's nothing else said about audience in that entire clip. Okay. Well, I haven't heard the whole clip. It's an advertisement for some sort of pill or something. I'm asking you right now, is 10% of America an accurate representation of Info Wars listenership? That's true. Right. Major media organization. I mean, I would say a larger percentage than that agree with my worldview, but I mean, I would say 10% of the countries watch something I've done and agree with me. And then globally, another 10%, right? Because you're, let me put it this way. Info Wars programming is not bound by US borders. It's the internet's everywhere, right? Okay. And so globally,

Info Wars also has a very large audience, right? Maybe 10% of the globe is listening into Info Wars, right? I want to imagine 10% of the people and I know that that's a, that's that's more hyperbole, but the English speaking world, yeah, I would say so. Whoa. So this is a bit of a misstep, I believe on Alex's part, because he's in a deposition where the goal is determining the damages he's going to be facing in this case. One of the relevant questions when it comes to defamation, particularly in a case like this, where the defamation was broadcast is how many people were exposed to the defamatory material. And the interest of his case should make Alex downplay the size of his audience, but his ego won't allow it. So he says Hunter Oath

that 10% of the English speaking world, or about 135 million people are in his audience. That's a wide audience that he's essentially admitting would have been exposed to the things that he's being sued for, which is unclear if he even understood that in this question. Nope. It's not like, like Mark is clearly asking like these like, you got a big, you got a big show, big audience. No, it's not like he's writing a puff piece about it. It's so funny to me because from, I mean, like I can see this perfectly just from Alex's tone of voice is just like, this is a man who knows some things up, but you're saying all the right things to make me say the things that I want to say. So these questions of like, you've got a big audience, don't you,

Mr. Jones? Even the way that Mark has phrased it is, of course, Alex is going to say, well, yes, my audience is huge. You know, smell a trap. And he does, he does smell a trap. I can hear it, but he doesn't know what it is. It's so funny to me. It's so funny to me. He thinks the trap is coming, but the trap was already sprung, my friend. Do you think that this lawyer is asking you this question? So on the like, you know, in front of the jury, you can say, Hey, this guy's really successful. So good. We should be proud of what he's created. I mean, Hey, I think he's a monster, but he did. He's got 135 million regular listeners. What are you supposed to say? It's not like you take the time to ask this if it wasn't part of something, a point you're trying to build.

And Alex has just helped that point get built in a way that you couldn't possibly build through like just looking at web traffic or whatever. Nope. Alex has done a great favor. I would say, in terms of establishing a self-reported audience size, you can just feel how stupid he is. It's brutal. So this is a particular highlight for me. Mike down for this, because now that we've established that there's this really large audience, Mark wants to talk about, you know, you have a responsibility to not lie to your audience. This is great. Hyperbole is something you're very familiar with. Yes, that's right. Talk radio is a big part of that. Exactly. When addressing that audience, your United States and global audience, would you ever

intentionally lie to them? No. Okay, let me play you another clip. I want to have a similar blitzer hurt because blitzers are human maggot. I mean, like you really want to start a fight with us. He just can't help it. Yeah, you do, don't you? You're begging for it. You're begging, you're begging to get your gut stomped out hard. And I don't know if you ever had your gut stomped out, but you don't live after that happens. So you've not that I've ever stomped anybody's guts out. Actually, I have a couple of times. It's not too nice. It takes people a long time to die if you stomp their guts up. But that's no threat to blitzer. How many people have you physically killed?

Well, I guess I guess we could officially put it to bed. Alex is not technically probably killed a guy. Well, Alex will say under oath that he has not killed anybody. That's such a great like little ping pong exchange of like, you know, you got this large audience. It's important to use hyperbole, but it's important not to directly lie to them, right? Yes, yours are you lying? Oh man, every time every single time I answered a question and Mark said, let me play a clip for you. I'd throw the desk away. I'd be like, fine, you win. If you've got a clip, you win. You get what you want. Well, I think I think another response would be like, just sitting there like, how am I going to say this is out of

context? Can my lawyer yell something? I stepped on a nail and then run. So this is the point here in the in the deposition where we start to get around to some documents and some exhibits being introduced. And this one was a bit of a curve ball. This was a surprise. It's fair to say that Leonard Posner and free speech systems have had an unfriendly relationship over the years. No, I'm not numb. I mean, I don't really follow what he does. So you've done shows about him. So you do follow him, correct? I mean, I don't have you never refreshed my memory. So I will refresh your memory about what you know about Mr. Posner. Let me show you what Mark has done at five. Have you ever seen that before? No, not that I remember. What is it? That's the sole document you produced

to me just a couple, I guess a month or two ago, in regard to discovery requests for any documents you had regarding Mr. Posner. That's the sole document that was in that folder labeled Posner. That's it. And that you will agree with me appears to be a very large, looks to be about 187 page comprehensive background report on Mr. Posner, correct? Oh, I never ran a background report on Posner. I've never even seen this. I understand that you probably never even saw that. Would someone email us this and then we open it? I don't know, Mr. Jones, you gave it to me. I'm not supposed to tell you about it. I don't know. You tell me, that's why I got you. I mean, if we just go through the email, most of it even unopened and just send you guys everything.

This isn't an email, is it? I would imagine. Well, I've never run a background thing on Posner. One thing we can agree on, because you look at the bottom of that document, it says fsstx.085544, correct? Yeah. That's the Bates numbers you all use when you give me documents, right? So this document right here came from InfoWars Corporate Files. I thought you said we haven't given you any documents. Earlier, you said we didn't get, we were default. We gave you nothing. We didn't even respond. You gave the documents in the Lewis case in response to documents. Okay. Well, I mean, listen, I mean, I'm just telling you, I've never looked at this.

That's not what I'm asking you, Mr. Jones. But I remember hearing in the news about me in Florida doing a background thing on him. And so I figure somebody might have sent us this. I'm just guessing. I shouldn't guess. I don't know. Yeah. Do you think you should be guessing in this definition? No, I just said, you're right. I don't know what this is. So let's not do that anymore. I think that the attempt there on Alex's part to try and evade with the, I thought we didn't give you any documents. It was met with a laugh. And clearly this isn't going to be a road that Alex is going to be able to go down. And so instead, he's like, wow, I heard there was a guy in Florida. That's obviously a reference to Wolfgang Halbig. But he didn't want to say his name and

evoke it. I'm going to say his name. Maybe I'm going to get through this deposition without Halbig. Nobody says Halbig's name. I bet they don't even remember this whole thing. Remember, we got served in 2018. I don't even remember this guy. Yeah. That's a strange sort of vibe. Not good. So this is a particularly interesting point in this exchange, because Alex seems actually confused by the presentation of this document. And it's a gigantic and extensive background check on Leonard Posner, one of the parents of the children killed at Sandy Hook. The fact that free speech systems turned that over in the case is bizarre. The fact that that was in their files to begin with is bizarre. Like all of it does not add up. I suspect based

on Alex's attempts to workshop an explanation that one of two things is going on here. Either he knew about this document and is surprised to see it. So he's trying to come up with a cover story, or he had no idea about its existence, but he realizes how fucked up it is that that was in their files. So he's trying to come up with a cover story for that. Yeah. Yeah. Either way, the result is an unconvincing mess. And this question has just left open for a jury to hear without any explanation or exculpatory context on Alex's part. Yeah. And I don't think the existence of this document looks good. No, no, no. I mean, I believe that Alex has never read it. Sure. It's 187 pages. That's fine. But I mean, of all, they were going through the things they

want to give, which obviously we know excludes so many things. And they were looking at the one file in Leonard Posner's name. And they were like, let's put this super suspicious, massive background report that we totally didn't have ordered or asked for with no explanation, no context. Everybody seems confused by its existence. What are you doing here? Yeah, it's, it's, it's so bizarre, especially considering one of the things, you know, that's discussed about Alex's and Infor's behavior is like the publishing of Posner's address. Personal details. Where he got his mail. And so the existence of this kind of a extremely thorough background report is, is not great. Yeah. One that has a lot of personal information about it. You bet. You would, you know,

if, if I were somebody who had already had a default judgment against me in one case, and then specifically releasing a private person's information was at fault in another case, I would not want to have a big stack of that person's private information in my purpose in your corporate files. Yeah, it does seem to at least it provides opportunity, you know, like how would you have information? Well, here's how you would possibly have that information. Where did this come from? I just, listen, we walked down the streets and shit falls from the sky. I don't know what to tell you. It's very strange. And this will be revisited in the Daria deposition. So we'll get back to this. But this is a nice little semantic game Alex tries to play about this.

One thing we can agree on is that in the files of free speech systems is a 187 page investigators comprehensive report on Leonard Bosner. According to you. No, no, no, no, no, no, sir. According to you, I want your testimony. I told you I've never seen this before. I don't care if you've seen it. Okay. I'm saying you put this is your baits number on the bottom. Correct? Yes. Okay. This came from Infowars Corporates. Okay. I think that there is a good dynamic going on where Alex keeps trying to get around things. Yeah. And I think that Mark's strategy is flexible enough that he can allow for Alex to say some bullshit and then run into a wall with the some of these deflection tactics. I think it's very good. I think it's, I think it's

a lot of fun. Yeah. You really have to establish for a while in advance that no, Alex, you sent this to us. This is yours. Not mine. Yeah. I'm not making claims about it. This is what you sent to us. Yeah. And when these sort of linguistic and rhetorical dodges that he uses that are just almost second nature. Couldn't stop himself if he wanted to. I would imagine not, but you do have to sort of put a pin in them because you do it enough. It does send the message that I'm not going to put up with this. No, nip it in the bud. It's going to be an unaffective and unsuccessful strategy. Yeah. And I think that maybe how you have to talk to him. Come down fast and hard, I guess. A little parental. Well, well, if he didn't sound like he had failed a book report every time he answered a

question, maybe you wouldn't have to talk to him like a fucking child. Perhaps. So they get into talking about the chain of events where Leonard Posner contacted Info Wars with a polite complaint, and then it went from there. No, Mr. Posner started in all of this privately complaining to you to Info Wars. You agree with that? He made a private complaint to you. I, um, yes. Okay. And he was very polite about it, wasn't he? It's been a long time since I saw the email, but I think so. Okay. And when that didn't work, he complained again, but this time to YouTube. You know about that, right? I really don't remember. You know Mr. Posner complained to YouTube, right?

No, I, I mean, I've, I, I remember, I remember people said he was going around, getting a lot of stuff taken down all over the place and, and. It made you mad, didn't it? No, no. Actually, I told my crew members, Sandy Hook's a tar baby, stop covering it. Oh boy. Let's, let's keep that one in. I want, okay, I want that in the legal record for the rest of my life. I want the legal system to know what I said. That's a little disappointing. Yeah. But the way Alex answered that question is really puzzling to me. Like listening to it is very confused. First, he's aware that Mr. Posner politely complained to info wars and was ignored. Then Alex is unaware that Posner went on to

complain to YouTube, but when confronted with how absurd that statement is considering things he said publicly, Alex tries to explain how he could be mad at Posner about free speech issues, but somehow not aware that he'd complained to YouTube about Alex and gotten a strike on his channel. He can basically hear the gears moving here. Well, Alex is, Alex is trying to come up with a just plausible enough explanation for all the details he thinks he has to account for. Yeah. Like, oh no, the reason I did those shows was because I heard that he was getting things taken down all over the place and was against free speech had nothing to do with any personal interaction I had. No, no, no. My, my revenue stream being shut down eventually due to the

germination of effort from this one particular man, I, I wouldn't pay attention to that at all. Please. Well, what was I getting from YouTube? Millions? So this, this, this, this is just confusing. This, this, this, this, this answer is, is bizarre. Long before you guys ever sued me, I would scream at people if they even talked about it because it's tar baby. And that's, that's why I told you, I just had to compartmentalize the atom because it's just like constant. I'm the Sandy Hook man. I killed the kids. I had people in Florida, two months ago, I'm go, you killed those kids. And I went, no, I didn't. And just, whatever. People don't know who Adam Lanzi is. They think I killed the kids. So whatever. I mean, I just,

you know, you guys use a D platform me. People think I killed the kids, all this stuff. Just do your worst. What was my question? I've answered your question. You don't know what it was. You were just talking. You were just, right? No, I didn't know what your question was. Right. And so you just started talking. Cause you didn't even know what it was. Cause you weren't, it wasn't a clear question. Cause you don't care. Correct. Cause it wasn't a clear question. Uh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You got to talk to him like a child. You just got to. What was the question? What question are, do you think you're answering? Well, you know, I answered your question. Nope. No, I did. I did. Yeah. I said words. I mean, it was,

you said words. I said, that's how words work. The question was regarding awareness of the YouTube complaint that Posner had made. Yeah. Didn't you see he answered that question? I went to Florida and someone said, I killed the kids. Yes. He answered the question. People don't even know who Adam Lanza is. I killed the kids. Just do your worst to me. That's the answer to that question, dad. So, um, this, this transitions from being, some questions about Mr. Posner to being questions about another parent, uh, Neil Heslin, who was featured in the, uh, the Macon Kelly piece that Alex got so mad about. And, uh, we, we get a good establishing question here. When Neil Heslin, okay,

first of all, you know who Neil Heslin is, right? Yes. Okay. So when Neil Heslin appeared on Macon Kelly show in 2017, do you remember that? Yes. Okay. When he went on there and said he was upset by the things you were saying about Sandy Hook. Did you believe him? I thought it was all done very theatrically in a very canned way, but I do think parents had pain over their children, but it was all done and had an infomercial feel to it. And that's my view of it. Look, I don't care really what you think about Macon Kelly or NBC news run by the largest weapons manufacturer in the world. You know, like, I don't care. Yes. They make incredibly edited videos. They, it's a complete, I mean, if you, I'm sure if

you've ever seen an NBC production of lights and cameras and staging that they, they set, they set up scenes, they do all this. I know that. I know it looks like a video. I'm not asking about NBC or Macon Kelly. I just want to know about Neil Heslin. Did you believe him? Objection form. Believe him about what? When he said he was upset about the things you said about Sandy Hook. Did you believe him? Yes, I believe him. So this is, I think, a really good approach that Mark is taking with the questioning where he's getting out in front of Alex's criticism of the media. So it's one of the ways that Alex can best deflect from taking responsibility for his actions is to point to other media entities and yell about the mistakes they've made or how they're corrupt.

