0:11

Not not not not not knowledgeable. Damn

0:16

and important times. When acknowledge

0:19

768 dot com. It's starting to break. I have 768

0:22

respect for knowledge. 768? Knowledge

0:24

parties. I'm of imposing as if they're

0:26

the good guys, Changbi are the bad guys.

0:28

The knowledge of the fight. And enjoy

0:30

the knowledge fight Need

0:36

money.

0:40

Baby. Andy and Fand

0:42

andy and Fandex. Andy and Fandex. Andy

0:45

and Fandex. You're on the break. Andy and Fandex. You're

0:48

on the airplane. Hello, Alex. I'm a

0:50

good friend calling with 768 fans. I love your

0:52

work. Knowledge fight. No no

0:54

no no no knowledge fight. Dot com.

0:58

I love you. Hey, everybody. Welcome back to

1:00

Knowledge 768 now, Dan. I'm joined. Work old dudes.

1:02

Like, sit around, worship at the altar of Celine,

1:04

and talk a little bit about Alex

1:06

Jones. Oh, indeed we are.

1:08

Dan, Jordan, Dan. 768, quick question

1:10

for you. So what's your bright spot today,

1:12

buddy? My bright spot today is actually a

1:14

very recent bright spot, and that is

1:16

right before we started recording. I started

1:18

recording

1:18

the series. Alright. Okay. Alright.

1:22

So, Will Smith, welcome to Miami.

1:24

Set of a And you were freaking out. You freaked

1:26

out a little bit. Your response was pretty

1:28

pretty It makes me feel deeply uncomfortable.

1:31

Well, I I and I realized that maybe

1:33

there's something that people don't know about me.

1:35

Yeah. Then 768 is that I

1:37

know all the lyrics to a number of Will

1:39

Smith

1:39

songs. That is true. Uh-huh. You have demonstrated

1:42

that on multiple occasions. Yep. And

1:44

I want the audience to

1:45

know, regardless of drunk or 768.

1:47

True. True. Blah blah 768, in

1:49

particular, that 768. Yep. 768.

1:52

Right now, just out of beat nope.

1:54

768 my god bless. God bless God bless God

1:56

768 God bless God

1:57

God. Oh, you know, why not a number of this six

1:59

god of this brother running this fucking soul to

2:01

look

2:01

its eye. I told you. 768. Okay. So it's

2:03

a distraction to be out of that branch when you meet June

2:06

West, rough next. Go check the law to buy it.

2:08

Watch your step. Alright. Hold on your side, sir. Are

2:10

you proud? Don't let you listen to problems.

2:12

My hand having a boss. Okay. Regardless,

2:14

from the start of this run of the game, James West.

2:16

768 West. Remember the name? Yep.

2:19

I can do I can go Hours.

2:21

Yes. You hours. And the red and black

2:23

True. Maybe not red and black too. I think you'd

2:25

be song on that 768

2:26

Did you do the soundtrack for me? Yeah. Was it

2:28

just here comes the red and black again? You

2:30

know what? Ironically, I don't I could I

2:32

don't think I know all the words to Big Willie

2:34

style.

2:35

That's not surprising.

2:36

With it. I guess Big Willie style is the name of

2:39

the album. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's fine. 768

2:41

get jiggy with 768. Getting jiggy with it

2:43

as I like to say. Alright.

2:44

768. No. No. No. 768

2:46

that good of a song. Oh. I'm

2:47

gonna throw that out there. Audio 768. Not

2:50

really. You know, I know, psycho

2:52

with but you don't hit. 768 can't

2:54

quit. Gotta get Jiggie with it. That's it.

2:56

Honey, honey, come rise. You can't watch.

2:58

Got, like, to get 768 from

3:00

seeing that we have

3:01

four clips today. 768 gonna

3:03

be a short show.

3:05

Boy, That was just my bright spot. I like enjoying

3:08

you with stuff like that. So anyway, what's your

3:10

last spot? My bright spot is a

3:12

subject that I I mean, obviously,

3:14

what good turd deserves another by Fred.

3:16

So my bright spot is the Australian

3:19

open. 768.

3:23

So what's what are the highlights of

3:25

this this year open? Well,

3:27

it's gonna be a tough one. First off,

3:29

Kerios had to drop out with a knee injury.

3:32

Oh, sorry. Stocks. This was his

3:34

best shot to win his own Australian

3:36

open. That would've been

3:37

amazing. That would've been cool. Not gonna

3:39

happen.

3:39

Mhmm.

3:40

Raffa Raffa's Raffa's coming

3:42

in off a bad stretch. Uh-huh. He's

3:44

he's lost six of his last eight. Oh,

3:46

no. Right. And he won his first round

3:48

match, but you don't know if that means anything.

3:49

How's Pampers looking? Oh, Pampers is looking

3:52

great. He's about seventy years

3:54

old now and his arm hair

3:56

has established a colony on

3:58

other people's

3:59

768. My money's on Agustin.

4:01

Agustin is good. His his skull

4:04

is now actually visible. You

4:06

know, he used to have a he used to glue

4:08

a wig on his head. Sure. Then he got rid

4:10

of that and he was bald and now it's all

4:12

come back to haunt him and his exposed

4:14

skull is

4:15

there. I

4:15

don't have any other old tennis references

4:17

except for maybe like John Mackie rodents. Not

4:19

mac and rope, man. Still doing great. Yeah.

4:22

Number three, c and geez. He's

4:24

lost three of his feet to

4:25

diabetes. That's how bad it is. He

4:28

got two foot transplants. So you said

4:30

Raffa is not in it? No. Raffa is in

4:32

it. Oh, sorry. Curios has

4:33

dropped. Curios has dropped out.

4:34

And this is the Jokovic's back

4:36

this year. Because

4:37

the vaccine may

4:38

be Because the vaccine just got rid of them.

4:40

Yeah. That COVID is still an

4:42

issue. Yeah. Vaccine's still very

4:44

important. 768, I mean, come on. It was a year

4:46

ago. Whatever. Yeah. So Dirkovich

4:48

won't get as much press this year. Yeah.

4:51

Yeah. Well, I'm excited for you to enjoy

4:53

that. It'll be great. Hope you have a great time. Yeah.

4:55

Watching people go bong. Oh, old man

4:57

Andy Murray. Andy Murray.

5:00

He won against young man, bare 768.

5:02

Whoa. Baratini. Baratini. 768 to

5:06

tell you'd play 768 tennis. You gotta love it.

5:09

Wait. So who who's

5:11

your favorite

5:12

to win? Who's my favorite

5:14

to win?

5:14

Who's most likely to win probably Djokovic

5:16

or Medvedev?

5:17

That's 768 Russian president. No.

5:21

Former Russian 768. Thank you.

5:24

No. 768 Medvedev is a very,

5:26

very good 768 player. Did

5:28

you say Andy Murray? Andy Murray,

5:30

Old man Andy Murray. Wait. Who is the

5:32

young guy? Matteo Beritini.

5:35

Matteo Beritini. For some

5:37

reason, I 768, like, it was

5:39

it was Andy Murray married to somebody

5:41

famous? Yeah. Andy Murray is the

5:43

Scottish tennis player he's knighted? No. But

5:45

wasn't he was he married to

5:46

somebody famous like a pop star? 768 don't

5:48

know who anyone is married to.

5:50

That is the one thing about pop culture.

5:52

I have never known about

5:54

anyone. Every time somebody's like, you

5:56

know, he's married to 768, like, that's amazing

5:58

and I don't remember. I don't know if it's him or I'm

6:00

thinking of some other person. But I I

6:02

feel like he might 768 been married to, like,

6:04

some pop Some pop 768.

6:07

Anyway, enjoy, George. Thanks.

6:09

So today we have four clips. Okay.

6:13

Just kidding. Right. So

6:15

Jordan, we have an episode to do today, and

6:17

we are going 768 be having

6:19

another deposition. Oh. So we're

6:21

gonna be talking about the deposition in

6:24

the Lewis case. Okay. The

6:26

Texas case with Rob

6:28

Jacobson. Alright. Interesting

6:30

character, Rob Jacobson. He is a

6:32

he's a cat. That's for sure. He is

6:35

a fella. Who worked at Infra

6:37

Wars from two thousand four to

6:39

twenty seventeen. He was there

6:41

a long, long time. Yeah. And

6:44

was responsible for such hits

6:46

as endgame. Great. The

6:48

Obama deception, top of the marks.

6:50

Alright. Well, that was kind of more of his

6:53

his bread and butter was a bit more of the, like, video

6:55

production and the documentary side of stuff.

6:58

And he sense

7:01

leaving in for wars by being

7:03

fired. He filed an

7:05

EEOC complaint 768- Mhmm. -- against Central

7:07

Wars alleging anti

7:10

Semitic treatment 768 he endured

7:12

on on from

7:14

other employees and from Alex. I mean, that's

7:16

not hard that's not a hard jump 768 make?

7:18

No. Notably, he

7:21

has alleged and I certainly believe this is

7:23

true 768 Rob Dew

7:25

and Owen Shreyer would refer to him as

7:27

the resident JEW AND AMONG

7:29

OTHER THINGS THAT WERE MADE A

7:31

HOSPITAL WORK IN VIRUS. Reporter: ON 768. SO

7:34

SENSE, HE'S LEFT, HE'S ALSO

7:37

TAKEN ON a bit of a 768

7:39

Alex posture,

7:42

let's say. Yeah. He appears

7:44

in, like, various documentaries that

7:46

will be made on on

7:50

768, I guess Yeah. Yeah. I don't know. He he's

7:52

the one of the people you go to

7:54

whenever you wanna have interviews

7:56

with past Alex

7:57

employees, he's willing to talk --

7:59

Right. Right. -- those those folks whereas

8:01

maybe a Jikari Jackson isn't going to

8:03

show up for the year.

8:04

Doesn't want that part of his life -- No. -- to be

8:06

analyzed. And I think that there is a part of it

8:08

that Rob feels a

8:11

desire for some pennants. And

8:14

I can I can understand that

8:16

on some level, but I also find

8:19

it uncompelling in many ways. Yeah.

8:21

So we're gonna go through

8:23

this deposition, but it's

8:26

challenging a little bit because of

8:28

that dynamic -- Mhmm. -- that I do

8:30

feel like he is probably in many

8:32

ways sincerely guilty

8:35

about what he was involved in.

8:37

Sure. 768 the extent that

8:39

it relates to Sandy

8:40

Hook. Now, 768

8:43

don't see a ton of examination of

8:46

the larger catalog of

8:48

his work than he

8:49

did. Sure. Sure. And how

8:51

very similar it is to the cover, 768 similar.

8:54

Yeah. And how he does not seem to have

8:56

any necessarily a problem

8:58

with, like, his end game. That's a

9:00

that's a problem. So that's tough

9:02

for me. And, you know, we'll

9:04

wrestle with it as we go along.

9:06

before we do. Let's say, hello to

9:08

some new walks. That's a great idea. So

9:10

first, alright. And here it 768, guys.

9:12

And all it's fine, glory. Thank you so much.

9:14

You are now. Policywalk. 768 a

9:16

policy walk. Thank you very much. Thank you.

9:18

Next, Napoleon Bonafarte. Thank you so much.

9:20

You're now a policy walk. I'm a

9:22

policy walk. Thank you very much. Next,

9:24

the former circa Oglen, who likes

9:26

rants about joule and

9:27

skilling. Thank you so much. You're now a policy

9:30

walk. I'm

9:30

a policy walk. Thank you very much. That's

9:32

not a real former Chicago and because

9:34

they would want rants about the jewels.

9:39

Next, like Where's Danny Callis when

9:41

you need it? My guinea pig sing one

9:43

Jordan lives, but they no longer run from Alex

9:45

Jones' voice. So your show is one for two

9:48

in fostering healthy rodent behaviors.

9:50

Four stars. Thank you so much, Jordan. How

9:52

does 768 walk? I'm a policy wonk. Thank you very

9:54

much. Hang out. 768, married moms

9:56

need abortions too. Thank you so much. You're

9:58

now a policy wonk. I'm a Thank

10:00

you very much. Thank you. Next trudy, the

10:02

Tasmanian, tiny 768 baby. Thank you so

10:04

much. Sure. 768. Policywalk. I'm a

10:06

policywalk. Thank you very much. And

10:08

Robert Evans sent me Love Becca

10:10

from New Zealand. Thank you so much. You are

10:12

now a policy wand. I'm a policy wand.

10:14

768 you very much.

10:16

Now Yeah. The first

10:19

couple clips are a bit

10:21

long. Mhmm.

10:21

And the reason for that is there is

10:24

chaos at the beginning of this

10:26

deposition. Mark Bennington

10:28

is taking 768 deposition. Sure. And

10:30

he begins trying

10:32

to just say, please introduce

10:35

yourself. Good luck. And

10:36

then Alex's lawyer,

10:39

Enoch, he comes in

10:42

and gets out of

10:44

line. And it's

10:46

very hard to present

10:48

this in small chunks So

10:50

I have about a five minute clip

10:52

here, and I think it needs to be

10:54

presented as a whole thing in order

10:56

to really get the feeling of this -- Okay. --

10:58

and how There's

11:01

an ickiness to 768. Oh, boy. And

11:03

a discomfort. And you can see it in Rob's

11:05

face. Just a quick question. Yeah. Alex's

11:07

lawyer, and does Rob also

11:09

have a lawyer?

11:10

Rob does not have a lawyer.

11:11

Rob doesn't have a lawyer. He is

11:13

unrepresented. Right. He there's a

11:16

the judge has signed off on

11:18

this deposition taking place and that

11:20

Mark can ask questions from on behalf of

11:22

the 768. But he is not

11:24

representing Rob. And Rob has

11:26

no lawyer there. Okay. On behalf

11:28

of, like, free speech systems and all those other

11:30

lawyer all those other 768, Einnock

11:32

is there defending the deposition.

11:35

Gotcha. But according to

11:37

Mark and I think he makes a decent case,

11:39

he has no

11:41

right necessarily to

11:44

take discovery from Rob Jacobson. Yeah.

11:46

That is the cross

11:48

examination has not necessarily

11:51

been signed off on. If I understand

11:53

what you're saying correctly, Mark

11:55

can 768 questions, but

11:57

Enoch cannot ask questions. Well, he

11:59

can theoretically be there

12:01

to object and the

12:05

drama and the chaos here at the beginning largely

12:07

comes down to that the

12:09

fact that Rob 768 signed an NDA when

12:11

he worked at Infographics. Yep. Okay.

12:14

And so on behalf of Free

12:16

Speech Systems and Alex Jones, Enoch

12:18

can say things like,

12:21

I don't think you should answer

12:23

that based on the MDA or something.

12:25

Right. Right. People existed in

12:27

that space. But then it's kind of an open

12:29

question and a little bit unclear.

12:31

Well, at least Mark believes one thing and

12:33

Enoch believes the other. Right. In

12:35

terms of whether or not Alex's

12:37

lawyer has the ability to

12:39

question Right. The the

12:41

witness. Right. And so that is

12:43

a problem. Their disagreement is

12:46

a mess. Good

12:48

afternoon, mister Jacobson. Can you introduce

12:50

yourself for our record? I am Robert

12:52

Jacobson. Good morning, Mark. I'd like to ask a couple of

12:54

questions and make a comment real quick I

12:55

don't think you've been given any orders

12:58

from the court to do any discoveries on no

13:00

mystery inoc. You're not asking this witness any questions.

13:02

Mister Jacobson Mister

13:03

inoc? You served with

13:04

Mister Enoch, can you please

13:07

point me to the order in which you've been allowed to do

13:09

any discovery or take any questions of any

13:11

768. Point me to it, mister 768? Please do

13:13

not Right now, 768 to it. Please

13:14

do not interrupt. Then you're not

13:16

gonna mister enoch stop talking to the witness.

13:18

Mister enoch, this

13:20

deposition will be suspended, and I will sink

13:22

sanctions if speak one more time to this listener,

13:24

Jacobson, have you been served? Mister Enoch,

13:26

we're going off the record. We're done. We're not

13:28

done. Depposition is suspended.

13:30

You have no ability to take any

13:32

testimony, mister Greenock none. Zero.

13:35

Mister Banks, then I suggest instead of getting

13:37

emotional about me ask for the question. Would

13:39

I ask you any questions, mister

13:40

Inoc, please don't interrupt me again. I ask you. 768.

13:42

Inoc, you have no right to answer questions. Before

13:44

you ask that quest a single question to

13:46

that witness again, direct me to what

13:48

authority do you think you didn't service a pain on

13:50

this witness? I'm I don't I 768 notice of

13:53

deposition on, sir. If you didn't service a pain, he's

13:55

under an NDA in a confidentiality agreement.

13:57

He 768 not skews from that. You

13:59

did not provide him with the order of this court. He

14:01

cannot testify

14:01

today. You should have served it with a subpoena and you did

14:03

not. 768

14:04

you wanna take this up judge No,

14:05

sir. That's what that's what I wanna talk with this

14:07

witness about. You're not gonna talk to him about it. Well, you

14:09

don't have the ability to do

14:10

discovery. Just ask the witness

14:13

questions. Mister Bank, 768 you instruct him not

14:15

to answer and try to prevent this deposition from

14:17

happening, I will take it up to the

14:18

court. Mister

14:19

768 then you are the one preventing me from asking

14:21

any question. 768 am.

14:21

Yes. Don't do

14:23

what you need to do, sir. I just

14:25

wanna make sure

14:26

768 witness knows if his obligations under the

14:28

nondisclosure agreement and confidentiality agreement

14:30

city sign. Are you going to you

14:33

sent him a letter 768 him

14:35

what his confidentiality agreements

14:37

are telling him to observe

14:39

them, you have already had these communications 768

14:41

this witness. You have no reason to ask

14:43

this witness any questions today the

14:45

court has not granted your client any discovery

14:48

whatsoever 768 you will stop interfering with

14:50

this deposition. You have no reason

14:52

to be asking this client about confidentiality 768

14:55

you have already informed him of his

14:57

obligations.

14:57

Mister

14:58

768, I'm gonna ask the question and he if

15:00

you instructed not to answer if you I don't

15:01

I don't represent the 768. Mister

15:04

Jacobson, did you receive a letter from

15:06

me in December or so

15:08

advising of my 768' insistence

15:10

that you maintain confidentiality

15:12

under your agreements that you

15:14

reached with Alex Jones and with Free

15:16

speech? I don't recall. Okay.