By introducing that on his own, Mark is essentially taking that tool away or at least weakening its impact because if Alex tries to employ that dodge, the response he can clearly expect isn't a distracting argument, but something like we're in agreement that the media isn't great, but that's not relevant to the discussion we're having. Yeah. Yeah. He just cut off Alex's feet. Essentially. Yeah. This is something that I think is a really good tactic you can use when you're talking to hyper evasive people who are also full of shit. If there's something that's a standard rhetorical refuge that they tend to take, staking out your own claim in that space makes it so they're less comfortable retreating to it. And that's a good ploy. And at the same time, you've recentered

this to being like, did you believe Neil Heslin when he said this about his kid? Right. Because that is kind of relevant. I want to take you back to the night that you first saw that Megan Kelly interview, which probably was a surprise for you considering that it was not what she represented to you to be, correct? Yes. Okay. And on that night, when you saw that video, and you saw Mr. Heslin saying those things, I want to take you back to that date. Okay. And at that date, you understood that if info were to make a video saying Mr. Heslin could not have held his son, that would be very upsetting to Mr. Heslin. You understood that. No, I did not understand that. Okay. This is bizarre. Because he has said already that he

understood and believed Neil Heslin on Megan Kelly's show that he was upset by the things that in force has said. He said a parent has to be a fey pain. Sure. But somehow now he's saying that he doesn't understand that saying more stuff. What are human emotions? Yeah, that's like an inherent contradiction that he's making. Yeah. And that is kind of bizarre. Alex, excuse me. Do you understand basic human empathy? Just on a little. Okay. Well, after the Megan Kelly piece, Owen Shroyer did a story where he said that Neil Heslin couldn't have held his son. Right. Yes, I recall. Which is part of the lawsuit. And so, you know, we want to know why did he do that? Who gave him the idea to do that? How do you feel

about it now? Who do you know sitting here today? Who made the choice for Owen Shroyer to put those claims by Jim Fetzer on the air about Neil Heslin after the Megan Kelly interview? Do you know who did that? It was a live show. That's that's not a video we made. It was a live show. And I believe he read a zero hedge article. He just read an article. Right. From Jim about Jim Fetzer stuff, right? Remember that? I believe he was in the article. You're right. And you understand that a video was made for that and uploaded to YouTube on June 26 2017. Would you have any reason to dispute that? I'm not sure we even had our YouTube channel then. But you did. You did. You lost. You also know that a month after Mr. Shroyer made that video,

you then took that five minute video from the live show and played it on your show again. You understand that you're being sued for that. Yes, I guess. Okay. So whose decision was it, if you know, for him to basically give more air to Mr. Fetzer's claims? Whose decision was that? It was Owen's decision. Okay. Hey, Owen, meet my friend Buss over here. You're going to go under it. Oh boy. Yeah, that's that's that was all Owen. Yeah. No, that still doesn't excuse Alex's re-airing of the video on his show. That was your choice. Based on what Alex has just said, which is that Owen obviously has control over his own show. It's a live show. He chose to do that. That means that Alex having the same control over probably more you would assume. Yeah,

chose to air the exact same information on his show. Now look, I don't have time for those kinds of little decisions. Okay, that's a good point. But wait, so there's a rebuttal to this and a follow up question that Mark may have some information that runs counter to to this thing that Alex is saying. Uh oh. See, the thing is, I talked to him a couple days ago, and he said, no, he didn't read it at all or look at your research. Somebody put it in front of him and told him to do it. He doesn't remember who, but he doesn't, he doesn't do that. I mean, he doesn't research stuff himself. Somebody puts it in front of him. So let me let's try to go at it this way. If Owen's going to be doing that video that I don't agree with that statement. Okay. Well, I mean,

I'm again, talk to Owen because he testified a couple days ago, right? So this question Mark Bose's brings up a point that puts Alex in a really uncomfortable position. He needs the impression to be that in fours reporters are all in depth researchers who bring their own work to the show and deliver hard news. This is an important image for Alex to maintain since it looks like what journalists do kind of the problem. However, is that Owen has told Mark that when he said that Neil Heslin couldn't have held his son after the shooting that he was just reading an article someone put in front of him with no awareness of what the article was or what the sources were. So Alex is now in the position of having to claim that Owen lied. This is likely because the

alternative opens a can of worms that Alex does not want to have opened to the public. And that's asking the question, who put the article in front of Owen? If Owen isn't lying, then someone in that studio has a shocking level of editorial control over what goes on on the show. And we have no idea who that person might be. You can see how this question alone could lead to some discomfort because if such a person exists, you have to ask yourself, how did they get this editorial authority? Is that part of their job description? And what kind of digging do they do into the sources that they're providing for the anchors to just say on air? On the flip side of this, it also opens up a question about who can and can't just tell Owen what to say on air. If a person

who fed him the story was someone like a boom mic operator, then that raises the question, can anyone just put something in front of Owen and he'll read it on air is the news? That's troubling. Yeah, we're into Anchorman, Ron Burgundy territory. Yeah, so Alex is in the position now where one option he has is throwing Owen under the bus. The other option involves the possibility of some undisclosed editorial manager giving Owen the story to report or the possibility of complete negligence and lack of oversight about everything they put on the air to the point where any person who's there. Oh my God, I just heard a bus's break screech so loud. I had to stop for some reason. I don't know what could have. It's strange. I understand the instinct that Alex has.

But yeah, this point that Mark brings up of a conversation he's had with Owen. It's very counter. These are the counter. These are the bus metaphor. It's two buses heading for an intersection. Both trying to push one another under it. And both are being driven by Keanu Reeves and speed. What I find interesting about this so far and really what is going to do Alex and more than anything else is that Alex's ability to understand questions is so shallow that he doesn't realize that by answering one of Mark's questions he is then raising the possibility that more questions will be asked. Like he doesn't get that. He believes that the answer is the end of the question. I think that's probably because he's used to monologuing. That's what I'm saying.

And then also having interviews with guests on his show who are essentially conspirators or co-collaborators with him. Right. So this is a completely new concept to him that the answer is also a consequence that leads to more questions. John Rappaport would never ask a follow-up. Exactly. This is this is fucking with his brain. Why can't I have a deposition with John Rappaport. I answered one question. Why are you asking more questions about that question when I have conversations with Steve Bochenick. He usually tells me I'm a genius. He says I look pretty in the mornings. So Alex Alex has to really put his foot down and make clear that like no Owen runs his own show. He is in charge. Here we go. So the only two people in the room who are probably going to have

any influence on what goes in front of the anchor to say are the producer and the person who's researching checking clips and that sort of thing. Right. No. No. The way the way it works is the host is telling people what to play and what articles and the host run the shows. So Owen should have been the one who found the zero hedge article. That's what you're thinking. That's how it would normally work. He would have found that article hundreds. Hundreds of articles. This is the way I do it. Other people don't do it this way. I'm my own basically producer book or everything. So the way I sit there and I print hundreds of articles or I direct people to and I just say go to these 10 sites and print everything on it. So I keep a physical copy and then other people

there have chosen to do it the same way and then just constantly more information is coming out as the day goes on. And you know we might it's kind of like a parrot eating them. I throw away 90% of the stuff that's put in front of them and then it sits there and just decided what it wants to eat. But the radio host run the show. It's a radio show on TV. It's a radio show. It's not journalism. It's not you know in the main. It's just like Howard Stern or it's just like Rush Limbaugh and you're playing clips. You're covering articles. You're giving your opinion on things. Okay. Oh so it's not journalism. No. Not even a little bit. Okay. I may I agree. It's a radio show on TV. Ironically it is neither of those things. Sure. It's it's just a thing where we

riff around about extremist topics. Yeah. So Mark wants to establish that this information that Alex was using in the like the 2017 videos that he put out. Right. You know it traces back to people like Jim Fetzer. Sure. And whether or not at that time he had reason to believe that Jim Fetzer was not a good source. Back in 2017 you had information. You'd seen information that caused you to doubt whether Mr. Heslin really held us good. Correct. Yes I did. I did see an article questioning it. Yeah. And that information that information was raised by Mr. Fetzer. Correct. I don't I don't have the article in front of me. Okay. In 2017 in fours

the company itself had an understanding that there was issues with Mr. Fetzer's credibility. Correct. Jackson for I mean I can't really speak to Mr. Fetzer credibility. So this is a trap. I can. This is obviously the question being asked. The answer is in the question of the stuff you said was trace but you know traces back to Jim Fetzer. The article was just Jim Fetzer information. Yeah. So the second question is also more or less a statement that like hey do you have any reasons to doubt his credibility. Yeah. And of course there's an email. I mean I can't really speak to Mr. Fetzer credibility. Okay. Well other people in your company have spoken to Mr. Fetzer's

credibility to you. Correct. I don't recall. You don't recall Paul Watson talking to you about Jim Fetzer. No. Okay. If somebody Paul Watson in 2015. Is he your chief reporter by then. Is he an editor. What is he. Do you remember. Yeah. He was the head editor of Info Wars. The the the articles the site itself. Okay. And he also did some hosting duties too. Right. Yes. Okay. If Mr. Watson. Let's just say again that Mr. Watson somebody who's opinion you respect I would assume. Correct. Yes. Somebody you will if he if he brings you something you'll listen to it. Right. Yes. May not always agree with Mr. Watson. Right. Yes. But you'll listen to him.

Yes. Okay. If Mr. Watson had come to you in 2015 and told you Alex Jim Fetzer's batshit crazy would you have listened to him. Would you have taken that into consideration. Yes. Wow. This is I think this could not be more like a fork in chess. You know like when you've got your night in the right spot and you're listen I'm getting your queen or I'm getting your rook. So how do you want this to go. And Alex does not understand what's about to happen to him. Yeah. It's it's it's like there's the email of Paul saying. Yeah. We can't trust these people. No. And it's like it's an email that Buckley is on. Right. Talking about like oh no I can't believe Alex is is hearing this and not realizing that what's about to happen is exactly the thing

that I mean this is amazing. Well the water is getting hot. Let's I want the hammer to drop my friend. This frog is boiling. Received information that called into doubt Mr. Fetzer's credibility. You would check in and verify that before ever relying on him again. Correct. I can't talk about the hypotheticals that you're discussing. I already told you that 98% of what we do is cover news in the public domain and give our opinion and commentary. And so I'm not a journalist at the Wall Street Journal that writes one year long investigative journalist reports. And so I'm a radio talk show host that puts the show on TV. This whole thing that he's doing with like I'm just a talk show host kind of thing. It just it feels like a you wouldn't hit a guy with

glasses. Hey come on. Come on. I'm just a talk show. I'm just a little talk show over here. I'm not causing no problems. It's such nonsense. I mean like he's like also trying to present this idea of like everything we cover is just like mainstream media stuff. Like he pretends that he has high level secret sources. He constantly is taking primary source documents and coming up with fantasy interpretations of them. He's regularly conducting the most softball interviews with dangerous lunatics. And a lot of the time he's even reporting stuff based on fake stories from his past or esoteric dreams that he came up with that he had that he thinks are prophetic. But we can't blame him for that until we know he's not a psychic. OK. We can't prove that yet.

So I'm going to go ahead and err on the side of where I'm at. OK. Fine. So the hammer doesn't necessarily come down about this email from Paul. But we know that it exists. Yes. And so you don't really need to bring it up because you have Alex saying these things. And so instead let's let's talk a little bit about old grump David Knight. Hey David Knight. David Knight is a talk show host. Does he work for you right now. No. OK. He did work for you recently. Yes. When did he leave the company. I remember correctly about a year ago. And then he's not come back in any way. Are y'all still doing videos with David Knight. No. OK. David Knight did not. David there was some. There was some tension between David Knight and Dr. Steve Pachennick. You'd agree with that.

I mean I remember some David Knight and Steve Pachennick did not get along right. I guess David Knight was incredibly critical of the thing Steve Pachennick was saying about Sandy Hook. Correct. No I don't remember that. OK. Can you tell me why David Knight isn't with the company anymore. David was saying that he was being censored and no one was censoring him and he was just unhappy. And so I fired him. Interesting. So I've made some comments about tactics and strategies Mark's using that I think are positive. Right. In the interest of total fairness I do have to clarify that Mark has a slightly incorrect piece of information that he's putting out here. David Knight was totally into what Steve was saying about Sandy Hook and actually was still

promoting that Sandy Hook was fake on his show until at least 2017. David got sick of Steve when he said that the Las Vegas shooting was fake and that led to the deterioration of their working relationship. And then David got really mad when Steve started coming back on the show around the lead up to the 2020 election. David was insistent that Steve was a con man and the stuff about all the balance being watermarked with blockchain was stupid and that Steve was just lying to Alex. This is what led to him getting fired and replaced by Harrison Smith hosting the American Journal. Right. So there's a there is a definite truth to the tension between the two of them. But David Knight actually was totally fine with this. Right. All right. It's which is yes. This

is only more damning for David Knight. Sure. And Alex is like he's being censored. It's like he's being censored about Steve. Yeah. You were censoring him. Yes. He wanted to go and say that Steve Pachanic was a lying piece of shit. You were like no you want to you want to. So I fired. Yeah. So now we learn a little bit about some of David Knight's actions back in the Sandy Hook time. And this is weird. Let's hear about it. I'm going to put in front of you what I'm working is it seven. Now one of the things you'll notice about this document is you look down in the bottom corners. There's no numbers are there. Bottom corners of the document. No blank page. All right. So this this is I'm going to represent you. This is a document that was produced to me

by your former lawyers that has no base number on it. OK. So I don't have an identification number for you. But looking at this email with David Knight's name to and from that's one of your employees at that time 2017. Yes. OK. And I'm going to go ahead and read this for you here. This is the date is June 19th 2017. OK. You remember that the Megan Kelly interview was in the summer of 2017. Right. Yes. OK. And in fact one of the videos that your company is being sued for is a June 26th video from 2017 that Elin Shroyer did. We've just been talking about. Right. Yes. And then in July you also did a video about these about Mr. Husson as well. Correct. That you're being sued for. I don't. Yes. So you do know you did make that July 20th video

about Mr. Husson. You know that sitting here today. I mean I did a live radio show. Yes. Did a show. Did a show. Make a video. Well I guess you didn't make the video but somebody did. Somebody made a video of that and uploaded it to the YouTube channel. OK. For us. Right. So I don't I'm what I'm trying to get because you've brought this distinction up a couple of times that no we're just a live radio show. It's not a video. But there are videos and they are uploaded to YouTube. Correct. They worry. And in fact the listenership for the radio show could be totally different than who's watching the YouTube video. Correct. They are. Yeah. OK. So now we have this video. We have this email from David Knight and it's from David Knight

to David Knight. Right. So he's sending himself something. Correct. I guess. OK. The subject line is it says Connecticut Kerry releases the troubled past of Neil Heslin. And then do you see that there is a link there from ammo land.com. Correct. Yes. OK. And then it says sent for my iPad. Right. Yes. OK. And then this email here was sent to himself at 6 12 p.m. You see that. Yes. OK. Everything I've said about this email is accurate. Yes. You have any reason to think that this is not a true and accurate email from in fours as far as I don't know. I don't know either. You gave it to me and it doesn't even. I have any reason to dispute this is a real. No. I don't have any reason to dispute. OK.

So we've got this established that David Knight around the time of the Sandy or the making Kelly interview at 6 p.m. was emailing himself an article with dirt on Neil Heslin. Right. Now there is. When did the interview air. But there's more. Hold on. OK. Let me show you this is a similar email which I've marked as exhibit 8. You see this is 6 18 2017. Yes. OK. Just a couple days before Owen Shroyer did his video. Correct. Yes. OK. And do you remember that Megan Kelly's interview with your profile came out in June 19 2017. I don't remember the date. OK. So here we have again David Knight sending an email to himself. David Knight seek the truth 80 at Yahoo. Is that another one of

David Knight's email address. I don't know. OK. You don't know who that is. No. OK. It says subject Neil Heslin father of Sandy Hook victim faces criminal charges news country times dot com. Right. Yes. And then there's a country times article link. Yes. OK. And then Mr. Knight sent himself to the sent himself this email at 2 56 in the morning. Yes. OK. You have any reason to think that this isn't a correct true and copy email that came out in four hours. I think this is a good strategy that's being employed here because there's no question for Alex to answer other than just like do you have reason to believe this is inauthentic. Right. It essentially gives Alex no room to move or to spin anything. There's almost

definitely no information that Alex could give about these emails that would be useful. But letting them just sit there. There's clear indications that senior employees at Info Wars were doing research into things that they could use to smear Heslin at 2 a.m. or 250 something a.m. and 6 p.m. that day. Like a stretch of time where he had almost like it was his job for the day. It's such a bad look. Almost as if somebody had directed him to find information on Neil Heslin and he had been up all night and he had been working so hard on it and then later people used that information burning the midnight oil looking for smear. I think it was probably just because he was you know he was just doing it on. It gives an indication of the kind of vibe maybe

that was going on around Info Wars. Hey I want this information. So because there's I don't know maybe the appearance of like looking for ways to attack this person who was in the making Kelly interview seemed like maybe threatening to Alex. Come on. This is an important question which is like do you have any reason to believe that these people were faking their grief. Does the company have any reason to contend. Well first let me ask you this way. Do you have any reason to contend that any of these parents have been faking their distress over Info Wars actions as it regards Sandy Hook. I did not kill their children and I didn't visit Adam Lanza's house the CIA did and all the rest of that and no one sued me back in the time when I was actually talking about it was

once I became extremely famous and Hillary Clinton made an issue about it in campaign ads and then Trump won the election and then I became this big supercharged political target as low hanging fruit and then they go oh he's the Sandy Hook man and then the anti gun control groups the Democratic Party basically attached themselves to me so that every time I was in the news they could then bring back up Sandy Hook for the gun control advocacy that they have and that's what this long process has been. Okay first of all objection non-responsive. Was any of that meant to be a reason that you contend that the Sandy Hook families are faking or the same my clients are faking their distress? I do not think they're faking their distress. Okay so their distress over what

you said is genuine you admit that. I mean I would call it more hatred than than than distress. I think that yeah I think I think there's some feelings of hatred yeah I do I think I think when for instance you can understand how when Neil Heslin has spent the last moments with his little heroic child who saved some lives that day looking him in the face with the bolt hole in his head. I didn't kill him. I know you didn't kill him. Please let him just ask you. Yeah let's not interrupt me Mr. Jones. I know you didn't kill him. I'm handling it with my client. You're not but I'm asking you Mr. Jones I'm not saying you killed these kids nobody's saying that you caused that grief let's make that really clear nobody's saying that these parents though were grieving over the deaths of

their children that's a thing that they went through has nothing to do with you you get that their grief over the death of their children has nothing to do with you you get that except then that through the gun control that it was projected on gun owners blaming us for their deaths and we don't accept that. I don't even know what that means but you know what it means gun owners have all been blamed you asked me to answer your question. We get blamed every time some crazy person on Prozac goes and kills people if the CIA went and visited on record and then and and and then we get blamed and we're tired of being blamed. You can almost hear Alex starting to turn into like show mode here you can almost hear that flip gets switched the switch

get flipped because there's just like I guess I'm gonna yell now or I guess I'm gonna get really combative and do a performance. Well it was in reaction to him being forced to say yes I that is you know once he got that negative the that that terrible headspace of just having to say yes I know what you're saying but he couldn't deflect on anything right so then it just turned into him being like there's only one way for me to take control of this again and and that's to do my show and I think it's in response to the like the objection non responsive yeah I'm not even getting engaged with this yeah yeah yeah thread you're going down totally that means nothing God that that moment of listen I'll take care of my client the fuck you are

yeah this is this is this is not Barnes so in this next clip Alex continues down this line and he it's it's unfortunate what happens when he gets into show mode in the wrong settings uh-oh so so here's the deal here's the deal the court of public opinion knows that people have a right to ask questions now in hindsight I saw the families it looked pretty legitimate some of the anomalies turned out to not be true and then I said I was sorry and then I got sued and so let's just not sit here and pretend that Alex Jones is in red pajamas like the devil running around attacking all these people and that's not the case let's see if you can okay so if Neil hustling spent these last moments of his

son has this cherished memory putting his hand through his son's hair and then he sees mr shroyer and then you right get on tv and draw serious doubt about whether he even held his son whether he's telling the truth and he did that after he had asked you to stop you can understand why that man might have some negative feelings about and you can understand how he's on tv on a national program attacking us yeah you know why you did that yeah tell me why why do you do that because meghan kelly went and organized the whole thing for publicity to to go after the second amendment they stepped into this used it for political purposes went after the american people and then get surprised when people think it might be staged might be or it might be synthetic you think

neil hustling went on national television to ask you to stop as part of a plot to what destroy the second amendment there are the interest behind it and the money and and and the the financing i don't care about those people i don't represent any of those people i don't represent meghan kelly i had meghan kelly in this chair right now believe me i'd be talking to her some things so now alex has gotten himself into a strange position where he's trying to claim that these people were doing these the sort of pageants to attack the second amendment and it's fun when you're on a radio show you can just broadly say these things no one will push back but then when you're asked about specifics of like we're talking about my client here that's what you're saying

i mean well okay all right it having to dance around all these things and ask to like to be specific is like kryptonite for alex yeah it's and you can see that um and and he tries to continue to justify a lot of his behavior because of a notion that the sandy hook parents got political sure and that made it so he had to fight them right do you have any reason to dispute that these parents grieving process over the past eight years has been impacted by infor's actions as it regards sandy hook projection form that's a hypothetical question i can't speak to their emotions um there's nothing hypothetical about it mr jones i did not kill their children they became political and used the that death to then for their advocacy against the right to keep their arms

and so that directly put them in in in opposition uh politically with me and so they stepped into that political arena what what did senator pausner do politically about guns what did he do did he ever say anything about guns publicly i'm talking about the whole sandy hook situation in general but and then some of the parents okay did scarlet lewis ever say anything about guns i don't have it all in front of me that's such an illustrative moment alex is trying to come up with the justification for his actions because he's being confronted with the reality that he traumatized these parents with his shit and the place he decides to land is that they use their children's deaths for political gain against the

second amendment marx rebuttal is so revealing because alex can't name a single thing that these two people who are suing alex ever did in terms of gun advocacy he has no idea what these people did or didn't do his response was just the normal kind of dodge he'll use when he's being questioned by some shithead like rogan who'll just go along with whatever alex says here's why this is key to understand alex didn't say or do the things he did about the particular parents who were suing him because they were in opposition to the second amendment what happened was that alex saw the conversation surrounding sandy hook uh in the shooting there as being a threat to his guns so he decided that the sandy hook parents were one uniform group which he needed to attack to change

the narrative alex didn't really care about any of them or what they were doing or not doing individually he saw the collection of families as an entity he could attack and paint as coming after the second amendment and portraying them as being actors is a really easy convenient way to invalidate them to his audience maybe some of the parents were involved in gun related activism so to alex that means they all were and they were using the shooting to push their agenda to undermine what he perceived as them using the shooting for political gain alex attacked individual parents because he felt that by doing so he was invalidating the group as a whole and protecting the second amendment right it's pretty clear uh based on the way he's describing his thought uh thought pattern

and this is when i would go back to the earlier question about neil hesslin when he was on meg and kelly and mark really forced alex to get to this place of like yes i get it if he i mean he's a human being if your son has died and you hold him i get that that would hurt i get that and then even then he can try and justify his behavior after that but once you've established that he can look at another human being and say yes my actions hurt you that is under underlying all of these justifications you kind of have to go back to like just most elementary uh let's get agreement about air totally totally do we breathe right but you know you hurt them you can understand that and so then whatever justification you have is still undercut by the fact that you know that you hurt

them right but i think even in that case even with that established alex could still retreat to the idea that hurting them is an unfortunate byproduct of defending the second amendment sure he could probably justify that in his own head it still doesn't sound good that's what that's what i guess exactly but i think we're well and far beyond anything sounding good right i don't i think that train has left the station so this seems to be a bit of a pattern of behavior uh that alex has uh some this is laid out and this is where i really was like this is where i think's turned and i was really shocked that this was happening uh so we know in 2012 right when it happened you got on tv and started talking about it being staged right we know that soon thereafter i had

questions no mr johns i don't understand this whole thing about questions i don't get this if you say sandy hook is fake that's not a question right that was that was years later there's a quote i said sandy hook is okay i can see how people think it's absolutely fake there's no quote of you saying i can see how people that doesn't exist you keep repeating that it doesn't exist okay well that's what i remember there we in our last deposition i showed you clip after clip of you saying it's totally synthetic completely made up with actors at first i thought they killed real kids but nope they didn't that that's that's that's that's that was mine that's what you said yep yep and you did that in 2014 you did it you did it in 2013 you did it in 2014 you did it in 2015 you

did it in 2016 you did it in 2017 correct section four i had to go back and look but i definitely said that i had serious questions about it and could see how it was it was staged with all the all the bizarreness man i tell you no mr johns let me just make something really clear if you if you had gone on and said man sandy hook looks weird there's a bunch of weird stuff going on god it's weird look at this weird thing this thing's weird and i don't know what's going on and somebody needs to answer these questions you wouldn't be here today okay the reason the statements that i want to talk to you about is you admit that over those five years you repeatedly without equivocation said it was fake the children didn't die there were actors playing the different parts of different

people you said those things can you know just admit that for the jury that you said them they're gonna see the videos can you sure they they should investigate sandy hook themselves wow wild at the end wild at the end there i almost gasped when i heard that response halex is getting so defensive and he's having to try and pass off so many flimsy arguments that it seems like something just snapped like yeah they should go go investigate sandy hook yeah i couldn't believe my ears but then this goes on can you know just admit that for the jury that you said them they're gonna see the videos can you sure they they should investigate sandy hook themselves objection for they should look into it themselves and see why people ask questions you're you hope they don't know i really hope they do

okay i feel like alex is really deeply implying that he is right or was right about it i think he's saying that it's still fake i think he's absolutely contending that it is still fake it's such a bizarre thing but you can tell if you're watching this or listening to it even you can tell that it is a sort of visceral response yeah that's a lashing out yeah there there's a bit of like a anger behind yeah like people should look into it yep like because and i think it's largely motivated by so many attempts at deflection and stuff just not really working out still not hitting yeah and uh i think that that's maybe the value in sort of cutting off exits and like okay now you've nowhere to go other than you now are going to i mean you also have to cut off the physical exits

as well as the financial exits as well as we've had to cut off a lot of exits to get to a place where alex is here it's true so after that outburst i i do enjoy that like uh i you're afraid that they're going to look into this i i really i mean bananas man yeah bananas so we now get to some more emails and one of them but what about her emails oh hashtag come on hey come on remember that let's play it back everybody it's 2015 again now turns out we're gonna talk about some emails that have to do with gym feds okay before we broke we had talked about whether info wars had ever promoted or you know directed people to jim fetzers book tried to get more viewership for jim fetzers book and you weren't aware of that right not in my memory okay i'm going to show

you that marx's exhibit nine and i'm going to go through this whole thing with you to see if it reflects your memory okay or if it refreshes your memory so he has no memory of promoting fetzers but never heard of it uh oh i want to start at the bottom with alan pal's email and he says rob jim fetzer put together a book on sandy hook to which i contributed two chapters amazon have decided they won't handle it i think jim would agree to it being distributed by info wars free as a pdf we were both just on the phone we were both just on the jeff rent show today and jim gave that right of distribution to jeff would you see if alex would have jim and jim tracy on to promote the book and talk a bit about the still running sore of scandy hook i spoke to

jim fetzer about this today and said he will speak to you if you flip over onto the back part of the page you just see a says cheers alan pal mm-hmm so did i read that email correctly yes okay the next message is from jim okay before we go on to jim fetzer's message you know jeff rents is yes okay do you remember paul rent paul watson also telling you at the same time that he told you that jim fetzer was bat shit crazy that jeff rents was bat shit crazy do you remember that no okay going up to jim fetzer's email or identifies himself as jim and james so it's going to be used both in this document but he says rob we are making the book available to the public for free here is the cover in pdf several sites are now offering it i would be glad if we're alex were to do the same i am sure

james would be glad to come on with me if alex wanted to interview us about this stunning event i think the latest case was the pentagon papers do i read that correctly yes okay and then rob do writes back to jim fetzer says thanks for the heads up sent the links to adan and he is writing an article about it please let us know if there is a bump in downloads rob did i read that correct yes okay that's that's not great i i think i think like getting these emails that are asking for promotion yeah you know like maybe you can dance around like like we get a lot of emails but like when rob is rob do is writing back hey i've sent this onto adan salazar who's writing about it please let us know if our ad campaign for you is effective the moment so bad the moment you said

let us know if there's a bump in traffic you are recode like you're in the fucking case man well you're if i said it to them i would expect to be in the fucking case i mean at very least you're admitting a uh at least a curiosity based interest in yeah in how things go yeah yeah that's a pretty bad look i mean because if you're you're not curious just like oh i wouldn't be interesting you're curious to see if you should do it yourself or again yes see if this is something that people are interested in please give me market research this attract our audience exactly so uh fetzer's information is largely what was behind the zero hedge article that uh oan read in the video that ended up being part of this lawsuit yeah yeah and so mark has a little point about this actual

zero hedge article that seems to be missed let me show you what mark's exhibit 10 you recognize that yes okay can you tell us what this is zero hedge article do you know why it might be relevant to this lawsuit this is the article i was reading that he's been sued for and the coverage i gave of oan i was sued for okay what second page for me i want to give him a treat do you see there's a big blank space in the middle of the page seems to be a way it printed from the internet um below that big blank space do you see where it says except this does not comport with the official story yes okay and then it says jim fetzer professor emeritus at the university of minnesota who wrote a book claiming sandy hook was stage notes that based on the facts of the case hesslin statement

that he held his son with a bullet hole through his head could not have happened you i read that correct yes okay now i want you to flip to the third page you see that first sentence the first paragraph there it's just one long sentence yes okay and what how that paragraph begins is by saying it's entirely possible that mr. houseland had access to his son after that do you see where it says that yes okay that wasn't said by info wars though right i don't have the clip in front of me okay ooh see here's the problem with their uh shoddy uh strategy of never reading the things that they cover you should probably do that the actual article that they're getting sued over actually says in it that hey maybe he did yeah his son well but they ignored that portion of the

story and used it just to justify a position of hey he couldn't have okay so well one way makes money and the other one doesn't i feel like we both know which way works yep that's that's an unfortunate thing to to have to see right in front of you and i really would and and this might be the crazy thing for me right but if i had spent my entire career not reading things and then suddenly was starting to be told more and more uh uh terrifyingly that the lawsuits weren't going well i would i would take maybe a whole week to just really read through everything that i'm supposed to know about yeah so that way i wouldn't be surprised when i was in a deposition and maybe i wouldn't get caught in so many of these fucking traps you don't want to have a like

sort of consistent heavy breath of grief throughout a deposition not good not good oh no deflation is not a ongoing thing you want to feel you want to be deflated and then done you don't want to constantly keep going your your response to seeing something that is really unfortunate and damning shouldn't be oh no not again that's bad oh you got me again you just put those needles in me so the idea about alex's relationship with jim fetcher is supposed to be that like he didn't trust him as a source for you know he you know even before the whole way the the 2017 he's a psychic getting sued and now he knows um and so this is weird okay i'm sure and you would have marked his exhibit 11 and i know that this has a real like there's a lot of stuff and it's in really tiny

print i may not yeah yeah i know like yeah i don't i the only thing that i'm actually i think when we get into this document we'll quickly discover that it may not be necessary to even read all of this stuff but if so i may need to give you some time to go read it if you want to do that um but what i want to ask you about this document is up at the very top you see that this is an email on june 29th 2018 mm okay that's about a month after you were sued you understand that mm okay i don't know what's in this email what was nico's job title at that time radio producer okay and then daria what's her title she was sound operator then okay uh and today she's a producer as well right yes okay and so daria sending this to nico and the subject is forward vanishing blog not only is no

a posner a fiction but his father linnie is also a fake have you ever seen this email no okay i don't think i need to ask you anything else about it then if you've never read this i don't think we need to talk about it i now i only other question maybe i should talk about it why nico would be sending things to daria from jim fetzer right after you were sued i mean no i have no idea okay and i can't have an idea i mean i i find this to be very surprising because not well i mean it's revelatory it is revelatory it's not surprising i think what's more surprising to me is that it appears as though he still thinks he's got a chance uh you know it really feels like the way he's talking he's like okay maybe i lost on this question maybe i'm losing on this one but next one maybe there's

little glimmer of light i can sneak through well i mean i think i think how do you operate in life if that's not how you feel like man if i was in this deposition i would be like literally everything i say you're gonna have a clip for so fucking say whatever you want to say here's my answers to your questions yes or no whatever you want i will just say i don't know over and over again and then we'll go home and then we'll go home because you won well run out we'll run out the clock on this thing i mean literally we've already had the default judgment you won man yeah so um of course there are more documents yeah and we're shifting now over into the wolf gang how big section of some of these documents and mark brings up this email and he reads it this is a bit of a longer

clip but this email is important and i believe that you know some of the goal of this is just to establish and make alex recognize like this dude's a bad source yeah we shouldn't you shouldn't be yeah shouldn't be trusted let's get down to this i want to talk a little bit about wolf gang how big do you know what i mean when i talk about the super bowl picture no okay do you know what i mean when i talk about the super bowl choir of fourth graders from sandy hook yes i've heard of the okay and that's when i really started thinking it probably did happen because i just gets too wet just for this crazy it's just crazy right sure that's what happened i've shown you what i've marked his exhibit 12

you'll see uh again at the bottom there's no baits number on this one right no okay um this one is dated 11 19 2016 that was a good year towards the end of 2016 it is from wolf gang how big right mm-hmm uh the two line the main people it's sent to include nico that's an informer's employee right yes uh then uh uh the trump several a couple organ a couple addresses to the trump organization correct yes uh rob do who is also another employee of yours right yes and then jay rince do you think you'd be a fair assumption to say that's probably jeff rince yes okay and then also copied there's a cc line and there's several other people copied who are either um media organizations and there's also some government addresses