15:19

Are are do you still have those

15:21

confidentiality in nondisclosure

15:22

agreements? I don't recall. I

15:24

don't I I have I since

15:30

traumatic since

15:31

768 happened to me at work. My

15:34

files have been scattered around. I'd also like

15:36

to add that that non that NDA

15:38

was forced upon me after unemployment

15:40

with

15:40

Alex for over eight 768, sir, on the record.

15:43

Sir, you you can Okay. I'm I'm not

15:45

arguing with you. You know, objection.

15:47

You've already done what you said you're gonna do. 768 start

15:50

having conversations of the witness. Don't do

15:51

it. Don't influence this testimony, mister Greenock,

15:53

mister Braxton. Please stop interrupt Well, then

15:56

I will put first before you ask your question.

15:58

I object to the I object and my

16:00

objection is up to the form of

16:02

your

16:02

question. Very well. Mister

16:04

Jacobson, are you familiar with the

16:06

requirements and the documents that you

16:08

signed, that you 768 confidentiality,

16:11

unless you are 768 a

16:12

drug. I'm familiar with the

16:14

action that it was forced upon me after

16:16

being employed by him with

16:18

language in that NDA, which includes

16:20

things like the known universe and stuff.

16:23

It's garbage. And So

16:25

No. No. I am not aware 768. And III

16:27

know that it was forced upon me. I

16:29

was employed by Alex for over eight

16:32

years 768 they forced it upon me. I

16:34

was a so I don't

16:36

know where it is. Don't know what the

16:38

language is, and I don't recall anything.

16:39

I'd like to mark as an

16:42

exhibit. Please, madam, if you come in. 768 to

16:44

any exhibits

16:44

being offered by

16:45

you? Mister

16:46

768 know what are you doing? Good

16:49

question.

16:49

Let's let's just 768. What do you think you're

16:51

doing? I wanna make sure You're not you're not

16:53

questioning this witness. Any 768. This is

16:55

not your deposition. You have no ability to do

16:57

discovery. I've had extraordinary patience

16:59

with allowing you to ask the questions of

17:01

the witness to ascertain whether he knows

17:03

there's a confidentiality agreement. I will also

17:05

be asking him about that same confidentiality

17:08

agreement. Now that that's been done, you

17:10

have no reason to be questioning. The only

17:12

reason you're doing it is to influence this

17:14

witness. That's literally the only reason you're

17:16

doing it. I consider what you're doing highly

17:17

improper, and I am asking you once

17:20

again, knock this off, mister you know, what are you doing?

17:22

Mister Jacobson, do you recognize exhibit number

17:24

one? I 768 have any recall of

17:26

this

17:26

exhibit. Would you look at your signature on

17:28

the last page and please identify that? We need

17:30

to go off the

17:30

record and call the court right now. Mister

17:33

768? Did you

17:34

recognize the signature? III want

17:37

you to notice the date. Did you When was

17:39

my employment started? Sir,

17:41

sir? I don't have any

17:43

representation

17:43

here. It is When was my employment started? When

17:46

was the first day I started working, Jacob? So

17:48

let's stop for a second. Mister Rynaut, do you

17:50

want me to start it 768? We're

17:51

going off the record right now. We're calling the course. Very well.

17:54

The

17:54

soccer game. Moo.

17:57

So it's it's That's

17:59

how we start. It's an ugly

18:02

768 bit of business there. Yeah. At the beginning.

18:04

Yeah. There is there this is

18:06

not 768 any of the other ones I

18:08

see.

18:08

Right. Right. For sure. So

18:11

so Inoc is

18:14

his 768. He's coming in and he's

18:16

thinking, here's what I'm gonna before Mark can

18:18

say a word, I'm going to

18:20

interject. I am going

18:22

to talk over him, try and

18:24

bully him, push him back, 768

18:26

I'm going to make Rob Jacobson know that

18:28

if he says anything I don't

18:30

like, we're gonna go after him

18:33

he broke the NDA. There yeah. There is a feeling

18:35

of trying to influence the testimony

18:37

by way of veiled intimidation.

18:39

Yeah.

18:39

Absolutely. That's not hard. And

18:43

Yeah. You can see for sure

18:45

that Rob is getting

18:48

768. But I don't I

18:50

don't think that he's

18:53

I wouldn't describe it as like a breaking

18:55

down or anything. You know, like, he's not 768.

18:57

He is holding a zone

19:00

in in in to

19:02

whatever extent you can really.

19:04

But but also, I mean, he's not

19:06

768. And so, like, he is going

19:08

to, you

19:09

know, possibly yell back. Yeah.

19:11

That means thank you. And I there's not

19:14

really there's not really much you can

19:16

do. I mean, Mark isn't his lawyer

19:18

768- Yeah. -- can't really control the the

19:21

situation. Him. No. The UNOC is clearly out of pocket

19:23

and just in business for himself

19:25

here. Right. And so it's

19:27

it's a mess. I mean,

19:29

from from what I understand, here's

19:32

what I'm understanding is going

19:34

on. Right? Mark and

19:37

Rob are there to do a

19:40

job. And Enoch is there to

19:42

stop that job from

19:42

occurring. Yep. Yep. And

19:45

the it's predicated on idea

19:47

that there wasn't a subpoena. Right. And that,

19:49

like, if there had been a subpoena, then he

19:51

would be free from his NDA. Right. And

19:53

because there was only a court order that

19:55

isn't enough 768 whatever. Right. And 768 Rob's feeling

19:58

about it is

20:00

it's too pronged. The first is

20:02

that 768 The

20:04

NBA was forced upon him after years

20:06

of working there, and that's not

20:08

appropriate. And then the second thing that

20:10

he brings up in this next clip that we're

20:12

going to hear as if I continues

20:14

is that he has an understanding of

20:16

the NBA that has to do with,

20:18

like, business secrets, business practices --

20:21

Mhmm. -- it doesn't cover other things. Right. So I

20:23

don't think that in this next

20:24

clip. I think 768 a little bit later. But if

20:26

but from what I under but if I understand

20:28

the reality of the dynamics

20:31

here, there are two

20:33

people there, and then there's a lawyer

20:35

who's just being an asshole to

20:36

somebody. Yeah. You

20:37

know how long I'm trying to protect the business. But

20:39

that's like if I was outside and

20:42

768 came up to me and asked me that shit. I

20:44

don't have to answer a goddamn word

20:47

that Enoch like I could

20:49

say, go fuck

20:50

yourself. 768 that's fine.

20:51

And conceivably, it's the same thing

20:53

-- Exactly. -- for Rob

20:56

with him.

20:56

I can't say go fuck yourself to Mark.

20:58

But he can say

20:59

he'll probably sell to you know, well, I mean, it could, but,

21:01

you know, it's supposed to be a deposition. There

21:03

the two of them clearly

21:06

have at least a mutual

21:08

respect, like Rob and Mark

21:10

are adults. Somewhat.

21:12

Conceivably on the same page too. In

21:14

terms of, like, I have questions.

21:16

You are willing to answer those questions.

21:18

You got it. Yeah. And

21:20

in this next clip, they come

21:23

back from that pause.

21:25

Right. What what ends up happening

21:27

is they try to call the court. They're unable

21:29

to get a hold of the people at the court. And

21:31

so they realize, well, we've 768 go

21:34

forward with this. Right. So let's

21:36

try and see see how we can

21:38

do

21:38

that. Oh, boy. Well, mister Inoc before I

21:40

stop my deposition and you said you were 768

21:42

to ask him one thing about one document

21:44

and whether he had a signature and now you say

21:46

you're done. When I asked he refused to answer the

21:48

question. He sure did. And when I asked you,

21:51

okay, you've asked him, are you done? You

21:53

completely ignored me, continued to 768

21:55

this client. I mean, this person

21:57

he expressed to you that he was very ad hold on, mister Nikki

21:59

expressed he was agitated for you. Are you now

22:01

saying you have asked the totality of the question

22:03

you intend to ask this

22:04

witness? Question now. don't 768 we

22:06

are suspending the studies. Know what I'm gonna ask or if

22:08

I'm gonna ask anything until you're done with your

22:11

examination, mister Banks? Well,

22:11

apparently, you did because you started

22:14

asking questions before I even started my examination,

22:16

mister Inoc, and you know that's highly

22:18

improper. I'm asking you right

22:19

now, or do you intend to question 768

22:21

witness today? 768 Frankston,

22:24

I am alarmed that this

22:26

witness is not represented by counsel.

22:28

I am concerned that he is not aware of his

22:30

rights and obligations under legally

22:32

binding contracts with my client. I wanna make

22:34

sure he is aware of those to protect

22:36

himself or to get counsel of his own choosing You've been

22:38

able to excuse

22:38

me. Do not 768 me. Not

22:41

interrupt you.

22:41

You did three fucking times long,

22:43

you know. I'm not very interested in getting

22:45

him to voluntarily disclose information.

22:48

He's obligated not to do with that

22:50

court order. You did not service subpoena. You did not

22:52

tell him of the effect of that under his

22:54

agreement. He now knows it. You may continue your

22:56

768, mister

22:56

you know, 768 make this clear for the record. I

22:58

do not his agreement. When

23:01

you sent this letter that

23:03

informed him of that agreement, you do now.

23:05

I

23:05

asked

23:05

one. I asked you at the time. Didn't I

23:08

mister 768 When the I sent you a letter

23:10

said 768 letter's very unclear, it

23:12

could in fact cause this witness to think he's

23:14

not supposed to testify today. Wouldn't it be

23:16

best if you disclose to everybody what that

23:18

agreement is? You didn't do that. You waited

23:20

until we walked into this room to put it down on the

23:22

table. You say you have every right to inform

23:24

this client of this person, of

23:26

his obligation and you were worried that he didn't

23:28

know understand what those were. Right. I understand that,

23:30

which is why you sent that letter, which I would I think

23:32

is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. And if you

23:34

wanted to call this witness, talk to him, or

23:36

contact him, that 768 perfectly appropriate. To

23:38

ambush him at the moment of his

23:40

testimony 768 not appropriate. And it is not

23:42

appropriate to start asking questions before

23:44

I even question, mister. If you intend to ask more

23:46

questions today, let me know because we

23:48

will suspend the deposition so that mister

23:50

Jacobson can get counsel and so that we can

23:52

take it up with the court to see

23:54

if your actions today were

23:54

proper. Do you wanna ask questions today

23:57

or not, mister Ynon, mister 768? I

23:59

did not know until my first question of

24:01

this witness that you had not served him with

24:03

768 as I think you were obligated to do to

24:06

contain his his testimony. Therefore,

24:08

I wanted to make sure he was aware of Exhibit

24:10

one that does not allow voluntary participation

24:12

in your discovery without a court order

24:14

or subpoena. Now with respect to

24:17

questions of this witness, I can't answer that

24:19

now because I haven't heard your questions. I

24:21

think I'm entitled to ask questions under the

24:23

rules. You think I'm not. So

24:25

go ahead and ask your questions. Let's see if

24:27

I have questions. If I do, the

24:29

rules allow me to make my record. You can

24:31

object as you wish, and then we can take it up with the judge.

24:33

We spend a lot of time haggling right

24:35

now. We've taken the witnesses

24:36

768. Ask your questions. You've taken the 768

24:39

time. Ask your questions. My time, mister

24:41

Renock. That's what you've done. Ask

24:43

your questions. And I can tell you this. I

24:45

don't represent this witness. And when I'm done asking my questions, if

24:47

he wants to get up and walk out of this room

24:49

without saying another word to

24:50

you, I'm not stopping them. On foot

24:53

basis. 768 not stopping him. I have

24:55

no control over this man, mister 768. I

24:57

have none. I don't 768. You understand the

24:58

witness. Your 768 is here from day to 768, and

25:01

you understand aminations alone. What do you

25:02

want me to do to stop 768?

25:04

What do you want me to

25:06

do? Why don't you just ask me? Should I chain them

25:08

to the chairman's point? Please start asking

25:10

your questions. Let's get on the deposition. Will you

25:12

do that? Yeah. 768 we'll do

25:13

that, mister Reid. You sure will. So

25:17

I think we've 768 a a number of

25:19

different vibe from Alex

25:21

lawyers. Yeah. And I think Enoch

25:23

is maybe one of the

25:25

the

25:25

worst. It is, guys, asshole.

25:28

It is hard to really wrestle

25:31

with the feeling that I have right now, which

25:33

is like, does

25:35

a man sometimes need to be

25:37

slapped in the face. You know, like,

25:39

not in a not in a violence kind

25:41

of manner, but in, like, a remind

25:43

you of who you should be kind of

25:45

way. Perhaps pistols at

25:47

768 would be in order for this man or

25:49

El kebong? Yes. Absolutely.

25:52

Knock 768 out. Right, for a couple hours.

25:54

And then when he wakes up, you can be

25:55

like, oh, you fell asleep. It'll be

25:58

fine.

25:58

This is where, like, you splash some

26:01

water on your face.

26:01

You know, something serious. Let's take it out of

26:03

the realm of violence. Hold this fucking

26:06

phone, sir. Excuse me. I

26:08

I just it's it's pretty outrageous.

26:10

Although if I were Rob and I were

26:12

hearing this, I'd be like,

26:15

okay, now I know that I can just

26:15

leave. I mean,

26:16

yeah. That's the idea of it. And that's that

26:19

that's probably good to be aware of. Like,

26:21

I don't have to be subjected to this

26:23

person's questions. Yeah. Clark made

26:25

sure he knew that part of his rights. Yeah.

26:28

That's for sure. And so

26:30

with this all behind

26:31

us, This unpleasantness, we

26:34

jump into the

26:35

actual question. Is that is that is

26:38

it behind us? No. Not really. It's

26:40

over the rest of this. But, you

26:42

know, certainly, we've gone through

26:44

a lot already. 768 what an asshole?

26:45

Yeah. 768 dick. Don't

26:47

interrupt me. When were you?

26:49

768. Going forward. I was hired. In

26:51

two thousand and four by

26:53

Alex Jones. Do you

26:55

know what corporate entity you were hired by?

26:57

At the time, I felt I

26:59

was hired by Alex Jones. He

27:01

was an independent provider of protection

27:03

responsibility. Do

27:07

you know today what

27:10

entity your former

27:12

employer claims you worked for?

27:14

Yes. What entity is that? Free

27:17

speech systems. 768. Okay.

27:20

When did

27:21

your employment end? My

27:24

employment ended in

27:26

May first of

27:28

twenty seventeen. So keep

27:30

that time frame in

27:33

mind. Mhmm. And just consider

27:35

all of the stuff 768 wars

27:37

did between those thirteen years. Yeah. You know,

27:39

obviously, Sandy Hook is a particularly

27:43

bad piece of business that they were

27:45

involved in. Right. But if you

27:47

look at the totality of their coverage of things

27:49

over that time, I mean, think about all

27:51

the stuff that went 768. You

27:53

had Boston bombing. You had 768

27:56

Brevich. You had other school

27:59

shootings certainly that Alec denied.

28:01

He had the Aurora massacre. He had

28:04

so many things that that

28:06

went on during that time.

28:08

And he was employed through all of that. Yep. And I

28:11

I think it's important to keep

28:13

keep an eye on that and remember that.

28:15

And then secondarily, is 768

28:17

to recognize that he was directly

28:21

and intimately involved

28:23

in the creation of the Obama

28:24

deception. And end game

28:27

along with a bunch of Alex's other bullshit

28:29

films. So, like,

28:31

you 768 one

28:34

thing to work

28:36

somewhere. It's another to work somewhere for

28:38

thirteen years

28:39

and be engaged in

28:42

constant horseshit. 768,

28:44

I mean, just keep that

28:44

in the back your mind. I mean, it does

28:47

feel like what we have seen

28:49

from even the most contrite infowarrior

28:52

types is selective

28:55

responsibility 768, like,

28:57

things that they've perhaps already

28:59

received consequences for or are

29:01

regularly pointed out about as opposed to

29:03

the totality of what they have done

29:05

there. I have I have a tough time

29:08

agreeing with you universally, but I generally do.

29:10

Yeah. I think there may be

29:12

some folks who and

29:16

I think maybe some people who work there

29:18

shorter who have but I

29:20

think Rob Rob is a pretty

29:22

unique

29:22

case.

29:23

768 years is a long time. 768 want a lot

29:25

of shit

29:25

to fuck up. And, like, one of the

29:28

earliest employees, really. I mean,

29:30

two thousand Alex did not have a

29:32

robust operation

29:33

growing. Right. Right. And 768

29:36

who went along the

29:38

whole time until he was

29:40

fired in twenty seventeen. He didn't quit.

29:43

Nope. He was fired. Yep. I

29:47

struggle with this because I want to believe

29:49

the best in folks. Sure. And

29:51

I do believe that he does

29:53

have

29:55

misgivings about what he was involved in,

29:57

but I I don't necessary and

29:59

maybe it's a a shortcoming of

30:02

a deposition setting

30:03

-- Sure.

30:04

-- because, like, obviously, it's not in

30:06

Mark's interests to be, like, what do you feel about?

30:08

Do you regret everything you have ever done

30:10

there?

30:10

Yeah. What about at the game?

30:12

You have figured out that everything you've done is

30:14

brought misery to this world. Yeah.

30:16

And so maybe you can't really get a sense

30:18

of that from this deposition

30:20

but I do feel from some of

30:23

the questions that we'll get

30:25

to, I don't I I feel

30:27

like he would say the things that he's

30:29

saying if there was, like, an actual

30:31

recognition of the nonsense

30:33

and inappropriate 768 of

30:37

material and content that was

30:39

put out over the course of those thirteen years.

30:42

It's 768 this

30:44

isn't a like, an

30:46

isolated thing of Sandy Hook that

30:48

that is a problem. It's a it's

30:50

a systematic problem of

30:52

all of the information that comes out

30:54

in this information

30:55

more. Right. Right.

30:55

Right. I I think from

30:59

here's what I'm I'm getting

31:01

is,

31:01

like, In terms of

31:05

the whole, you know, like, when

31:07

they talk about their fault or

31:09

responsibility for Sandy Hook, they're

31:11

really talking about the

31:13

the symptoms of what

31:15

happened there as opposed to realizing that

31:18

Sandy Hook what they did to Sandy Hook was

31:20

unique only insofar as

31:22

the way that it 768 ended

31:23

up. Well, as opposed to it being

31:25

any different from how they would have covered

31:28

any other story like 768, you know? Sure.