do you see that yes okay now there are also a bunch of attachments listed do you see that yes okay and those attachments appear to be p and g files those are images right yes okay and then the subject line says trust but always verify please verify with your uncle thanks you you see that yes okay and then i'm gonna go ahead and read this email to you all right come on says nico and rob rob please send this video to your uncle the former fbi agent who attended my connecticut freedom of information hearings in cartford connecticut he told me that i was right about what was happening which gave me a tat more courage he has friends who can verify this video to be accurate and now we know that the children who supposedly died at sandy hook are at the super bowl

on february 3rd 2013 and that is why we have never ever heard them sing again think about it for just a second they sing before 110 million people worldwide with jennifer hudson they have 87 thousand people in the stadium of over 3500 news reporters and we never have one interview in the newspaper of on television from them why just think about how much money came flowing in after that february 3rd 2013 super bowl performance from across the world why have they never performed again if they were so great to be asked to sing at the february 3rd 2013 super bowl why no appearances on the national early morning television shows they sing before 110 million people and they simply disappear even Beyonce met them where are they are they all dead and threatened by the nfl and cbs

and by their own parents never to talk about the greatest day in their lives are they part of child trafficking who would do this to fourth grade children when we all know that children need to express their feelings or emotions or it can have long-term mental health issues then below that is a youtube link and then it says please have your uncle verify and tell me that i am not crazy because i because i have now run out of funds chasing the truth please help if you can afford it wolfgang halberd and then he gives his address and phone correct i've read all that correct yes okay when he asked them to verify that he is not crazy that's not something that could be done from this email this is crazy isn't it that is when i really started thinking

that it probably did happen when things took these turns yes but but but then i still saw some anomalies but i'm not the progenitor of this that i'm not saying this no i understand that but once you see this you have to understand that wolfgang halberd isn't reliable anymore right yes when he first came out though i'd see him on national tv as a big top expert and all the things so that's why i was relying on him yeah okay so this is an important foundation here that's being built through this email because it kind of boxes alex in and honestly he did it to himself because he's getting presented with a clearly insane email that halberd sent rob do trying to reach rob's uncle alex has to say that it's not coming from a credible person but he also has to maintain that it wasn't wrong for him to

have seen how big as a credible source prior to this that's why alex tries to use this excuse that it was actually this this was when he decided that how big wasn't a good source and that he shouldn't listen to him this is a really dumb piece of information to alex offer up essentially unprompted because what it does is it puts a hard deadline on the point where you yourself are admitting you had no reason to take this person's claim seriously yeah this is basically creating an unanswerable question for alex if you can demonstrate that he took halbig's claim seriously at any point after this and that's a real problem for alex's appearance of consistency this is also a double-edged sword because alex is also essentially testifying that the things that

halbig did or sent info wars prior to this were not enough to get him to think that halbig was nuts and shouldn't be trusted as a source so remember the date of this this was november 19th 2016 was when this happened yeah i mean that's that's one where you really that's that's an own goal that should be that's on alex right there because the moment you are like given the opportunity to have a date stamp on something you think yeah and you're alex don't do it that's not a good idea well again it's that it's i think we talk about a bit and that's the like specificity is a real danger yeah and when you're giving this uh whether it's that exact date of the email or this time that this this story was being pushed by halbig right that is too specific for you to

be able to play games with you can't have that which again if i'm doing this i would say look into when i actually started listening to halbig and when i stopped talking about halbig you might not want to do that it would feel bad and i would not not agree to a date prior to the end of when i started talking about halbig but what's fascinating about it too is if you listen to it he's not agreeing to something he's saying it himself yep that is not a question that mark asked him at all which is wild amazing so there's a long chunk that i skip over here because the the between the last clip and the next one uh and it's not because it's not because the stuff wasn't interesting but because it's not really relevant uh to some of the questions we have

it consists of mark and alex discussing how the alternative media is really important in the country because the corporate media isn't really something that we can trust to get us out of the mess we're in mark keeps trying to work on uh in a recognition that it's important for the alternative media to hold themselves responsible when they get things wrong and then alex just goes off about how he's the victim and the mainstream media is out to crush all that alternative media sure it's a bit of a circular thing but it seems like the goal is to try and attempt to build some rapport that has the effect of possibly confusing alex and getting him off his set plans and it also makes it so the kinds of rebuttals can't really be used effectively alex can't excuse his

behavior by condemning the mainstream media because mark can just say you're telling me man but that's not what we're here to talk about so it's again just sort of creating that uh that uh the yeah camaraderie almost i find it i find it interesting that alex is so such a weird dude that you can play both good cop and bad cop in the same deposition you know like he's he's he's fucking pinned alex's ears to the wall and and he's still and alex is still like yeah no you don't like the mainstream media me neither man i think we got a lot of i think we got a lot of common ground it is weird to hear like there's a bit of guard letting down it's like you have to know that this isn't for your benefit you've got fucking railroad spikes through the stigmata man

you're fucked okay so there's a bit of that and then another email from wolfgang halbig is brought up i want to show you this this i've marked his exhibit 13 okay this as you see at the bottom it says fsxtx-039550 yes okay um and this from wolfgang halbig right yes okay and then this is two a couple email addresses that i bet you don't know who those people are right i know i don't yeah we're the one safe and sound schools.org have you ever heard of an organization called that not my memory i don't either okay um i'm going to assume though that you see the address is is written to somebody named michelle yes okay and then um the subject line is i urge michelle to stop using josephine and making money and appearing on speaking engagements

you understand you saw that yes okay the date of this email is december 21st 2014 yes okay and as we see from free speech systems at the bottom this is in document from informers corporate files correct okay yes okay the attachments here we see a bunch of pngs that's correct yes okay i'm going to go ahead and read the email to you all right so this is another email from halbig and you'll notice that this one's dated prior to the one about the super bowl choir which is where alex has claimed that he realized how big is no good right so this email was in informers corporate files which itself is weird because no one at informer seems to be copied on this email itself it's very weird its existence in the files implies an awareness of

its contents since it wasn't emailed to them yeah so this wasn't good enough to get how big black listed and this is a mess i'm going to go ahead and read the email to you all right michelle how could you and your husband as responsible parents even allow your precious child josephine to attend that filthy and deplorable looking school on december 14th 2012 this school has you must have known is and was a toxic waste dumped as reported by environmental consultants who requested more money from city of newtown leaders before demolishing the school and transported all of the high levels of lead paint high levels of asbestos and especially the high levels of pcps in the groundwater at sandy hook out of state

josephine your child should have expected more from you before that tragic day as a parent you are supposed to protect her from serious lifelong health risk when you send her to that school every day why would you as a parent and all those other parents who supposedly lost a child to gunfire allow their children as you did to serious toxic waste this all unfolded before the first shot at that school even occurred did you not see the filth and deplorable conditions when you went to that school or are you blind i do not understand unless you explain it to me and the world why you and your husband failed josephine who is a non-verbal child as you stated and depended on oh that was a big sigh she's not a big sigh protect her from all the serious health

risk that you sentenced her to on a daily basis now you talk about school security you have got to be joking you have all these experts on your staff who are now part of your conspiracy they should be ashamed of their actions in supporting you a mom puts her own child at risk on a daily basis and is now the expert on school security i look forward meeting you one day when i can take your deposition about not the shooting not about the shooting but why you and your husband failed josephine by sending her to that filthy and deplorable school with all that toxic waste we call this child endangerment when you know of the danger that exposed your child to serious lifelong health risk you must have known without a doubt because pictures do not and it

says ally but i believe that says means a lie you put her life in serious risk every day knowing how filthy and deplorable that school is i am enclosing photos that you must recognize since you took your child to school and having a child in special needs you would expect a school environment and school climate that allows children to learn and teachers to teach right please explain to me if you can why a school principal don hopspring would allow her school to be so filthy and deplorable looking there is not one female elementary school principal in this country who would allow her school to be that filthy and deplorable both inside and outside most of all allow her to become a toxic waste dump placing every child in her needs to work on brevity lifelong

health risk right all the pictures are taken by the major crime squad from the connecticut state police please respond since you are now the expert on school security wolfgang w how big w w dot sandy justice sandy hook justice dot com i read that correctly yes how you feel about that email it's horrible i'd never seen this before i mean i guess he sent it to us too yo it's in in one of his corporate files right yeah i just don't i don't even see him for us on here though i'm wondering why we had it that's i was gonna be my next question do you know i don't okay so this is an email where how big is harassing and terrorizing sandy hook family this was before the point where alex said he'd realized that how big was bad news this looks bad yeah and see some

of these clips are a little bit longer where mark's reading these emails i think that it's important because it honestly was kind of a revelation for me too because i understood that you know how big behavior was characterized this way yeah but i hadn't heard the contents of these emails no and it really it really did make me uh and not like take it more seriously or anything because i already already felt this was a pretty serious right serious case but it it's personal it it made it more visceral and it's like knowing the actual behavior and the the ways that he's contacting these family members and the things that he's doing simultaneously to the time when alex is promoting him yeah and and such it really just gets pretty inexcusable yeah pretty disgusting

i've got a new rule for my life which is that i don't want to be around people who if i were to have their emails read to me in a deposition are both so awful i would have to sigh and put my head in my hands but also so long that i have to do it multiple times yeah there were a bunch of sighs and that is that was the most like oh fuck like you could not get more opportunities for one man to say oh fuck oh no oh that was a bad one oh this oh Jesus is there more there's more there is more holy fuck and guess what there's another email no yeah Jesus i'm gonna show you what of marsha's exhibit 14 you see at the top there's another email from wolf gang how big yes right um and then this one

you see about right here see how blue line is so you're good you see that and so you see on your document too you've got some in for worse email addresses there yes okay and that would be rob do and nico who got this email yes okay this was march 21st 2017 yes okay the subject was anyone needing the address for a visit to welcome them to florida please call and this was a great day for me who says that you cannot catch a big fish in florida that's what that's what the subject line says yes okay and then there's a png attached to a video image file is that correct yes okay and then i'm gonna go ahead and read this email to you so here we have another email from how big and the date on this one

is march 21st 2017 so as we can tell from alex's telling of the timeline this is supposed to be after he'd realized that how big was not a good source possibly a content warning this email is very disturbing i found it a bit chilling to hear and i don't want to just spring this on people without a little bit of a heads up it's not like explicit or anything but it's fucked up real messed real messed up and then i'm gonna go ahead and read this email to you it says nick and laura felps did a great job acting in newtown on newtown connecticut on december 14th 2012 i visited their home today at 1924 west over reserve boulevard windmere florida 34786 and thanks to lieutenant van gailey telling me during my wellness check of nick and laura felps that they no longer live

in newtown connecticut and that they are now and they are now richard and jennifer sexton guess what he is totally right and can you believe it that my newtown police department guided me in the right direction they have a beautiful home with a three car garage they were not home today but the good news was that the three adult female moms with their children standing outside their homes observed me and wanted to know what i was doing it was spring break it is spring break for orange county florida school i showed them this picture and i told them that i did not want to go to the wrong house to surprise nick and laura from newtown connecticut aka richard and jennifer sexton today i took a few minutes for them to look at the pictures and then when they asked why i wanted

to speak to them i told them that i had been in newtown and wanted to surprise them since they now live in florida they asked for my name which i gave them as wolfgang halbig they told me how i would know them knew them and i told them that they have been on the national news so i wanted to meet them again our conversation was all about newtown connecticut so she said do you mind if i text her i said absolutely not waited about 10 minutes only to learn that they did not know me which surprised me they verified the pictures and why would she text them about newtown connecticut and that someone from there wanted to visit if they had if they were not nick and laura felps now richard and jennifer sexton at first i did not want to enter since it is a gated community

but several people told me just go on in there there is no security guard at the gates if there is cctv they will see me being told to go in and that is the only reason or i would not have entered now who says law enforcement does not know what they are doing thank you newtown connecticut police department can you turn the document over first of all read that email correctly yes okay and then on the back you see there's a picture here right yes and at the top it says sandy hook hoax actors correct yes and it has arrows pointing to the felps right yes and then at the bottom it says playing the part of grief stricken parents correct yes it is a horrible email isn't it i've never seen this email and it's um yes i don't like this email and again this is someone else wolf king

how big after i'd already clearly knew that he cracked up and so that's that's that's not my work so that sucks uh just a dude bragging about stalking grieving families i mean that's unbelievable psychopathic yeah in uh i fucking serial kill that's a serial killer yeah like that should be treated with the same level of true crime terror as a serial killer yeah yeah it's it's uh you holy fuck it's it's hard to imagine something more unsettling in the context of like what wolf gang could have been doing yeah and in like and like most true crime documentaries the cops are the bad guys as allegedly i don't know how much you take what you say no i'm not saying that he necessarily literally accurate but so at the end there you can see alex essentially taking the bait

that he set for himself he's established that he knew how big was no good after the super bowl thing in 2016 and then after that this is this email it comes from after that so he gets to absolve himself of any responsibility he gets to use this trick that he pulled out he would but like i said this is a trap that alex set by giving a pretty specific time period when he has no excuse to not know that how big isn't reliable and this immediately becomes a problem yeah yes i don't like this email and again this is someone else wolf king how big after i'd already clearly knew that he cracked up and so that's that's that's not my work next month you uh did a video called sandy hook vampires exposed right someone edited a video put that name on i've seen that okay and

during that video you repeated all both gang hobby claims right his 16 questions thing i i don't remember uh that i'd have to see that video but i believe it was about people using it to continue to try to get gun control and money so yeah we have we have a demonstration and a point made that after this even all all this your timeline doesn't make sense even after all this bullshit the stocking of families email the horrifying emails being sent to nico and rob like and after the 2016 point when you had every reason to doubt his credibility as an expert you're still repeating his things in the sandy hook vampires video i can't believe he that's that's just dumb in every direction all the time it makes it so much easier to

point to like oh okay so at this point you're not supposed to trust him yeah yeah i mean explain this and again just that that like tiny glimmer of hope of of just like well you know i haven't seen the video dude we're at our whenever of this yeah if he says he's got a video of you saying it and you haven't seen the video click you can play it at any time man it's here yeah and and the uh the i i don't know i haven't seen the video is only gonna get you out of answering this question now it's not a good yeah answer it's not a good excuse you're fucked so we got another how big email oh god damn it yeah this one's not great either i mean i'm not even associated with him and i'm making the sounds that alex is making mr jones i've hand you what i marked his exhibit 15

at the bottom we see it says fs x tx dash 040 0 0 2 7 yes so there's an email from n4's corporate files yes okay the top it says wolf gang how big right that's who it's from yes okay it says two wild rose farm 1740 at gmail.com do you know who that is i know that's my client scarlet those okay um the subject line says how could you as a mother stop and buy your special brand of coffee on december 14th 2012 when you heard as a mom that shots had been fired at the sandy hook school you read that correctly yes this is a march 10th 2015 email correct yes he says in this email scarlet it is just a matter of time and all that money you have has to be returned how could you even stop to buy your coffee and you bought coffee for two other people

what kind of mother does that especially when you see on the news tell everyone how you ran across that fire department parking lot if you did you would have spilled the coffee do some serious soul searching because the scam is a wolf gang and his phone number i read that correctly yes okay so at least n info wars had in its corporate info wars had received information that mr how big was harassing this lewis correct we get millions of emails i've never i'd never seen those up until the time of these lawsuits so i'm i'm not wolf king how big i understand all i'm asking is info wars received that yes okay so now we have another email where how big is harassing the families of sandy hook victims

being uh in these emails in corporate files for for info wars and this one's from march 10th 2015 which is prior to the supposed cutoff of alex thinking how big is credible the picture starts to come into focus a little bit where you have how big demonstrating a pattern of behavior that people at info wars had every reason to know about given their access to these emails and rob do a news director for the nightly news being copied on uh almost all of them yep also this doesn't come up in the deposition but wolf gang how big was a guest on alex's show on march 4th 2015 just six days before he wrote this email harassing scarlet lewis and like it's not hard to put some pieces together of wolf gang is on alex's show the website his website's given out it's conceivable that donations