31:31

It it may be

31:33

maybe by degree

31:35

a little more ghoulish

31:37

in some

31:37

-- Sure.

31:38

-- sure. Appreciate it. Yeah.

31:40

But not really that different than a

31:42

lot of other coverage that they did. Yeah.

31:44

It's it's 768

31:45

it's an event that occurred out of

31:48

their regular process, not an

31:50

anomaly. Right. 768 if

31:52

you are somebody who

31:54

believes the stuff that Alex believes,

31:56

there's no reason why you wouldn't believe

31:58

the stuff about Sandy Hook. Totally. It's

32:01

if you believe all the narratives

32:03

about the globalists and how they do false flags

32:05

all the time in order to achieve

32:07

their goals, the stuff Alex

32:09

saying about Sandy Hook falls in

32:12

line with that. It's not as

32:14

outrageous as it sounds to

32:16

people who aren't that that

32:18

way 768 in that head space. Right. And

32:20

that that's something that I don't really feel

32:22

like I see any kind of grappling

32:25

with from in this deposition

32:27

at

32:27

least. I mean, the the truth is

32:29

people wouldn't have gone along with

32:31

the belief of Sandy Hook if it worked for

32:33

the years before that. Right. If

32:35

it weren't for the main It makes sense. Yeah. If it

32:38

weren't for the priming to get us to

32:40

this place, so 768 effect

32:42

everybody involved in the lead up is

32:44

just as involved in the in the

32:46

act

32:46

itself. Uh-huh. You know? Yeah. And

32:50

endgame might have been a part of that. Yeah. You better

32:52

believe it. So anyway, my

32:54

shows Rob the letter that

32:56

he got sent about the

32:58

the

32:58

NBA. Apparently,

33:00

I wanted to show you something I'm a wanted

33:02

to exhibit one,

33:04

but I believe mister Enoch has already

33:07

hijacked that

33:07

exhibit. So I am gonna mark this as

33:09

exhibit two. Jack's side mark

33:12

moves back. Someone hit

33:18

this man. 768 hit

33:21

768 have you ever seen a copy of

33:23

that before? Do you remember seeing that?

33:29

Yes. I wanna direct you to the

33:32

second page. I'm

33:37

gonna read the paragraph that appears on this page

33:39

to you. You were

33:41

reminded that you have important continuing

33:43

obligations under your confidentiality

33:46

non disclosure agreements with my

33:47

clients, you are expected to

33:50

strictly observe those duties

33:52

and obligations. Do

33:53

you do

33:54

you feel like you understand what obligations are

33:56

being referred to your ideal? Okay.

34:01

Have you abided by those obligations?

34:04

Yes, sir. In fact, may I add something

34:06

768 my understanding of the non disclosure 768 not to reveal any

34:09

any secrets. I don't think abuse

34:11

or abusive behavior inside the company

34:13

constitutes company secrets. I don't

34:15

think misbehavior inside the

34:17

company by an adult who runs the business constitutes

34:20

company secrets. And in fact, I'm here

34:22

to try to bring light to

34:24

the truth of abusive and

34:26

behavior inside the walls of Infra Wars.

34:28

And I don't think anything that I say

34:32

today violates the

34:33

NDA, which would be constituting of

34:35

company secrets, their formulas

34:36

and how they produce the

34:40

news, 768 nothing like that is gonna be revealed today. What will be revealed

34:42

is abusive behavior and the

34:44

behavior of mister Jones and his

34:46

staff. Mister Jones,

34:47

you know, I think I think I can get down

34:50

with that thinking. You know, I think

34:52

that makes sense. That tracks? In

34:54

some ways, he's acting as

34:56

a whistleblower

34:58

if, you know, he's, you know, reporting on abuse

35:00

within the company and -- Right. --

35:02

you

35:03

know, misbehavior. Well, I mean, if

35:05

you wanna claim that abuses

35:07

a company secret, then

35:10

you have to be

35:10

like, well, see, that's my management style. And that

35:13

in and of itself might be

35:14

a larger problem. Look the way the way

35:17

I the way I mistreat employees

35:19

is proprietary. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

35:21

The specific ways that

35:23

they are people part of the business

35:25

plan. I filed it with my bank thirty years

35:28

ago. Okay? Yeah. That could

35:29

be trouble. But, yeah, I

35:31

I can I can get down

35:33

with that. And I I think that that is a responsible way. Like,

35:36

if if Rob

35:38

were to be

35:40

giving out business secrets or whatever. That

35:42

might I think that might be

35:44

inappropriate. Yeah. But I I don't feel anything

35:48

that's done within the context of 768 deposition

35:50

comes close to something that should

35:52

be, could be, like, covered by an NDA.

35:55

Well, I illegal business practices are not covered by

35:57

an NDA. But he doesn't know any of

35:59

them. Well, I understand you know any illegal

36:01

business. Prior. Well, I

36:02

mean, man, you know, half of what they do

36:05

is So it's 768. But one

36:07

of the one of the things that I really got

36:09

a sense of and we have a clip

36:11

kind of that really made that clear to me was that

36:14

is it like I I don't think

36:16

he was that inside

36:18

with stuff. Yeah. That 768 sounds

36:20

right. Yeah. I think that Rob might have been

36:22

a bit on the

36:23

outside. Yeah. And I also don't think that he has a very good sense of

36:26

the specific coverage that they

36:28

were doing even. 768, based on the way

36:30

the

36:30

other people have talked about him in their

36:33

positions. They everybody seems like they've kept

36:35

him at arm's length for one reason

36:37

or

36:37

another. Yeah. Probably

36:41

unfairly. Probably does seem foolish. Does seem that that way

36:43

quite a bit. Yeah. You get the

36:45

sense that maybe there was

36:47

some bullying even that

36:49

was going

36:50

on. Within the the walls of the the Totally

36:54

believable.

36:54

So Mark asks about when

36:57

he began at Infowars.

36:59

768, you know, what was you know, do you believe in

37:02

that stuff? 768 you feel when

37:04

you

37:05

started? When you first joined did

37:08

you believe in its mission?

37:10

For the most

37:11

part, yes.

37:13

768 me

37:17

about the

37:17

kinds of stories or

37:19

things that you wanted to be working on when you

37:21

first came to and forth. When

37:24

I first when I

37:28

first arrived in Infowars, my

37:30

understanding of Infowars and Alex's

37:32

subject matter was

37:34

the occult esoteric politics,

37:36

let's say, what's going

37:39

on behind the curtain that

37:42

politicians don't tell us and

37:44

expose in that fashion

37:47

fringe media of the

37:49

mainstream, but still honest. Was

37:51

my impression. Were you

37:53

passionate about journalism at that

37:56

time? I was passionate

37:59

about filmmaking, and I wanted

38:01

to be documentary filmmaker. So in that aspect, yes, that

38:04

768, I believe,

38:06

fall under a broader

38:10

umbrella journalism. So when it comes to documentary films,

38:13

I was onboard.

38:17

Did you want to do good journalism? I

38:20

did. Well, that's nice.

38:22

The the stuff that he's

38:24

describing, like, the stuff behind the curtain,

38:26

the esoteric the the

38:28

power, how they act

38:30

secretly. Yeah. That's the

38:32

stuff that leads to globalist false

38:35

flag beliefs. Yeah. 768 the problem. Right. It's

38:37

it's Yeah. It it seems very difficult for me

38:40

to disconnect

38:42

the way Alex treated those subjects.

38:44

768 what

38:47

it led

38:47

to. Right. Well, I mean, but that

38:49

that comes back again

38:52

too, like, It's

38:54

the entirety that is the

38:56

problem. Yeah. You know, like, we're we're

38:58

dealing with the results of 768 that

39:00

problem is left unchecked. And

39:03

768 not it's not like this specific event is the

39:05

only problem. That is just part

39:07

of the problem. Yeah. You

39:09

know? Yeah. And to to pretend like it's

39:12

anything other than that is

39:14

willful ignorance or a

39:16

complete misunderstanding of

39:18

what is is it what you've done wrong -- Mhmm. -- Yeah.

39:20

And so he you know, he's he's

39:22

very much into the filmmaking

39:24

and the documentary stuff. And

39:27

wants to do good journalism vis a vis

39:30

that that 768. Sure. One

39:32

of the issues that I have and I I

39:34

don't understand

39:36

exactly what happened or what was done, but, like,

39:38

Alex didn't put out a

39:40

documentary for, like, ten years at this

39:42

point now. So, like, what was

39:44

Rob doing

39:46

after, like, twenty twelve. Like, strategic relocation I

39:49

think was the last documentary

39:51

Alex put out. And that's

39:53

basically just him talking to Joel

39:56

Scows in about places 768 could bug out to. Like, I

39:58

don't know what documentary work was being

40:01

done. Like, was he I don't know

40:03

if he was involved in field

40:06

pieces

40:06

or, you know, like I

40:08

don't know.

40:08

Maybe it was just a basic video a video

40:11

editor at that point. Like, you know,

40:13

bound would do those reports and

40:14

maybe he

40:15

just edited the videos together.

40:16

But if he was, then he would be

40:18

far more intimately involved and

40:20

aware of the content that was being put 768,

40:22

then he's present against everybody's being. Yeah. And I I don't think that that's necessarily dishonest

40:24

because the way he answers questions

40:27

about, like, you know,

40:30

what did what did what did you know about this

40:33

theory --

40:34

Right. -- about San Diego. I don't know.

40:36

Right. Right.

40:37

768 know, I 768 know if

40:39

he was intimately in, like, aware of, like, literally everything. Mhmm. I

40:42

don't know what he

40:44

was doing. III

40:46

if you're the 768 in house

40:48

at Infowars, they haven't put out a documentary

40:50

forever, you're still on the payroll.

40:52

This is this is

40:55

a another continuing problem. I don't know

40:57

what anybody fucking does for a

40:59

job beyond Owen and

41:01

Alex. And Harrison, he's

41:02

one of

41:03

them. And

41:03

Harrison, yes. Yeah. So

41:06

how many of you

41:07

do? Yeah. So Mark

41:10

asks, you know, what is what is this good journalism

41:12

to you? What do you want it

41:13

to do? Good question. Mister Jacobson, what does good

41:15

journalism mean to you? Good

41:18

journalism means. An

41:24

objective reporting

41:30

of facts

41:31

somebody who can

41:34

or if the journalist

41:36

can remove

41:38

his emotion and theory as much as possible

41:40

from recording what he

41:42

sees with or she sees with

41:44

her her their own

41:46

eyes and ears, empirical

41:48

evidence reported to the

41:50

public with very

41:52

little bias.

42:02

In your mind, what

42:04

is

42:05

the relationship between good

42:08

journalism and corroboration

42:10

of

42:11

facts? I think good journalism.

42:15

If you're gonna

42:18

have a corroboration of facts,

42:21

I believe the more witnesses of

42:23

points of view of the

42:26

same action or activity that

42:28

is being reported on,

42:30

the better. And for

42:32

example, just theoretically thinking one

42:34

person can't see both sides of the

42:36

cup at

42:38

once. So when two people are observing it at the same time, you get a better

42:40

description of the object in

42:42

question and so the more witnesses

42:45

that have viewed it 768

42:47

more impressions we can get after the fact of what

42:50

has actually happened in the object that we're

42:52

observing. In

42:54

your first few years at Infowars,

42:56

were you comfortable with the style of journalism and the stories

42:59

you were working on? 768, 768.

43:07

768.

43:09

768 may

43:13

ask you not to answer based on

43:15

768 privilege that's your choice, that's that's my

43:18

client trying to protect

43:20

the 768, But when I

43:22

object, say, objection form, one for a

43:24

legally, you can go ahead and answer

43:25

it. Okay. And do you

43:28

like me to ask that question? I guess,

43:30

please. Okay. In those first few years at

43:32

768, were you comfortable with the

43:34

style of journalism and the stories

43:36

you were working

43:38

on? I

43:42

was comfortable with the

43:44

films I was producing and helping Alex

43:46

produce. I found them 768,

43:50

and I found that Alex

43:52

did present enough expert

43:55

testimony that it

43:57

held water in my

43:58

mind. 768 absolutely terrible

44:00

judgment. That's an insane thing to say. I

44:02

think that some of the stuff that saying makes

44:05

a lot of sense, like the idea that a unit can't see both sides of the cup at

44:07

the same time. So having the most

44:09

perspectives on the cup allows you

44:11

to know what

44:14

the cup is. Great. That's good on

44:16

paper. There's one viewpoint

44:18

in those documentaries that he put out.

44:20

That's 768. It does seem to be

44:22

the case. You know, there's not

44:24

anything unbiased in that. There's

44:27

there is complete is representation of very

44:29

basic facts. It's 768. If

44:32

you really wanted to do the

44:35

kind of work that you're

44:38

describing -- Mhmm. -- then your

44:40

documentary would have had people who are

44:42

like, this is a load of bullshit --

44:44

Right. -- or giving at least some kind of

44:46

a counterperspective 768 to

44:48

Alex's utter nonsense. Right.

44:50

Instead of just interviewing big Jim

44:52

Tucker in a bar where he smoked

44:54

cigars and hangs out with Daniel

44:55

Esterland. Right. Right. Right. So maybe what he's more thinking 768,

44:58

like, his style of journalism is,

45:00

you know, like, one person can't see both sides

45:02

of the

45:04

cup. But one person can tell you that the cup is

45:06

actually a goat. And if you have a thousand

45:08

people behind that, but one person convincing

45:10

you that that cup is a

45:12

768. Then you're probably gonna believe that cup is a goat. makes sense.

45:15

And if you present

45:18

things with enough

45:20

quote unquote experts -- Mhmm. -- people

45:21

who appear

45:22

to be experts like dumbass big Jim

45:24

Tucker -- Daniel. -- Daniel. Oh, that's

45:26

768 that's that's then you give

45:29

the appearance of something that can hold water. Yep.

45:32

Yeah. I think if that's the perspective

45:34

that you have in, like,

45:37

twenty eighteen, twenty nineteen about

45:39

the work that was done on

45:41

endgame --

45:41

Yeah. -- then you're missing the forest for the fucking

45:44

trees. Yeah. Because That was a bad

45:46

documentary. I don't wanna 768 don't wanna

45:48

denigrate STEM education 768 I

45:50

do think it's 768, very important.

45:52

But a lot of the times I feel like maybe one

45:54

of the large problems

45:56

that we have is just the inability to translate

45:58

words into concepts and have them make

46:00

sense. Mhmm. And maybe that starts

46:02

young. That's all

46:03

I'm saying. I I think I think

46:06

that there is a big dip

46:08

there's a difficulty that I have

46:12

combining this seeming 768

46:16

it being fine with the

46:18

documentary work? 768. It's alright.

46:20

That whole 768. And simultaneously being somebody who

46:22

within Info Wars was

46:24

saying this coverage of Sandy

46:26

Hook

46:27

is bad. Yeah. At the

46:29

time. Yeah. You know, like, being aware of that and still being

46:31

fine with what you did with

46:33

Endgame. That's

46:35

768. That's that's very weird for me. Well, I mean, you

46:37

have to stop and say, 768. Well, what are the

46:40

problems that you had

46:42

with this? Specifically?

46:44

And in what way did those not

46:46

apply to literally everything you've

46:48

ever done

46:49

there? Right.

46:49

So there's a issue of, like,

46:52

fact 768. That Alex

46:54

does. Sure. Sure.

46:54

Sure. This

46:55

was this seems

46:58

dumb. Mister Jacobson, in terms of

47:00

info wars, consistency or

47:03

process for corroborating facts.

47:06

In your mind, had that 768

47:09

between the start of your employment and the end

47:11

of your employment injection form?

47:17

I feel that from

47:20

the beginning, when I first started working

47:22

there, the fact collection was mostly

47:26

Alex

47:26

and mostly himself was the researcher. By the end,

47:28

Alex did let a lot of others

47:30

do research for him. And

47:32

I don't know if these people

47:35

were specifically qualified or experienced enough to do that kind of

47:38

work. 768 here's the

47:39

twist. Neither was out. Yeah. There we go. That

47:41

was the 768 that's

47:44

the interesting Yes. It's the

47:46

problem I'm having with this

47:48

explanation. Yeah. Wait.

47:49

Wait. Wait. Things weren't sunny

47:52

in two thousand five -- Two

47:54

thousand six. It's not

47:56

like things were so so

47:58

rigorous and everything to buy the book.

48:00

And Alex, Alex, and his

48:02

precise check-in methodology.

48:04

No. He he was full of shit, and he hired

48:06

a bunch of other people who were full of shit. Right. And

48:08

they care even less. Yeah. Well,

48:10

see, when Alex stopped making up his own bullshit. That's

48:13

when it all went downhill. Mhmm. That's when

48:15

when he gave creative control

48:17

over fantasy reality to

48:19

other

48:19

people. Now, god, knows what could happen?

48:22

Well, well, like, when Alex says he has

48:24

the documents, it makes

48:26

sense. When Owen says Alex has

48:28

the doc

48:28

inside. It's bullshit. Yeah. Okay.

48:29

Great. Okay. Oh, whatever. What do

48:32

what do you

48:32

think 768 what do

48:33

what is it what is the issue that people

48:36

768, man.

48:38

So I will say that one of the things I do appreciate and

48:40

we can't really take away is that

48:42

Rob does own up to

48:44

and clearly feels bad about

48:47

being involved in whatever capacity

48:50

he was with the coverage of Sandy

48:52

Hook. Sure. And so he talks about that a

48:54

little

48:54

bit. And 768 what he tried to do

48:58

at the time? A

48:59

few months back. Do you remember

49:02

calling me about

49:02

this case? Yes, sir. Why'd you do

49:05

that? I was concerned. I wanted

49:07

to make sure. I I felt that was

49:09

part of something just being in that

49:11

building when all this was

49:13

going down. I

49:15

felt terrible what happened. I even

49:17

though I myself no.

49:20

I wasn't directly involved

49:24

in you know,

49:26

putting this out there

49:27

768, just being in the 768. I feel complicit.