are are accrued by his appearance on here and days later he's engaging in this behavior where he harasses grieving parents it's it's disgusting yeah yeah if i'm alex in this situation i hear those three emails and i immediately switch tactics and i just go that guy's a real piece of we gotta go get him and then i'd grab everybody and we'd go to new town connecticut or whatever it is we need to go we're in texas we gotta get him let's go we're in texas let's form a posse let's get a posse together we gotta get this guy he's a real piece of shit mark you're deputized let's do this everybody has guns now because i'm alex brad get my horse like Jesus what a piece of shit yeah it's fuck me yeah that's a fucked up fucking wow yeah

so it's also interesting to recognize that these evasions of i didn't know about this stuff no one knew about this stuff we get so many emails it just doesn't really fly i'm gonna show you what i've marked his exhibit 18 you see at the bottom is f s s t x dash 0 3 9 8 9 7 yes okay this is a 2015 email sent march 6 2015 yes okay and this is um the top email is nico forwarding something to rob do correct and it says forward two cents from a third year law student right yes and then it says some comments on how big's last interview from a law student okay and then i'm going to go ahead and redo this email from a gentleman named r darin brumfield it was sent to media contacts at info wars dot com he writes two cents from a third year law student maddamer sir i'm in my

final semester of law school i listened to the wolfgang how big video and some significant alarm bells went off i also wrote on the youtube page but i copy and paste here okay so let's so i just get this straight starting at 31 30 he filed his lawsuit in simonall county court in florida not in federal court in florida but in state court there is a legal requirement called quote standing unquote he does not have standing to sue in simonall county court he was not a party in the shooting in any fashion there is also a concept called quote jurisdiction unquote either the man is lying or the judge is insane a florida county level judge would not have jurisdiction for any reason other than a contract tort or crime issue and directly involving how big something is completely

wrong here had he said quote in the federal district of florida quote or whatever district it might be if the state is split that may at least be plausible this is completely insane and cannot go anywhere but into the trash can no standing no subject matter jurisdiction no personal jurisdiction two cents from a third year law student who is legally current in his education demand seems to be grasping and stretching no judge in their right mind would do such a thing as he describes here's an example imagine there is a crime in los vegas and the criminal kills himself there is no law whatsoever that would allow alex or anyone else to file a suit in san antonio for anything regarding the crime in los vegas there is no claim that could be made in texas for something

that happened in the vata it is a rule our darin blumfield i read all that correctly yes okay so here we have that not only did info wars receive information suggesting that what how big was up to was completely insane in darin brumfield's words but actually nico ended up forwarding that information directly to rob do correct yes okay which is good that he found that we had about 10,000 emails there at least we did what it's good that he found that in 2015 yeah i mean it wasn't shown to me right i mean i'm shows he was is that what you think i guess rob do wanted to know about anything come in about san antonio because he was interested in it and so that's why i was sent to him okay yeah that it's good that it's good that he found that it's not good for you right now

how explain to me how you could make my jaw drop more than for alex to be like well it's good that he found that what yeah what are you talking about wait how could rob do have kept this from me oh no rob i'd like you to also meet my friend bus wait this might be bad for me you know what rob sounds like a real piece of shit let's get together and go get him come on guys this posse is going to be busy we're going to be very busy for a while so the the pattern with these emails that has has kind of been illustrated i believe is they have this horrible behavior that wolfgang is engaging in right that evidence of is clearly in info wars files oh yeah and people from info wars are forwarded on these and and cc'd on these emails and have taken action

such as forwarding them further well the the email that uh is forwarded further from nico to rob right is uh someone questioning uh the sanity exactly this person which i think in terms of due diligence maybe you would take a second look at the person and notice that hey there's these emails where he's harassing sandy oak family members you might you might think that would happen but i guess it didn't and there's a this is a bizarre sort of picture that you get from these these these emails but i think it's it's remarkable to see that alex's response to this is bordering on what he would expect a person to feel yeah you know like you hear these emails and like this is a horrible email that's that's awful i didn't know about this that's exactly what you

would do if you you know had feelings right right if you're a human great and maybe maybe it's an indication that he's a human well we'll see so after this we get into a little bit of a conversation about dan badandi and the kraken yes alex sending him to to newtown right and so look he plays the clip of alex calling badandi the kraken right and is like the kraken's a mythological beast right yeah trying to like you get into uh the uh sort of the record and have alex respond to like you know the kraken's that's not somebody that's you knew he's gonna go cause trouble right right and obviously that's the case yes and alex is evasive about that of course yeah look which which version of the movie are you are you talking about because i mean liam neeson

wasn't as good i don't think when he said i have a lot of thoughts about movies i mean i mean that now that we're in the territory i'm comfortable with let's get into it i tell you about oblivion so uh we have one last clip here from alex's deposition and uh it's uh a question of we've seen a lot of bad behavior from folks within info wars vis-à-vis sandy hook and wolfgang especially and fetzer you could say that uh illustrated throughout this deposition possible so the question of editorial standards and uh that kind of thing comes up sure and that's this isn't this isn't the best response alex could have your company has never uh disciplined anyone due to a false fact about sandy hook published on info wars

correct okay i don't remember good work not barns you think it's possible you may have disciplines brand for some saint something false about sandy hook i wouldn't say false uh i mean i've people got in trouble for talking about it i mean i've tried to like you know stay out of it and and myself get sucked back into it i think people testify to that too at least that's what i was told you just said you wanted people to look into it you in 2015 went to people like adan solazar and told him stop printing articles about sandy hook is because lindar posner was kept getting strikes against the company right i don't remember if it was lindar posner i mean i know i've seen people make a big thing between me and lindar posner i i barely know who he is

and i've seen him in some shows but i know i i i just did not yes i mean i did not want to i had i had seen some of the anomalies and things be proven to not be anomalies and so i wasn't sure that it was staged but then you know i go back and forth uh like anybody on these kind of these mysteries uh but what so that's that's that's where i stand on that that's not that that's not an ideal answer but have you punished anybody is there any consequences for anybody who's published false things about sandy hook uh hey look uh this is a mystery i just don't i don't know i don't know how you could take this to a jury and not say to them like listen this is a man who's already lost the case yeah this is a man who's under oath uh huh in a case that he lost for saying that this

isn't real right saying this isn't real or it might not be or he still has questions over it we're well past the point where you can say like oh we'll have our day in court it's already gone yeah so there's no way to do anything other than say this man has to be stopped well i think you know i yeah i think a lot of the the appearance that you get from from this deposition is uh certainly a lack of remorse a lack of having learned anything a lack of even seeming to be willing to understand the problem basic comprehension of reality yes uh there's also clearly an indication that um he intends to continue the papers i mean and and almost a a strange extreme solipsism almost as if like wait wait wait what are you talking about this happened

outside of what i experienced so it doesn't matter yeah right it's not real because i didn't read this email so it doesn't matter to me yeah and uh even beyond that like a real lack of institutional guardrails oh yeah within info wars where there is no like standards for what they can or can't report it's chaos um there's no consequences for anything there's no standards for sending the fucking uh the process not prosecution uh plaintiff a fucking background report which you don't know you don't know you did what we got it before we even start with the journalistic standards it's wild what do you even have yeah what's it take an inventory of what you even have what's in the building so now jordan uh we jump over to the uh the uh corporate representative

uh deposition of daria carpova oh boy here we go the um i was a little disappointed i believe i i said this when we were talking to mark that it wasn't rob do again yeah yeah um but there are dou-ish uh characteristics to this i think we'll ask sure uh it was yes there was a a hint of do yes um i think that we'll probably skip over a fair amount of this because it is in the same way that rob's deposition was there there were a lot of just like i don't know like does the company know or not i don't know i can't i don't know if the company knows i don't know i don't know yeah there there is a a ton of that and the deposition itself is like five hours long right and so we're gonna chop out a fair amount of that and just talk about what is uh the matter what's the point here yeah

from the way you described it to me i i got a little bit of like what would it be like to depose donald rumsfeld um i think that donald rumsfeld might take less long pauses before answering questions he's a lot slicker every single question there's a long pause yeah we're actually i think it's probably a good strategy oh it's much smarter than alex's strategy of saying whatever yeah hey what do you not know that i can give to you that would help you although i will say that i think that some of the strategies that she does employ in terms of answering questions are not much better and maybe are more shocking and way more offensive than some of the things well that sounds about right so strap it in here we go so um at the beginning of this at the start

mark asks a number of questions to try and nail down how much preparation daria did for the deposition and with whom she consulted the preparation is clearly minimal and the questions are kind of repetitive so i'm going to skip past that bit where that's discussed i'll put it this way on a scale of one to ten she's not very prepared but a little more than rob do right so she's a little one point two maybe on a scale of one to ten she's a point eight right right all right i thought with okay it's not zero well i thought do was was at the one since this is a reason for the negatives you can't have a negative on a scale that god you're cheating i'm having a number warning you are so this leads us to mark presenting daria with a folder that she had brought along that contained

what she wanted to introduce into evidence she had brought along some documents and this is where we're at beautiful no i understand i've been given a folder you do you recognize this folder that i'm holding right here yes okay i've been told that these are documents that you reviewed prior to this deposition yes okay so you have taken the documents that you prepared yourself for today and put them in this folder correct okay i want to right now no let's do them individually yeah that's probably not the best that's not the worst idea okay so ma'am what i'm going to do is i'm going to put a sticker on this folder itself and we're going to mark that as exhibit one okay and i want to talk to you about some of

the documents in here so each exhibit is going to be like one a one b one c right in this in this folder of things she's brought and and i i think i can say this without giving away any any privileged information this was the first one yeah in terms of like what day one right the daria deposition then the next day was alex right so this was my first moments of being in this setting yeah and i was just like i just like i gotta get a seat belt i gotta strap this in because here is where we begin with these documents i've marked this as one a you recognize that correct that's a document that you reviewed prior to this deposition right that is the wikipedia entry for false flag correct yes okay can you tell me why you looked at this document

i thought it would be a good idea to bring it as a reference to some of the points for topic number one if i could have the list of topics that would help me to identify the exhibits i understand what you're saying in fact let's do that so the topic that daria is referring to is the sourcing and research that went into the productions of the videos that that are listed in the plaintiff's case so i don't know what she needs the false flag wikipedia page for i felt like this had not started well i was i was worried i mean if if if i'm i'm thinking about this now and i'm thinking about removing the sticker that says one a and putting a new sticker on that says grape job and you can scratch it and

it smells like grapes stand four stars tell her to go home to her mother exactly good god so uh here's the next document we get so now i've handed you what i've marked as one c which you recognize correct correct and that is the wikipedia entry for the right stock fire correct yes um the right stock fire was a um a nazi party arson attack yeah correct okay um um can you tell me why this is relevant to the case same answer as for the previous exhibit i thought it would be a document pertaining to some of the points in topic number one okay another wikipedia page to to paraphrase the one funny thing pete holmes ever said uh it seems

like you printed out a part of the internet for us to throw away yeah yeah it's it's strange because again the as the corporate representative like the the lion's share of what she's supposed to be discussing is like sourcing and personnel who worked on the videos in question yeah um and that has nothing to do with the right tag fires wikipedia disagree sources mostly nazis fair enough let's see if the next one's better we're putting to you one d you recognize that yes okay where does can you read the website at the bottom what website does that come from history today dot com okay so this is a history today article about the sinking of the main correct correct okay the uss main was a 19th century warship correct correct okay and that warship exploded in hibana harbour

correct sorry no problem let me ask that again that warship exploded in hibana harbour correct correct there is significant historical evidence to suggest that that ship was intentionally exploded by the united states government that's correct there is a controversy about it in other words and what i'm what i'm wondering is from reading that article did you come away with the idea that there is substantial evidence in other words non-trivial evidence which people could use to support the idea that the uss main was intentionally destroyed by the united states government i would say one could infer that okay can you tell me why that particular article is relevant to your testimony today it could be viewed as an example of false flags

okay throughout history cool so at this point i think it becomes a bit clear that the strategy of the articles that daria has in the folder amounts to a lazy attempt at illustrating that false flags have happened in the past and thus it's not so out of left field for alex to question whether any event may or may not be another one that's all good and well but it's really superfluous to the questions at hand and the thing that i find most interesting is that while being questioned about the article concerning the sinking of the main daria seems unwilling to commit to even saying that there's evidence that it was a false flag only going so far as to say that there's controversy she's cagey i yeah that's uh some of the vibe you might be getting

in the early early stages of this um i thought that was a little bit weird uh-huh um but i guess maybe it could make some strategic sense in in the like you don't have to prove anything as a false flag all you have to do is prove that some things people say are right because that's the behavior trying to justify in terms of alex right i i mean i want to ask this i just want to ask this question over and over and over again to all of these people just like let's strip away all the bullshit on a fundamental level do you know why you're here like just just like why are you what are you here to do yeah you know i it's again it's going back to that stuff with alex like you have to get back to like fundamentals yeah yeah what is water is it the wet stuff is that it is it something

else is uh is can you breathe water yeah oh hey listen if you think water is air and that's how we have to talk about it and i have to say water is air and air is water that's fucking fine as long as we agree at least we'll be able to communicate exactly yeah that's all i need to know man yeah it's that uh that idea that the beginning of communication is the definition of terms yeah you can't really and i do think that that does come into a problem with interacting with folks for meant for wars as it seems from these depositions in particular that i've i've seen it i mean it it seems like you're not having you're you're talking in different languages you know what do you know what it makes me think of uh uh when we talk to uh john ronson um he very briefly

had this moment where we went kind of far off and he just said you know he was wondering how is it that we can judge alex you know just in this sense of like do we judge him the way we judge other people because he's clearly not like other people who can you judge him by what is the standard by which alex can be judged and it's like when you have an entire organization that is thinking it's totally fine to print out a wikipedia article and take it to a deposition i don't know they're aliens that's that's what it is they're just aliens you know introduces a really strange question that is like is this somebody who's trying to bluff a report like like like ah this will do or is it someone who doesn't care or is it active insult yeah like

i don't yeah and it could i don't like yeah exactly aliens just complete aliens i don't understand what is happening yeah but maybe like the rest of these documents will help you i'm sure they will i'm sure they will i'm gonna put in front of you one e you recognize that correct yes a wikipedia entry for the pearl harbor advanced knowledge conspiracy theory correct correct um is this same answer is the other documents yes okay so this is another example of potentially um well let me ask back up would you call this a false flag for instance if if let me rephrase that question if the allegations about this conspiracy theory are true would you consider that a false flag i would say so yes so even another wikipedia article about conspiracy

theories about pearl harbor i think the point's made by this point right nope i don't know you don't understand i don't know why we need more so at least the documents aren't all just wikipedia pages some of them are bios uh for weirdos who like the back of a book jacket in front of you have you recognized that yes you explain what that is yes it is an article that was archived from the website dc clothes line which includes mr halbix biography which i wanted to have on hand okay so this is just biographical information about one of info resources correct so you got wolfgang halbix bio and and we have another bio yeah all right now i'm going to show you

a marked as one h you recognize that yes that's from dr steve pechenick's website isn't it yes okay and that's basically a biography of of dr steve pechenick correct okay and you wanted to have that because steve pechenick is somebody who has appeared on info wars at one point to talk about sandio correct okay i do regret that unfortunately in this deposition more questions aren't asked about steve pechenick yeah yeah uh because i think having anybody have to answer for like some of the bullshit even just the bio yeah just be like how much of this let's just go through it let's just go through it and you tell me what's true and what's not true you brought it into evidence man that's what's going on now yeah so we've got the bio these two people which i think is i mean i don't i don't

think it matters much but at least it seems more relevant i guess to what you might bring right and then there's another document in there and this is where things start to get real my daughter drew a picture things are real fucked up at this point it is really weird oh no okay i'm going to show you now what i have marked as one i you recognize that yes that's a guardian article right correct and guardians a newspaper in britain am i right about that yes okay um this article says it's a headline says sandy hook father lindar posner on death threats i never imagined having to fight for my child's legacy correct correct oh what did you need this article for in your testimony today or let me that's not a good question why did you feel you wanted to review

this article for your testimony today after this there is a long pause yeah uh because a very long pause i don't i don't know if it's a long pause of like trying to remember why or if it was like a how do i say this or yeah i'm not sure but it goes off the fucking rails the reason i wanted to have this article is that i thought um one of the victim's mother there was a interesting information regarding the victim's mother and her request to have an open casket for the funeral was that interesting in here it seems to me that um the motivation for doing so would be to exploit the child's