49:30

I

49:31

feel I

49:32

have to write a wrong that I was involved in. And even though

49:35

I was part of that wrong, I

49:38

want to

49:39

at least stack a couple of correct

49:42

decisions up with some of the

49:44

mistakes that I've made in

49:46

the

49:46

past. When you

49:47

say that you weren't directly involved

49:49

in putting this out

49:52

there, what is this? This would

49:54

be Sandy

49:56

Hook anything that Infowards

49:58

put out concerning Sandy

49:59

Hook, I had absolutely no

50:02

involvement in.

50:03

During your employment,

50:08

were

50:08

you exposed to 768 coverage

50:11

of

50:11

San Diego? During my employment, I had other

50:14

assignments to do and I

50:16

wouldn't much

50:18

pay attention to the show.

50:20

However, when I did and I heard about

50:22

Sandy 768, it actually

50:26

bothered

50:26

me. Tell me what you mean by

50:27

that. What did you hear that bothered you? 768

50:30

heard them making accusations

50:34

based on extremely narrow

50:36

cross sections of information

50:39

768 I did my

50:41

best 768 make the riders

50:43

and staff aware that what they were doing

50:45

with speculation based on not enough

50:48

information. It

50:51

bothered me that I

50:54

felt they had

50:56

no concept of journalist

50:59

ethics. Did you

51:02

tell anyone at infowards

51:04

your feelings about the San Diego coverage.

51:08

I

51:09

attempted to make it as clear

51:12

as possible to the writers that

51:13

there is something called journalist ethics.

51:16

And how what they were doing

51:18

was in a direct violation

51:20

of that 768 I

51:22

caught wind of the Sandy Hook

51:26

story on Infowars. Now mind

51:27

you, I would like to

51:29

add that it's not something

51:32

I was thinking about all the time

51:34

considering I had other things to do. I'd be working on

51:36

other projects. But when it would come on

51:38

the screen, I would make it my business to go into the

51:40

writers and explain to them as

51:42

clearly as possible that there

51:44

is journalists ethics

51:46

and I tried to demonstrate what those ethics

51:49

are and why they are violating them

51:51

and what the damage could possibly be.

51:53

In fact, I 768 I

51:57

must have been

52:00

in that

52:01

room four to five

52:05

times at least and only

52:07

to be

52:08

received with laughter and

52:10

jokes. I don't understand what

52:14

the journalist ethics he's talking about here is because

52:16

if it's, like, taking a small cross

52:18

section of information or, like, that's

52:20

all 768 Fort Worth does.

52:23

Yeah. I mean, the the, like,

52:25

the, like, the principle behind whatever

52:27

he's describing is exactly the

52:29

same as -- Yeah. Ninety

52:32

percent of the work that he does.

52:34

Now 768 this is the case

52:36

and he's working on these other 768, And

52:39

whenever he catches wind that Sandy Hook is being covered, there is

52:41

some offense that, you know, he

52:43

he takes at that 768 don't

52:46

understand how you'd like, let's say, you're

52:48

barely ever watching the show and sometimes you

52:50

catch it and you're they're talking about Sandy Hook. And

52:52

you're like, this is fucked up. Yeah. I

52:55

don't understand why your next step wouldn't

52:58

be like, maybe I should watch more of the show

53:00

and see if they're doing this all the

53:02

time. Yeah. Maybe I should see if

53:04

they're treating other subjects with this much disrespect

53:06

and lack of care. Maybe

53:08

I'm involved in a really

53:10

awful thing here. Yeah.

53:12

But it it it seems like

53:14

and I think that everybody wants

53:16

to pretend this, especially everybody who worked

53:18

768 Infowars, that this is like a unique

53:21

isolated thing.

53:22

Yeah. It's just an aberration.

53:24

It's crazy that this happened. It's

53:26

not connected

53:27

to anything. Yeah.

53:29

It is that's the thing. But here's what I

53:31

can

53:32

the only way I can make sense of it is

53:34

768 it's easy to

53:37

understand when you fuck up if you

53:39

receive negative consequences or if if, like, people make it

53:41

aware to you that you fucked up.

53:43

Mhmm. It's really

53:46

hard to understand you fucked up if people give you positive

53:48

consequences for it or 768 you

53:51

to keep doing it. 768, So

53:54

so to me, it does make sense in

53:56

a certain way for him to think that he's done

53:58

a good job on some stuff 768 people

54:00

gave him positive reinforcement for -- Sure.

54:02

-- you know, and it's easy for him to understand

54:04

that this is bad because people have been

54:06

negative about it. He's in a

54:09

deposition. Right? Right. But he didn't

54:11

do anything wrong. I know. Of that's

54:13

the weirdest part about this. Yeah. 768 that I

54:15

that's the thing I don't

54:18

understand. Yeah. I can't I can't

54:20

reconcile that.

54:20

On all accounts, he

54:23

did 768 things right.

54:25

His coverage of stuff then

54:27

his work product didn't

54:30

involve Sandy Hook. When he

54:32

caught wind internally that it was

54:34

being covered, he told people this is Don't

54:36

do this. I know. You know, it's

54:38

not he doesn't have

54:40

768, I I get working

54:42

it in for wars is

54:44

bad. And all of it is

54:46

bad, but that's

54:46

what he has to feel bad about.

54:49

Yeah. Not this 768 have

54:52

any business being in this

54:53

deposition, honestly. Yeah. Normally, I would be like,

54:55

oh, well, obviously, he's he's lying. But we

54:58

have evidence that he

55:00

did say Yeah.

55:01

Stop it. Yeah. You know? And then it all Salazar bullied 768 him.

55:03

Yeah. Yeah. I don't I

55:04

don't understand this at all. Right.

55:07

768 no way

55:09

to reconcile this in a way that makes

55:11

sense. Uh-huh. And there's no consistency. Uh-huh. It

55:13

feels like the aberration is him being like,

55:15

oh, well, this is

55:17

wrong. Right. Well,

55:17

but that's the 768 the

55:20

the wisdom. Confusing. I

55:21

don't really I don't -- Yeah. -- so

55:24

anyway,

55:25

Rob about his complaints that he made to Adonis

55:28

768. Okay. Whenever

55:30

this subject came up, I

55:33

would immediately clarify to

55:36

the writers that there is a journalistic

55:38

ethics that they're

55:39

768. And what I've pointed out

55:42

to Adonis specific is that

55:44

you're taking the word of one

55:47

witness primarily and a

55:49

couple of speculative others

55:51

facts and calling it the truth without actually

55:53

going down and investigating it

55:56

ourselves are actually going with our

55:58

own reporters 768 corroborating what

56:00

these people are saying. I made it

56:02

aware to Adan that

56:04

Wolfgang, how big could

56:06

have a lot of issues that

56:08

we're not considering that by taking the

56:10

word of this one

56:12

man so heavily with

56:14

such a

56:16

great accusation that he's accusing people of 768 so

56:18

irresponsible, so damaging his

56:21

I I asked him 768

56:24

the size of the audience. And Adon Salazar responded

56:28

with

56:29

and I'm gonna quote

56:31

768. And because he said it to me

56:33

many times,

56:34

I wanna print up a t

56:36

shirt that says how big was

56:39

rights. I want bumper stickers that

56:41

say how big was right to

56:44

a laughing room.

56:45

Yeah. There's been other people

56:48

who have 768. That's -- Yep. --

56:50

you know, that that story checks out.

56:51

Mhmm. But like And he's emotional about it.

56:53

I don't understand. What

56:56

is it about this that is different from the

56:59

the Aurora? Sure. Or what

57:01

about this is different than 768,

57:04

he's saying relying on Wolfgang, how big --

57:06

Yeah. -- maybe

57:07

he has other problems. Like, what

57:10

about thinking

57:12

about endgame and relying on Jim

57:14

Tucker who works for a Holocaust denial

57:16

768 or maybe has

57:20

severe alcoholism even as demonstrated

57:22

in the fucking film. You made

57:24

it clear. Or what about relying on

57:26

Daniel Esterland, who's a lunatic

57:29

768 citations to people who think

57:31

they're space gods. I don't know 768

57:33

his book. Like, this is the product

57:35

that he was put, you

57:37

know, put out. That time to rob

57:39

Jacobs in this documentary that he thinks is not like

57:42

these other things that

57:44

enforces dot 768 it it just doesn't

57:46

make sense to me. I don't

57:48

know. I don't I don't get

57:50

it. I don't I don't get it because I don't

57:52

think 768 is Honestly,

57:54

as it relates to Sandy Hook, the only

57:56

thing he has to apologize for,

57:58

I guess, is that he didn't quit.

58:00

Yeah. That's all he has to apologize for. that has no real

58:03

relevance in a courtroom. No. It has

58:05

no real relevance in a

58:08

deposition. As they go through

58:10

the questions about this stuff

58:12

that is relevant to Sandy Hook,

58:15

he doesn't know that much The only thing

58:17

that you could really concretely take away from this perhaps is

58:19

that, like, he's an AV guy.

58:21

Right. He can speak

58:24

with some credibility about the idea of Anderson Cooper's

58:26

nose on a blue screen. Sure. So,

58:28

like, there is that that he can

58:31

offer as like

58:33

my expert witnessness, but there's other people you

58:36

could get to do that. Yeah. I don't

58:37

I don't know. I guess and I

58:39

I appreciate on some level that he

58:41

feels bad about

58:44

Connect being connected to this. Right.