death for a political agenda might another reason for it is because a bunch of people were saying that child was fake couldn't that be a reason for it i don't know oh boy oh boy so she has brought a guardian article that references how miss delarosa had opted to have an open casket funeral so um you know we this is dicey this feels real mark dicey i'm not stoked about the direction it's going no no and it gets uh i mean sitting here right now if your child is back up you just you just had a baby right yes okay let's say six years from now your child walks into elementary school and is massacred in a gun violence incident and some news organizations are saying that your child is fake can you see that a possible way to combat that would be to have

an open casket funeral for your child no that's not something you would ever consider no you could you can imagine how somebody else could consider that not if they have a heart and no political agenda okay so you think that this jewish family's choice to have an open casket funeral for their child was politically motivated i'm gonna object to being outside the scope of a corporate representative testimony that's what oh so they discussed this objection and then they determined that she should answer the question oh i thought brad finally had one good thing to you know well i mean the objection might be fine but it's it's it's still gonna answer the question so the court reporter reads the question back okay and uh what has been jewish having to do with this i'm not here to answer your

question i don't know my answer is my personal opinion i find it unconscionable it's something that i would never bring myself to doing people have open casket funerals every day don't they yes however considering the circumstances and how the child was disfigured based on these articles and i i find that just horrific okay so daria didn't pick up on this but the reason that mark brought up the fact that the parent is jewish and decided to have an open casket funeral for her son is because that's a huge deal in most jewish traditions it's not acceptable to have an open casket funeral out of respect it's traditionally understood that you're not supposed to gaze upon

the face of the deceased the fact that a person of jewish heritage would make the decision to have an open casket funeral because people were saying that her son didn't exist indicates a very strong conviction that the world not be allowed to pretend that this didn't happen or try to mentally hide behind safe images as verani the uh the mother in question told the foreword quote i just want people to know the ugliness of it so we don't talk about it abstractly like these little angels went to heaven no they were butchered they were brutalized and that's what haunts me at night it's a subtle nuance that's being hinted at in this question that's completely missed by daria because in preparation for this deposition it doesn't seem like she's done all that much still a little better

prepared than rob do yeah but impossible it's impossible to beat that bar yeah you're never going to do worse than him i don't think yeah i mean the worst part well i guess if rob do had shown up drunk maybe that would have been nice yeah that would have been a good day for us yeah sorry i mean the the strange thing is i believe her but partially because she's on the other side so she's not going to do that stuff because she knows it won't fucking do a thing i kind of agree with you know what i'm saying i emotionally agree that she is not lying yep that she thinks that they would do this for political reasons and if you had a heart you would never do i don't believe that i don't think that's coming from an analytical place i think that is an emotional truth yep because

she knows what somebody would do to somebody who did that it sounds it sounds that way to me yeah so we got another article mm-hmm this is weird here's another article about that right exhibit one j yes okay so you actually pulled two separate articles about no opositor's funeral having an open coffin correct i pulled this one article because it was linked in the guardian and i wanted to make sure that i have the sources of where i got i'm thorough baby okay and so of all the documents that you've reviewed regarding the plaintiffs the only ones you've reviewed that you chose to go review were two articles about mrs welter choosing to have an open casket for her son correct that wasn't the reason why i reviewed the article that's not what i'm asking you miss karpova

i'm asking you of all the documents you reviewed about the plaintiffs before this deposition the only two that you did review are articles that discuss no opositor's funeral having an open casket correct they happen to mention that but that's the only that's not the only thing they discuss i'm not saying that i'm not i understand what you're saying let's make it even broader than for you the only two pieces of documentation that you have reviewed for this deposition about the plaintiffs are two articles both of which discuss in the article no opositor's open casket funeral correct yes okay tell me any other information from those articles that you believe is relevant to this deposition today

i've already mentioned that the the state of the physical body that the child had for the for the open casket ceremony describes that okay so when it comes down to the documents that you reviewed for this deposition about the plaintiffs the only information that you're really gleaning from this that's useful to this deposition has to have concerns no opositor's open casket in the appearance of his body correct it was useful to some of the points i'm not asking what it's useful for it's this is bizarre like it's i you have wikipedia articles yeah steve and wolfgang self-written bios correct and multiple articles about the positor no opositor having a open casket funeral if i was

going it's upsetting if i was going to subtitle this deposition it would be when you say it like that wait wait until we get deeper into this because every time she every time she hears something she it's like she hears it for the first time she's like oh well when you put it like that it sure sounds like i'm an asshole this is this is a visit there's some oh boy deep bizarreness that is even this is just the amuse bouche of how bizarre this is going to get crazy so uh mark tries to get into the actual topics that uh you know she's there as the corporate representative to discuss and that that is a that is a dead end topic number one is the sourcing research for the videos described in plain as petitions when was the last time you watched those videos

but back up made an assumption there have you watched the videos in plain as petition ever in your history i didn't force i've watched some of them what okay so one thing you can say is that in preparation for this deposition you didn't watch those videos correct i'm sorry miss carpo is that a difficult question for you to answer well i've already answered some of the videos right no i understand that you have in your history of info war since 2015 you've probably on occasion seen some of these videos i understand that what

i'm asking you is since the date you were told you were given this deposition in november and you were preparing for this deposition you haven't watched any of these videos right i have not okay oh so this is a bad start uh because you now know that like you're not going to really even be familiar with the videos in question right right and that is kind of limiting yeah uh is your ability to testify as a corporate representative yeah yeah um yeah once we've established here that uh we she hasn't watched these videos in preparation it turns out that also that by by extension that means she doesn't even know what they say do you see that paragraph 14 identifies the january 27th 2013 video entitled why people think sandy hook is a hoax yes okay you're familiar

with the claims made in that video right injection form i don't recall the exact video and so sitting here today you're not familiar with the claims made in that video no okay and and because of this so much of the questions that are being asked yeah end up being like her guessing i don't know you know like what are the sources for this well i would assume that it's wolfgang halbig right or you know like i can have an educated guess that it's this person right right and then marco pushed back about like what did you do to try and figure out if anything uh who made this video who worked on this what are the sources yeah and she's like well nothing it's okay it did i mean great how do they pick who shows up for the did they throw a dart or something i think

like what is happening i think there's an info wars elder who goes into a trans war's elder goes into a trance uh and then they they they choose somebody bananas yeah the confidence with which you would walk into what amounts to the end of your professional career so we're gonna skip a bunch of the back and forths of just like who did who did this i don't know probably wolfgang probably wolfgang but and there's a lot of it and i don't skip it because it's not relevant right definitely is oh totally and it paints the picture of how um unprepared she was for this deposition and the lack of respect that's being shown so the process um but in in terms of you know we're doing a show also right and i think it would get grading right in much the same way it was clearly in the room

you know yeah so we're gonna jump to a question uh about the super bowl pick right so this is the pick uh that alex was asked about it's a wolfgang halbig sent it to nico yep and uh we we couldn't determine whether or not alex should answer if this is crazy i actually he did he did say it was crazy yeah um here is uh mark beginning to bring this up to daria all right so i'm just trying to make sure have you have you or have you seen this document i don't recall um reading this particular exchange with mr halbig okay i'm going to start at the bottom here and this is um this document that i'm reading from you is marked fss texas fss tx dash zero three nine four two nine and you will see at the bottom email mr halbig writes to nico do you know who nithaniel folks

says the person he copies no okay nico though it's an infowars employee yes what's his job title at this time he's not employed at this time oh at this time um he would be the head producer nico is no longer employed by infowars correct so infowars possessed his last known contact information yes okay mr halbig in this email states nico the picture of the sandy hook elementary school choir is one of the keys other pictures are great for discussion these are the ct crime pictures wolf i've read that correctly yes okay nico responds and says got the super bowl picture thank you for sending we will be having we will be calling you on skype at 1 p.m eastern time how long will you be available for the interview today thanks nico i've read that correctly yes

okay and then the final email says as long as you and alex can put up with me wolf gang read that correctly yes okay does this help you refresh your memory about what the super bowl picture is so we we've got the the topic introduced we have nico's response to right getting this super bowl picture wolf i will say though if i can say one positive thing about wolf gang halbig it's that sometimes he signs off his emails wolf oh that's not bad yeah but it's not consistent yeah i know i think if my name was wolf gang i'd be constantly making people call me wolf i don't know sometimes you sign your emails dutch don't know i don't um so uh we get to talking about the super bowl pic itself uh-huh this oh god this is i don't even i'm having trouble figuring out how to

just like prepare you for how insane okay what's coming up i can't be prepared oof all right i'm going to show you a mark is exhibit five you take a look at that picture for me do you see at the bottom corner where it says fss tx dot zero four yes four seven six yes okay have you seen this picture before personally i have not okay this was a document though you can tell from the number at the bottom that was produced by the company correct yes okay can you read what it says at the very top of the picture the white text ten sandy hoe children found alive and well okay this um does the company now admit that this picture is um outrageous rejection form yeah my turn

hey listen listen it's been a long fucking trial and you guys have been dicks are you ready to admit that this is uh outrageous excuse me uh are you ready to say you're full of shit niner niner niner go fuck yourself um yeah so apparently this is this is this is worth an objection yeah um but it it deteriorates well what i'm saying is if there's an expert and you've been relying on them guys supposed to be a school safety shooting expert whatever it is right and you're relying on them and then just hypothetically that person just starts saying absolutely crazy things and it's pretty clear they're going off the rocker maybe they were even credible at one time but suddenly they start saying a bunch of crazy things to the company

when it's deciding whether to put stuff on about sandy hook it needs to it should consider whether what the things it's expert is saying are crazy correct well if he's the expert on the subject matter and who knows a lot more on the subject than any of us working at free speech systems it would be reasonable to believe that we would want to listen what would consider what the information that he's bringing what exactly in wolfgang how big is history and expertise makes him an expert that you should defer to on whether this picture of the super bowl choir is actually pictures of children who were murdered well that's a good question that's why i brought his bio which i would like to read no you just like to know no yes no wild no wild

no so no one of the things i think is really interesting that's going on there is that like dory is essentially appealing to authority yeah you know like yeah just being like well wolfgang said so and he's the expert on things no that's that was like really you're gonna you're gonna tell me if the expert says crazy things they're not crazy because this person's the expert those things by being said by this person become credible that's weird okay so what you're telling me is that the editorial standard for info wars is if somebody was an expert we would believe them could we even qualify that further that's a good point if they claim to be an expert there we are yes so before we even get to expert if you make up credentials for yourself that are really impressive

yeah you get to just do whatever you want yeah so you're telling me that the tip of the spear against disinformation from the mainstream media they do a lot of background for people who work 11 hours a day oh oh alex is up until five in the morning sometimes always researching you're telling me that you don't need to verify any that shit on your own no no because this guy's an expert fair enough so mark wants to know if this person this picture of the super bowl choir that was sent to nico uh was made by a sane person well you admit sitting here right now this was not created by a rational sane human being or are you going to tell this jury that this is created by a rational sane human being i don't have an opinion a personal opinion on it so you see this picture

and then try to determine whether it was created by a sane rational human being you look at it and go i have no strong feelings either way correct i'm not a psychiatric medical expert to determine who's who is sane and who isn't that's that is quite a quite a response oh boy i mean you know listen goldwater rule what are you gonna do i guess there's really no way around that from like a questioning perspective really like of like yeah you i guess you aren't but right you're just trying to dodge the question of like it's very clear if you look at this you'd be like this is well as mark said outrageous no i mean there's the problem with this little chunk right here is uh we're in a situation where the rules are such that you can't mark can't be like hey listen

you know and she can't be like i know but you know right and he can't be like well yeah i know i know why she just level with me for a second right i mean they both everybody knows what's going on this is so infuriating to me it's because mark knows she's full of shit and she knows she's full of shit now i agree i agree that that is a frustrating dynamic very frustrating now listen to me yeah that dynamic breaks okay the status quo changes that's good that's good in the midst of this conversation about whether or not a sane person would make this right this uh super bowl picture and oh my god you would if somebody sent you this while you were doing reporting you would thank them for it i don't know it depends on the circumstances okay well the circumstance wasn't there when nico was

having this exchange what information we had at that time well i'm asking you what if you have this information a picture that says at the top 10 sandy hook children found alive and well and then the super bowl choir from millions of people would you look at that and go man i'm glad i that he sent me that personally i would rather think that those kids were alive then don't then having because do it tragedy of no i want it being murdered for no reason the innocence of those children who didn't deserve what that that kind of fate i would hold out hope to the the last bit of my soul hoping and praying that that picture was that that was something that be possible for those kids to be alive whoa whoa in if i if if i saw that picture and then ask

somebody a question about that picture and then they gave me that response i would throw a table through the wall i almost gasped that is fucking crazy really it's such a bizarre response to the questioning over the super bowl picture and it's not even relevant to the question she was being asked this is volunteered of her own like desire to express this okay now it's it's really hard to understand this mentality unless you recognize that people like daria and i would assume most of the people at info wars don't describe to the rules of reality things like cause and effect or object permanence in her mind choosing to believe that the kids who were killed at sandy hook are actually secretly in the choir at the super bowl that's an optimistic idea because the alternative is

choosing to believe that the kids are dead there's so many problems with like this idea i mean the most obvious being that what she's describing is essentially just living in a fantasy world because reality is too tough but also she seems to be ignoring how this isn't an isolated thing like if the kids at sandy hook were secretly in that choir the implications of that are horrific and i don't i don't know if this would actually be an optimistic scenario no it'd be the worst case possible fucking scenario there ever ever been if the government had just pulled off a massive false flag and then they were rubbing it in by having the fake kids sing at the super bowl i suspect those kids would not live past halftime these these are the people who work for the

literal devil they're not above that shit i find it hard to believe that if the globalists did something like this they would just leave those loose hanging threads out there i mean for your response to that question to just be like you know i choose hope and it's just fucking go go get out of here so when i heard daria say that i thought well this trip has been worth it yeah i i had heard something that was completely unpredictable yeah that was something i never expected i would hear and then it actually even goes on so if you think about it from your point of view if you think about it if the parents of my clients saw this picture they should give them a lot of hope right they should they should react really positively to this with a lot of

hope inside right rejection form is that what you're saying i'm not those parents i'm looking at it as an outsider and i would much rather and i don't know a person with a heart who'd rather think would rather believe that the kids are dead versus that the kids might be alive i would say it's reasonable for a person with a heart to have that sort of optimism as it's as i'm i'm sure alex wanted to believe that those kids if there was any possibility that the kids were not dead then he was going to grab on to it because that's a much better proposition to have in your heart and mind than to to realize that they weren't so alex johns according to how the company used things in terms of your sandy hook coverage alex johns said the kids didn't really die and they

were really alive in part because he has such a big heart and a lot of hope and optimism rejection form okay if you might not have heard it because the lawyer was talking about she said yes yeah that's truly bizarre and remember this is somebody testifying as a corporate representative yeah i was going to say that's something that's really important to remind people here she's there in an official capacity and still decided to take a very ill advised swing at trying to pretend that spreading sandy hook conspiracies was actually is an act of kindness listen the editorial position of info wars and free speech systems is that not only was santa real in miracle on 34th street he is real outside of miracle on the 34th street if i were mark i would

have kept pressing on this line of thought to really determine if daria thinks that her beliefs somehow affect world events like if she believes that her thinking that the kids were alive as any bearing on whether or not they are actually alive or dead from these comments i am not sure i i mean you know that's the weird thing that i'm getting right now i was so quick to believe her earlier whenever she said uh that she wouldn't do that stuff because i i do believe that she does think that if you were uh that you would never engage with conspiracy theorists if you're if your kid dies because it won't matter either way like that makes sense to me she's saying this with the same tone of of like emotional honesty and this is bat shit crazy yes there are a couple moments

where you you get that outside of the i don't know right like answers about sources and i didn't do anything to prepare for this and like this that moment those two of the moments that are like that are like really stand out and i think this one is particularly upsetting it's very upsetting and i think the point that mark brings up about like oh my client should love this picture that it should give them hope like the fact that she can't register or refuses to register right that but that that that's a obviously it makes her idea look absurd yeah because of course the parents are furious right right right so here's the dumb thing you said i'm going to take it to a logical end point and now you're going to see that it's dumb and she's like well i would rather

die than see that it's dumb and actually i uh find it much more comfortable to live in this dumb place yeah congratulations if you have a heart how could you not believe that i am writing a unicorn home after that we record this show if you have a heart there is there is also this focus of like having a heart having a just have a heart it is weird sure we harassed and destroyed many people's lives but that's because we have a heart dan right it's it's for the it's for the good of hearts all of you lawyers trying to get some sort of remuneration for these sandy hook families that we've badgered and horrifically fucked with for the past 10 years or whatever it is those people you should call in fours cheerios because it's heart healthy heart friendly

all right so daria there's more questions that you can't answer about sourcing and stuff and so they end up taking a break and this is where i was like oh my god there's just a recognition they're like she's in trouble uh-huh you see they're talking about an april 22nd 2017 video called sandy hook vampires exposed yes you understand that that is the video that mr pausner and mrs delarosa based their defamation claim on did you know that okay did you know that when preparing for this depot did you know that yes okay did you watch that video i mean unless you've watched it in the last couple hours you haven't watched it right for this deposition i'm familiar with the video did you watch it in preparing for this deposition

though yes i believe so okay when did you watch it earlier today when during the break oh so during the break when it became apparent that you hadn't watched these videos you went and tried to watch this video yes you didn't watch the whole thing though did you no because it's a 45 minute video right it's so lengthy video yeah so you didn't watch this video you went for pieces of this video correct correct how many pieces did you watch how many minutes total did you watch in this video did not count whoo that's that's a tough thing to admit to as a corporate representative that like ah i recognized a couple hours into this deposition that i was so uh in underwater that i needed to go on break and do the preparation that i

should have done beforehand right right right so we uh so when i came into this i was judging myself by rob do standards and you're doing great and i i i really thought that i could do no wrong because i brought in wikipedia articles and that was dw no wrong yes exactly sorry but but but but now after talking to you i'm realizing that i really should have crammed for my homework yeah yeah i should have done something oh man it would have been really nice i'm still better than do yeah i watched a video during the break that that was that i think won't play well no no that's that's kind of jesus christ pretty bad so this next you know a judge read that right like like she knows that somewhere along the line a judge is going to go you tried to watch it when

mm-hmm so this next clip has to do with an email exchange between rob do and dan badandi so dan badandi had uh wanted to get clearance for some man on the street uh questions that he wanted to do a man on the street piece sure sure and rob do responded no go to new town cover sandy hook get the fuck out right come on so here's here's how this goes okay so and then what we see basically here is some proposed questions that he wants to ask random people on the street right all right and and in the follow-up email from rob do he doesn't want dan to do that right correct right it's going to be old by the time they can air it correct yes okay so he says go to sandy hook we will cover that correct yes okay so there's an intentional choice by mr

do to want to get dan badandi to go to sandy hook correct yes because it was in the news and the nature of on the of the beast so to speak in the news um the 24 hour news cycle expires really fast how was excuse me i'm sorry yeah how was sandy hook in the news on 7 7 2015 there we go what had happened that was about to say um don't i don't have the record that right now right so you don't know that you had anything to do sandy hook has been in the news despite the fact that alex have not mentioned it in years and it keeps being put in the news as if alex is the one who is the purveyor of the sandy hook news he and him talking about the parents yet it's the mainstream media who keeps mentioning the parents and tormenting the parents and the entire situation

when you say purveyor when he's saying go to sandy hook we will cover that info wars is being a purveyor through almost almost three years after sandy hook is being the purveyor of sandy hook coverage correct no what is that then is he saying that we're going to cover it and not air it you're going to he intends to put whatever dam bed on he does on the air correct uh depends if the report is good or not and then again and answering this question you speculated out of thin air that there was something going on around january 7 of 2015 that put this in the news that made it timely but that was pure speculation you have no idea what that might be correct that's the nature of our news that's how we do news if there's something in the news then we'll cover it

yeah y'all were going to make news do you understand that you're sending Dan badani there to wolfgang hobbit do you know what they did there no that's not good that she doesn't know i mean if i were the corporate representative i would definitely know that and i would have written some long explanation for why it's somehow okay maybe some kind of rationalization at very least because it's yeah it's bad it would need to look at st thomas equinus would have been proud of whatever i'd written to try and get out of that bullshit because it takes a lot st thomas equinus is fun because actually uh uh wolfgang how big was harassing people at a catholic school take that so it's actually appropriate uh no they were probably uh sister shin monks um so

there's another email uh from dan badandi that uh leads to a little bit of drama in the room all right what we have here is uh from truth radio 9 9 9 0 at hotmail.com um and this was something sent to rob do at info wars right right okay and so we have this email here from dan badandi stating someone you may want to get in that documentary on sandy hook and it says forward dan alex announced that he is going to do a sandy hook doc film sheila mathews who you met in hartford at a how big hearing is a friend of mine who lives in the next town and i'm gonna guess that says over and we don't know what it says after that but then it says sheila asked me to provide you with her telephone number it gets a telephone number right right okay and then rob

sends it to you and this is april 24th 2018 correct correct and he says if alex wants to go the sandy hook route oh you may want to get this lady on oh correct yes okay so this is just shortly after the company was sued right yes that's why he wants to make this documentary right not sure the exact reasons for alex wanting to do a documentary what is the sandy hook route what is that you don't want to answer that question i've never heard of it what so we have dan badandi suggesting a guest and writing an email where there's an awareness that alex is wanting to or planning to make a documentary about sandy hook in 2018 okay so the sandy hook route all right now there's not a lot of beaches in austin but there are some and when you go to the beach all right

there's sand everywhere and i don't know if you've heard about sand sand is actually a bunch of crashed you know like it could be rock it could be glass it could be any number of things so there is sand right and we were going to go fishing we were going fishing there is a sand we were going fishing there's a hook see sandy hook route completely different completely different alex was working on a sort of a scene you know like sort of a a tableau a decorative piece where that sounds interesting right and it was peter pan versus captain hook but all of the characters were pecan sandies oh yeah that sounds like a delicious treat that is the route yep um so no her her sort of response to this generally speaking is that like oh no i had nothing to do with the

documentary it was just rob was suggesting this person maybe alex would want to have on the show as a guest right i don't really understand how that helps that much no but she's just trying to evade um answering or recognizing that there was at least some kind of an internally discussed plan that alex wanted to make a documentary about sandy hook in 2018 and that dan badandi was sending sources yeah that's not good the question about dan badandi sending sources this is where things go off the rails if rob do was sending to you a source from dan badandi the truth warrior we can be fairly certain that that guest was going to support the idea that sandy hook was fake right that's fair assumption objection form don't answer that question why not because that's

extremely misleading i that's not a proper basis to object to that that is entirely that is entirely go read the rule madame corp order can you read my question back so it's pretty clear that the reason uh that this uh was a question that if you can pull off uh you don't want to your client to answer no you do not want that no no no of course not it would be one thing for dan badandi just to be suggesting a guest but for him to send in a guest on the subject of sandy hook referencing a documentary alex's thinking of making and then for rob deford that onto daria that indicates that there was internal action being taken on badandi's suggestion it wasn't just something that they ignored like they want to pretend they always do with dan badandi

we get 10 000 emails a day sure the implication is clearly that there was an interest in interviewing guests who would support that the sandy hook was a hoax narrative uh after alex got sued in the case and that's why um brad the lawyer is saying don't answer that yeah yeah don't answer that question if rob do was sending to you as solicitor dan badandi the truth warrior we can be fairly certain that that guest was going to support the idea that sandy hook was fake right that's a fair exception have her answer the question or move for sanctions i will i will move to compel that answer that if you're having or not answer that question it's very clear what you're trying to hide i i wanted to answer the question

i don't appreciate the threats when i'm it's not a threat brad it is a threat and i don't really appreciate it you know what look at where we are in this case go ahead go ahead and if you know the answer the question proceed with answering the question i get sent a lot of guests on a daily basis there's no way for me to know this specific guest would be um pro sandy hook um conspiracy theory or the official version no idea no i don't think that's that's a reliable answer you couldn't predict but i think that's that's you know fine it'll just look you know that just looks like obfuscation yeah yeah yeah no i'm a little confused as to what uh what brad's up to here i mean maybe brad's just like uh i gotta make it look like i'm working because if i was brad i'm just looking at

ours man i think he gets the implication of answering that question oh totally and if you can if you can pull off an objection there you might want to totally crucially yeah however again you're gonna be fired in like a month or two if past his prelude alex's lawyers are not long uh on the job no so just just show up why would you get into a fight with mark come on man we're both we both know what's going on here so um this uh it leads to uh an assessment of how bedondi look at what you know what does he do what does he up to how how is that guy you know what dan bedondi believes about sandy hook don't you you personally daria carpava do not you don't know personally do not no as an informer producer here to testify as by half of the company you also didn't do anything to

prepare to know what dan bedondi did right that's not part of the topics you were asked to talk about today i know dan bedondi had questions and believe that there was a cover-up in the sandy hook case okay he did his hardest trying to investigate as a good reporter would use you were testifying right now dan bedondi is a good reporter is that what you're testifying to and so far as him trying to investigate what happened and find the truth that's what a good reporter is supposed to do you seen any videos of dan bedondi in connecticut what he did you ever watched him not recently you might not be the best person to qualify to talk about whether dan bedondi was a good reporter in newtown are you objection form that's not what she said that's

what i'm asking her a question brad i'm asking you you may not be the best qualified person to talk about what dan bedondi did in newtown correct you daria carpava and for his employee my definition of a good reporter is somebody who seeks the truth and is going to great lengths in order to find it so you don't you could you but you can admit to me right now you don't know what dan bedondi did in newtown specific actions i don't know but you just mentioned what do you know about st roose of lima catholic school in newtown what dan bedondi and wulfgang hobbock did there not up ahead that's that catholic school in question yeah yeah yeah um so yeah this i mean that's priceless almost yeah like the corporate representative being unaware of what dan bedondi

did but also saying that he's a great reporter he's a great reporter he's one of the best because you can just play he's a great reporter and then show the footage of him yelling at people well in newtown i mean i assume they think that's what a great reporter does i think so yeah the dogged persistence yeah they they are very very shallow people mm-hmm so one of the questions in this case is regarding whether or not uh the uh sandy hook kind of materials were used strategically sure in terms of marketing or or or that kind of thing yeah and daria says absolutely not has info wars when making its editorial discussions and decisions about the sandy hook coverage has it ever attempted to use its sandy hook stories and videos in a strategic way

to attract viewers no okay the idea that we would make some video uploads about sandy hook as a strategic measure that's not something that would be a would be a part of infor's editorial discussions never never okay never all right so i'm a quarterback in the pocket right i'm starting to feel pressure okay you should all the sudden i'm starting to see the defense event running straight towards my face because this question is not a calm and happy question that is going to end with your answer being accepted is okay it's a blitz you don't have a football and it turns out all the rules have been lifted yeah and it's 20 against one yeah there is no offense applied nope it's just you getting your ass kicked let me show you what i've marked as exhibit 15

can you tell me who uh at the top here well actually let me start at the bottom at the bottom corner you see there's a mark says fs s tx dash 07 6069 correct okay now can you tell me um first let's just look at the top of the email who is darin darin Mcbree his title in 2015 do you if you know editor okay and rob do we've talked about correct yes louis s we've talked about right yes okay the next other person that's on here is travis night you know who that person is yes okay and do you know what their job position is editor okay um and then this email is being sent from louis s to travis night rob do and darin and the subject is video files for facebook upload on september 24 for 2015 that's correct yes okay he asked them can i get these video files

for future strategic one of the files that he was asking for is why people think sandy books is correct okay so we can tell from this email and then darin follows up and says any luck finding correct yes we can agree from this email that editor darin and louis s we're attempting to use a video about sandy hook being a hoax as a future strategic facebook upload correct it's one of the video one of the videos out of eight videos that he's requesting sure so it is one of the videos being used for a future strategic facebook upload correct objection form yes okay but won't you consider that there are seven others oh it wasn't just a sack it was a strip sack and the defense is running all the way for the score well i mean like i think obviously

you ask the question with the word strategic yeah because you know that because you know the word strategic is going to be used yeah it's not so much a magic trick as it is preparing no well i i just would never have expected them to really have used the word strategic i think they i think that at a certain point there probably wasn't a concern about it yeah no they just didn't give a fuck yeah amazing so mark wants to talk a little bit about this idea of wolf gang how big because obviously he's a source for a lot of the stuff sure that that and especially the way that darry is presenting it a lot of it's probably just how big stuff so the bio that she brought it's time for uh let's go through a little bit word for word let's go on to talk about wolf gang how big

would you mind opening up your blue folder for me you see that article on top yes that's something you brought today and you were talking about how much you were talking about like you wanted to read it today right to talk about wolf gang's um uh qualifications yes his bio specifically right his bio okay so this article that you've brought is what you believe you is let me ask you this is that something that info wars had before you went and looked for it for your deposition or is that something that you got for your deposition to help you acquaint yourself the latter okay so before this deposition info wars did not have this document in its corporate files uh correct the files that i looked through uh that i searched for um halbik's bio i could not

find anything uh as well as seems like it's he's been memory hold on the internet as well so that's the only article that i could actually find in an archive what i'm sorry what actually listed his bio did you go try to search wolf gang how we go on google did you do that yes okay and so when you say he's been memory hold i take it you're ignoring the dozens of mainstream articles about wolfgang halbik you don't want to use the mainstream articles i'm talking specifically his bio and his credentials have been memory hold okay there are mainstream articles that talk about wolfgang's credentials or his alleged credentials right did you see any of those i've looked at many of them and i did not see an actual biography of his accomplishments okay so this article which is

so you brought us instead this exhibit one f written by dr eowyn do you know who that is i do not i didn't bring it for the author i brought it for the uh bio that is including the sort of so now if you're daria sitting there you have brought this yeah and if the you know the name dr eowyn for example it's a pretty detail like a small detail of this that's being brought up you probably should you know maybe recognize it's for oh no i would be like hold on can i have that document real quick and then shred it eat it yeah absolutely now you can't prove shit man oh yeah because there's bad news about this yeah do you have any faith sitting here today that the information contained in that article is accurate yes because even the people who

disagree with wolfgang halbik uh admit that he has a lengthy bio that's impressive who said that i've read it um in different articles when i was searching for his bio i thought you said his bio was the memorial well exactly they failed to admit his bio but they do acknowledge that he's got an extensive bio if that bio is covered accurately but i could not find the actual bio because the bio was not included it's accurate mean to you think it's covered accurately there that's what you think yes okay and the person who wrote that dr eowyn do you know who that is no you don't have a last name right i do not believe that's the person who wrote this article go back and look at the first page oh no i understand that the article was posted by the said dr eowyn

the bio that's been uh screenshot it here it's not even type that's screenshot it from somewhere else from where uh oh boy i do not have the source the exact source where it was um printed from do you have no idea like i said people people who disagree with halbik and who criticize admit that his bio is impressive i i'm still waiting to see that do you have any information you can point me to that anybody you say who's an opponent of albik who admits that he has an impressive bio i would have i would have printed those documents if that's what i thought i needed for you but instead satisfaction i did the research into my satisfaction this bio uh checks out let's talk about what satisfies you which is apparently a screenshot that you cannot identify

where it came from printed an article by dr eowyn who did you who first of all that's let me pull this question back do you know did you know dr eowyn wrote chapter two of jim fetzer's book nobody died at sandy hook there we go okay oh did you know that the doctor that you you brought into here uh is only good for my case wrote a chapter of jim fetzer's book no one died do you want to be more closely associated with jim fetzer uh let's get it uh this this this is you've created more trouble for yourself by bringing this bio bananas yeah this is a bananas double decker of depositions yeah yeah so i'm going to skip a couple of clips here because they're long and they essentially achieve a very similar thing that you see in all of these and

that is like this idea of like if you'd known that how big was a bad source right would you have acted on it earlier right you know and then of course mark produces an email from march 2014 right of somebody being like this guy's credentials do not check out this is no good and then a don salazar responding to the guy oh boy and so like there's there's interaction with this person who's clearly bringing up long before they stopped having him on the show right that he appears to be full of shit right and then they did nothing they took no action on it right didn't double check his credentials or like whether he was a reliable source uh i mean it looks bad but it's something that we see kind of a bunch happen in these depositions it feels like and this

is what is getting into my head it feels like neither alex nor and let's face it all of info wars does not understand that when they are in a deposition the plaintiff is not asking them questions for fun for fun yeah like i said like i said with alex it's like he's not asking about your audience size for a puff piece no it's not this is not because they know the answers that's the point of the deposition is for you to say some dumb bullshit it's and you're doing that yes and oh my god oh my god so hold on to that idea oh my god because the emails from wolf gang that were harassing the sandy hook families that we he read that mark read uh alex yeah in the alex deposition come back up uh and we heard how alex responded to them yeah now let's see

how uh daria does so this first one is about the dirty school email right so how could you let your daughter go to that school go to that school yeah and here's daria's take on it okay so first of all um how do you how does the company feel about this email objection form what's your objection well vague how's the company feel sure how's the feelings no problem that's good good work brad how's the company feel about this email mr how big is asking this seems to be concerned for the well-being of this child thank you mr carpano let me actually i want to read this email to the record so we can talk about it okay

mr halvig writes michelle how could you and your husband as responsible parents even allow your precious child josephine to attend that filthy and deplorable looking school on december 14th 2012 so mark's reading it afterwards because she was responding to having read it to herself she was like silently reading it yeah and that was wild and listening to this all the way through especially if you've heard alex's deposition you start to notice some really weird dynamics that only become clear if they're being asked about the same documents you know it's it's it's really weird this document where how big is harassing this parent about how filthy the school was is read by daria and then she immediately responds that it sounds like a person who's concerned

about the well-being of the child it's it's just so great to know that someone cares meanwhile alex reads it and is in like disgusted yeah and there's a couple things that i could think of that might explain these different responses the first is that they may have prepared for the depositions differently so alex might have been slightly more prepared the second is a possibility that alex has at least a modicum of emotional intelligence and can tell that he's supposed to not make excuses for an email like that whereas daria is just in like cover your ass in deflect mode as i was thinking about this or as i call it researching in my mind i i think i came up with another possibility this feels like maybe it's connected to daria's

bizarre comments about it being a function of optimism to promote the idea that the children from sandy hook were still alive i jumped right to that immediately this is a fantasy reality where no one with a heart would want to believe that wolfgang how big was an almost cartoon level asshole who spent his free time harassing grieving parents anyone with a heart would want to believe that he's just very concerned about the janitorial staff at the school yeah yet another option i considered is that it's really difficult as an emotional thing to confront you know to see the actions in the real world of a person who you were an active participant in promoting yeah when you see that he was harassing and stalking these parents and you know that your network

and all your co-workers were whitewashing his reputation raising money for him and effectively enabling his behavior that's gotta be a bit of a gut punch and i can kind of see why you might want to pretend it's not real here's my take on it because i i see where you're coming from and i'm going to be far less generous as is my want yes that is our roles um i i see it more like in order to be the host right in order to be on screen in order to attract an audience people have to be able to make a an emotional connection right they have to sure so whether or not you're a true psychopath or whatever it is you want to say at the very least you have to have the emotional ability to evoke emotion well i mean that you see that with alex all the time the

fake is crying and totally yeah and i would say that for to work with alex it would require a an abdication of general human sympathy and empathy entirely and that would kind of make sense why darry has never been an on-air personality exactly i i mean the when i think about it the more i think about people like uh you know listening to darry's deposition i think about uh fucking tucker carlson you know like tucker carlson can go on his show and if he didn't have editorial people stopping him he could easily easily do all the same alex shit he's just got a bigger network with people reigning him in lawyers yeah and those people are fucking psychos it has to be like it's the only way that you can work with a fucker like tucker carlson and not kill

yourself so i think darry is just a stone cold fucking psychopath you can say that and i i mean like obviously you're violating the goldwater rule yes i am i think that some of these answers and you know this trend that you see of like kind of uh what if we pretend everything is good i i think that it's it's a bizarre uh way to engage with the world and it does kind of at least speak to that difference uh that that dynamic yeah of alex knows what is expected of him right to appear normal in order to be and and darry it doesn't care she doesn't need to no because she's not somebody who's forward facing no and she's not named in the lawsuit i guess she'll be out of job she will be out of a job but that was going to happen anyways probably yeah so now we get her

response to the email about the stalking where how big showed up at these people's house right and was talking about talking to their neighbors right um and i wonder what her response is that email doesn't creep you out you personally rejection form i mean creeping out the way you're reading it yes it doesn't creep you out to have wolf gang hobbock showing up these people's houses and describing their three-car garage and all that stuff accusing them of being people they're not actually are that doesn't that doesn't have any you know how many strong feelings one way or another

around that traction form correct are you asking my personal opinion yeah your personal opinion strikes me as a passionate man who's doing an investigation something he believes in his own heart and wants to get to the bottom of thank you miss carpella that's a mic down see that's a like drop the mic kind of moment that's the type of psychopathic response that ceo's give to fucking congress where you're like oh you guys just are willing to watch the humanity explode but you don't give a fuck but that response for mark that thank you yeah oh yeah is like a like

beautiful it it's almost like you can tell it's a containing of elation yeah like i can't believe you said something that's going to be so oh like so damaging yeah yeah so again daria's steadfastly refusing to see like these negative things in what halbig did the other email was concerned about the cleanliness of the school and this one you know this this one's a passionate investigator that's how they rationalize this yeah i think that probably feels like good spin at the moment but this is a huge mistake because in a deposition setting you need to be considering that your words are going to be played for a jury and you should account for them having basic human emotions anyone in the jury who reads or hears that email is going to be disgusted by halbig's actions because

it's clearly a man's stalking grieving families and when they see you making excuses for it or characterizing it as just a passionate investigator that's going to look really bad for you is it gives the strong impression that you're either lying to cover something up or maybe you actually don't think that halbig's stalking these families was that bad a thing for him to have done so i have some suspicion that alex is smart enough to realize that dynamic which could help explain why he had the responses to those emails that's congruent with how you would want the jury to see you and and how you know the jury is going to respond to them and i don't even necessarily know where like that's a conscious decision but it might just be like alex gets that i love the way

that mark set up these emails because you could have you could have set it up in a different in a different fashion and made some different points but i just love the fact that it's it's like a limbo bar for empathy that he keeps raising you know like that first one if you don't see that as monstrous you know wow you just smacked the the fucking limbo bar mark then raises the limbo bar up a thousand feet of true monstrous behavior and she's like i bet i can hit that bar and that limbo bar is really just asking like that's bad right yes hey hey you know if somebody were lit on fire that would be a bad thing right do you agree with that yeah so there's a bunch of questions that come up about uh figuring out the size of the audience trying to gauge metrics and

traffic and sure basically it all just boils down to daria having like i didn't do anything to figure out no no okay okay great great good work then we're hours into this deposition of course this question is damning you understand that the company produced documents from its own corporate files right okay and you understand that some of those document requests asked for documents about my clients right yes do you know who my clients are can you name them i have four clients do you know there yeah it's on the notice i know i mean from memory you don't you got to pull this up right yes okay yeah the corporate representative you don't know the names of the people suing you

four and a half five hours into this deposition do you know why we're here it's rank disrespect yeah to not even take this seriously enough to know like even if you don't want to know their names as people you maybe be aware of the names of the cases right you know no i mean this is one of those things it's it's easy to laugh at how terrible they are in these depositions you know it is it's very easy because they're garbage and they're they're just dumb on a on an astronomical scale but when you do hear that it just it reminds me all over again like that's why it's fine for them that's why they don't care is because they never cared that's why they will always go find another sandy hook because they don't care what the names are of the people who are going to bankrupt

their fucking business they didn't even bother to know well because most of the time they won't end up bankrupt right but that's that's what i'm saying that's why it has to be it has to be a bankruptcy i see i see where you're coming from yeah so we only have a couple more clips left and one of the things that was really mysterious and the alex deposition is the questions about the giant background check of liner posner yeah so this comes up see if we can get some more answers on this one yeah so in terms of the document the single document that was recently produced to me about liner posner you've never seen it and this is the single document yeah that's it mm-hmm okay you see where it says fsx tx dash eight zero eight five five four four yes okay

okay you don't know what this is do you if i want to ask you what is this you couldn't tell me um just like the background information right i mean i can figure that out right like we can look at the top at the table of contents right here and it says for license investigator purposes only do you see where it says that yes and then you see where it says linard posner comprehensive report yes do you see where it has all these entries about all this information about linard posner yes this is a lot of knowledge that the company has in its possession concerning linard posner you'd agree with that yes okay and some of the information that the company has about linard posner and its knowledge include his possible relatives right do you see that down

near the bottom of the list yes and possible likely associates and possible associates right yes okay and like for instance if we go to dc where it says page 66 for possible relatives can you flip to page 66 in that document for me this is a bunch of people's personal information isn't it yes and you can't tell me why the company has this can you i don't know no one has any idea i i listen to these and i just wonder like who could answer that question i know i i mean i genuinely believe them when they say they have no idea why they have it i would i suspect that i

mean i don't have any reason to believe that they are lying about that yeah i mean but it's who who knows like who does know i'm not saying who knows i mean who knows i will tell you who knows rob you know who it is uh david jones oh let's get him in oh let's go get that guy the uh the the the uh the hr the hr not anymore though oh well that was actually a question that came up during alex's deposition uh his dad is no longer hr and it turns out that it might not be that crazy that he was hr to begin with because he did some human resources for the dental company that he uh was a part of prior to this so there may be actually some sure sure sure so you know tip of the cap either way so this last clip is not where the actual deposition ends but i would

say it's where it kind of spiritually ends okay um and that is in an exchange where um so i gotta have a little bit of a context i guess to this uh in the canadian cases there's a guy named kori slanka uh sklenka who's uh basically is a partner of wolfgang haubigs and associate in some of the nonsense that he was into and so part of the uh request for production of documents in these cases in texas involved anything involved in kori slanka sure uh sklenka that's hard that is hard sklenka yeah so they obviously would know that there are documents involved in them because he's a co-defendant in the case in canadian they would know that yes so mark and these lawyers would know that there is something that would be respondent yes in in that

request for documents well if they had done their research but of course nothing came up yeah and nothing was delivered and so this is this is where i think you can tell throughout this that there's a sense of growing frustration with dealing with this deposition yeah and this is kind of where i feel like well this is this is you know what are we even doing you know kori sklenka is right no okay um kori sklenka is an associate of wolfgang haubig who is a co-defendant with enthors in the lafreesuit does that refresh your memory on who kori sklenka is no no not really okay the you would admit being a co-defendant with kori sklenka in the lafreesuit the company possesses documents about kori sklenka correct objection form nothing to do with the texas cases

here it has to do with the documents produced in response to our discovery requests and our discovery requests were kori sklenka which you would know if you ever answered okay i'm in brett this is the most disrespectful deposition i've ever been in i don't we've been in two depositions where you presented the same your company's printed the same kind of opponent who didn't know anything about what was being on these topics and now for you to come in and object to topics about i'm asking about documents produced to my discovery requests and you tell me kori sklenka isn't is a response of this case i both of y'all need to get up to speed on what this case is about first of all i'm objecting on the basis of you asking about the connecticut litigation i'm not

asked i'm not saying you have any i'm not objecting to you asking any questions about your discovery requests second of all no one is trying to be disrespectful here she's doing her best job and i don't care whether you think she is in or not i don't really care what your personal opinions are on her or not if you have a problem with it with i'm sure you you obviously do you're gonna try to do something about it no i'm going to and i and i and i want you to maintain for the record that everyone here has been working as hard as they can to actually get you answers that you want and i'm sorry that out of the hundreds of thousands of pages of documents that you're asking about specific ones that she doesn't have the exact answer to you haven't produced hundreds of thousands

of pages okay man you know what i don't answer discovery brad so if you're going to sit here and lecture me i would like you to show me the ones you're saying have not been responded to what's that which ones you're saying have not been responded to you haven't responded to the pause in her discovery and you know shape or form and and yeah have you have have i've been compelled by a court order to actually respond to those documents because i got defaulted but i haven't actually seen a motion to compel right and i'm proving all that up right now i understand that but what i'm i'm i'm i'm unclear on if i'm defaulted on it and i'm unclear of the obligation to actually supplement it but if you if you want to ask me to do that then i'll do that i'm not asking

that at all i'm asking her directly that they haven't produced me documents to my discovery request and i want them to admit that they refuse to answer them and you've just kept interrupting me about okay well i'm sorry i didn't mean to interrupt you i apologize that's not why i tend and i'll go ahead and answer the question to the extent you can please all right wow yeah it was not hard to make that teen aged boy fall down that that was was really oh man i i i found that a bit tough because it is like obviously the boiling over frustration sure like dealing with his nonsense no everyone there knows what's going on in their furious and and the the responsive brad being like uh yeah this is everyone's doing the best they can i i i'm sorry it's just i'm sorry

it's just kind of such a perfect button to end on i mean kind of of these of these depositions it's like no everyone is not doing the best brad brad brad brad i mean is is their lawyer i just see you can't be you can't be a fucking lawyer for a god day of corporate representative and come at me with what my mom would say if i got a c and my dad was pissed he's doing his best shut the fuck up yeah unreal so i think we we i mean we're almost i mean probably i mean including we're probably over four hours well yeah probably about that um unsurprising so i think one of the one of the unfortunate things um about this is that obviously there is you know the alex depositions is like three hours long and the daria one's like five hours long and you know there

are things that we just obviously couldn't cover everything right and so there are little other tidbits that are that are you know of interest and obviously for someone like me it's like everything is it was catnip yeah there's there's a ton of stuff that i would sit here for 12 hours and talk to you about no you really would uh if if i felt like it was an acceptable thing if you felt like you could survive the encounter i don't think i could i think that your patience would wear thin right about four hours and two minutes that's that's about where is that where we are now pretty close i don't know so i i i find i found these really illuminating in many ways i think i think that obviously the the daria one as a corporate representative is it's not as funny as

do maybe and maybe it's because do was wearing the kangle hat yeah well and uh he seemed scared he yeah i mean he he he was much more scared and he also had kind of a uh an almost laissez faire attitude about it too of like hey if i know something i'll tell you but if i don't know something i'm just gonna say i don't know man his his fear and confusion made it funny yeah whereas daria's lack of preparation that has clearly demonstrated yeah in the deposition it didn't have the same humor and the things that were interesting about it were upsetting terrifying things that she said were deeply deeply upsetting no no no i i mean yeah that's wow it's you know that uh okay it's like that psychopath test thing you know i don't i'm sorry

to bring up john twice uh but it is like that story of you know like oh this this psychopath goes to a funeral meet somebody cool and they're like how do you meet him again and the the psychopath thinks oh you kill somebody that you only meet them at funerals that is exactly what i felt whenever daria heard the email about wolfgang fucking stalking people and she was like oh it's nice to know somebody cares about you and you're like committed you are terrified as a committed reporter you are terrified passionate uh yeah it it's it these answers are incredibly bizarre and i think that um certainly something that i wasn't as aware of before uh is the content of some of those emails that are just deeply upsetting fucked up and the the relationship between the times

that like when these emails are getting sent when the harassment's being done yeah when uh there's you know pretty strong indications of negligence and just ignoring uh what what they're doing and who they're promoting yeah um it just it just looks really bad no it does not look good does not so i'm glad to be on the other side of this i'm glad that now we can you know it's out in the open it is lovely um it's a little bit of a weight off my shoulders yeah you're not good with secrets no certainly not yeah but i am proud of uh you know not tipping the hand at all you should be uh it it was i mean we're almost two months now i know no it's a mess i'm i'm i'm proud of you for your for not tipping the hand but uh more proud of you for doing it and all that stuff i'm not gonna

compliment you mark our mark already did that shit up top i'm just gonna say good work thanks barns yeah so hey uh i guess that brings us to the end of this but uh i i think we may have another episode that's sort of deposition ish next because of alex going to the January 6th we'll see what happens yeah um so we look forward to that but until then uh we have website we do it's knowledgefight.com yes we are also on twitter we are on twitter it's adenowledge underscore fight and i go to bed jordan yeah we'll be back but until then i'm neo i'm leo i'm dzx clark i'm darryl rundus and now here comes the sex robots andy and chanzas you're on the air thanks for holding me so alex i'm a first time caller i'm a huge fan i love your work i love