58:46

But I I don't know.

58:48

It feels like he's asking

58:51

for for 768 of

58:54

forgiveness or penitence for the wrong

58:56

thing. Yeah.

58:56

I It just doesn't make sense.

58:59

It is group of thoughts that I cannot

59:02

imagine having in your brain

59:04

simultaneously. Like, I

59:06

did wrong. 768

59:08

I didn't do wrong. But also I did do 768, but

59:11

also I didn't. Like, it's wild. I

59:13

don't I don't understand how many

59:15

different possible avenues

59:18

that he can both excuse his behavior, be

59:20

excuse for his behavior, and then

59:22

still not understand that his behavior

59:24

is reprehensible

59:25

and there's no excuse for it. You know, like, I don't I don't

59:28

get it. Yeah. The the behavior

59:30

that's the problem is being a

59:32

part of creating,

59:34

like, phone nascent texts within the

59:36

Infowars canon -- Right. -- that are

59:38

relied on to lend credibility

59:40

to things 768

59:41

the coverage of Sandy Hook. Right. There

59:44

768 there is that to wrestle 768, and

59:46

that's not 768 not present here at

59:49

all. It's somebody who helped build a

59:51

church who help build this entire church and then it's like,

59:53

oh 768, I'm really sorry for those guys who

59:55

put that steeple on

59:56

there. That the church is terrible now.

59:58

You know, I just don't and not even that. I don't even

1:00:01

it's it's it's I don't know. It doesn't make a lot of

1:00:03

sense 768. So, anyway, Rob explains

1:00:07

like, a problem that he has with Infowars

1:00:09

coverage. And I would say, if you have a problem

1:00:11

with

1:00:11

this, you gotta go back to page

1:00:14

one, baby. When you were at

1:00:16

768, in general,

1:00:18

if a person

1:00:21

did something in public,

1:00:22

that was

1:00:23

768. Was that good for their

1:00:24

career at Infowars or bad for their

1:00:27

career? It was it 768

1:00:29

excellent for their career. Can

1:00:32

point to several examples where it's not reporting at all.

1:00:35

It's pure agitation. By many,

1:00:37

many -- Just several. --

1:00:39

and I have also been

1:00:41

very critical of that. It's been it's

1:00:44

been pure. In fact, some of it is so

1:00:46

agitating. It's almost to

1:00:48

the level of public disruption. So

1:00:51

including can

1:00:53

I go on?

1:00:55

Please

1:00:56

actually nonresponsive so far. Okay. Sure. Let me ask you another

1:00:58

question. Can you give me an example of some of the

1:01:00

things you're talking about when you say agitation?

1:01:03

Yes. Miss Millie Weaver last year or the year

1:01:06

before that, I'm not sure

1:01:08

when. But it was in the last,

1:01:09

perhaps, twelve months, I believe, because I it

1:01:11

was after

1:01:13

I left. She showed up at a Hillary Clinton

1:01:16

book signing event that

1:01:18

was at Book

1:01:19

People. These

1:01:20

people were not there to protest. These

1:01:23

people or not there to Hillary, this is far

1:01:25

after the

1:01:26

election. Nobody was campaigning. But

1:01:28

miss Milly Weaver decided to

1:01:31

show

1:01:31

up with a lot of Trump

1:01:33

gear, which obviously is going to

1:01:35

be 768 we follow the news we know

1:01:37

is agitating towards

1:01:41

in a in a very

1:01:44

political way. You know?

1:01:46

So in my opinion, just by looking

1:01:48

at that, I noticed

1:01:50

that reporters don't show

1:01:52

up sponsoring

1:01:53

politicians.

1:01:54

So for her to go there and say

1:01:56

and 768 fact, the name of this video on

1:01:58

YouTube is called journalist harassed or

1:02:00

something. She identifies herself as a

1:02:03

journalist while she shows up wearing

1:02:07

political gear directly

1:02:09

aiming at the opposite

1:02:11

end of the spectrum asking

1:02:14

abrasive questions about Hillary

1:02:16

Clinton. Now, that's not

1:02:18

journalism. That's

1:02:20

agitation. And that is a clear cut case example

1:02:22

of them swapping out the words

1:02:24

agitation for journalism and vice

1:02:26

versa. But this

1:02:28

is 768. Like, Alex's family

1:02:30

crest might as well have a bullhorn on

1:02:33

it.

1:02:33

Like, that's his whole climate

1:02:34

of change. Hey, shit. He agitates people.

1:02:36

He goes

1:02:37

and yells at people and makes a

1:02:39

scene. That's how that's

1:02:41

who he is.

1:02:43

It's not it's not tyranny journalism.

1:02:45

It's tyranny

1:02:46

crusher. No. Most of, like,

1:02:48

a large portion of endgame is him

1:02:51

yelling at political. He's

1:02:52

going to a place where people are, not protesting or

1:02:55

whatever, and he's causing problems. Yeah.

1:02:57

This is the info

1:02:59

wars bottle. 768 paid people

1:03:02

to yell, Bill Clinton as a rapist. That was

1:03:04

768 TV. Yes. That was the thing.

1:03:06

No.

1:03:07

Is that journalism 768 contest for

1:03:09

people to do that? Right. Like, it's

1:03:11

768 it it again, this is

1:03:14

missing the forest for the trees

1:03:16

768. Like, you take issue with

1:03:18

Millie Weaver doing that, but that is what

1:03:20

Info Wars is. That is the business that

1:03:23

you were involved in for thirteen

1:03:25

years. Yeah. And

1:03:26

how could you not know you

1:03:28

obviously know that. You have to know that. Maybe you're blocking yourself from being

1:03:30

aware of it or showing awareness as possible.

1:03:33

But like that is not

1:03:36

in any way different than what they

1:03:37

do. Nope. This is what the business model

1:03:40

is. Yeah. Bing. If

1:03:41

you have

1:03:41

a problem with

1:03:44

it,

1:03:44

then I I don't

1:03:45

know what to tell you. Yeah. I mean, it is it did you did he

1:03:47

have, like, four years of reflection and

1:03:50

therapy

1:03:51

and stuff can he honestly say that because this is what we've lost a year

1:03:54

after he left. Oh.

1:03:55

Or he got fired. So --

1:03:57

Right. -- it's Maybe a year

1:03:59

or third. Wow. I mean, I hope so. That would

1:04:01

be nice. But but seems like he's he's

1:04:04

passionate about them fucking up in this

1:04:06

case.

1:04:06

Sure. Yeah. I would I would love to

1:04:09

see a larger understanding or

1:04:12

reflection on the way that the

1:04:14

things that he's complaining about

1:04:16

are actually essential pieces -- Yeah. -- of Info Wars.

1:04:18

Not things that are 768. Not

1:04:20

things that have only to do with Sandy

1:04:22

Hook. They are 768

1:04:26

Alex Dodd. These

1:04:27

are not bugs. These are features. What his

1:04:29

documentaries featured as well. Yeah. No. Absolutely.

1:04:31

Not just 768 wars

1:04:34

outside of his

1:04:36

projects and things. Yeah.

1:04:38

So I don't know I don't know what to

1:04:40

say. Anyway,

1:04:42

he 768 had

1:04:44

some complaints internally -- Yes. --

1:04:48

while Sandy Hook was happening. Doctor

1:04:50

coverage. Yeah. AND THERE WAS ANOTHER PERSON WHO DID, AND THAT IS PAUL JOSEF

1:04:52

768. AND SO MARK ASKS ABOUT

1:04:56

PAUL'S OPINION. Can

1:04:58

you tell us who Paul Watson is? Paul

1:05:00

Watson is

1:05:01

sort of

1:05:04

Alex's all 768

1:05:05

it. It's

1:05:07

roast, he's basically. It's like a

1:05:10

now it's a sidekick.

1:05:13

Okay. Were have you ever

1:05:16

been aware of mister

1:05:18

Watson's opinions

1:05:20

about the Sandy Hook hoax

1:05:21

allegations? No.

1:05:24

See, that is

1:05:24

one of the reasons that I think

1:05:26

he's pretty outside 768 kind

1:05:29

of, like, internal stuff.

1:05:32

Well,

1:05:32

he doesn't really communicate at all with Paul Watson. Right? It

1:05:34

it yeah. But 768 also, Paul made a

1:05:36

big deal out of it. He, you know, that

1:05:39

email he had buckley on

1:05:42

it. They were supposed to tell everyone to stop

1:05:44

talking about Sandy Hook conceivably

1:05:46

that might have involved 768 all

1:05:49

hands meeting you would 768. I

1:05:52

I don't know. It seems like if you didn't know that

1:05:54

Paul took great issue with this --

1:05:57

Yeah. -- and you also took

1:05:59

great issue with this, That

1:06:01

seems to me that everybody is disconnected, and Paul is clearly

1:06:03

on the

1:06:03

inside. Yeah. And maybe Rob is

1:06:06

over here.

1:06:08

Well, and I mean, I would assume they didn't I

1:06:10

mean, I don't think they really

1:06:13

publicized internally that people

1:06:15

didn't like

1:06:16

it. You know, they

1:06:17

definitely seem to think they did.

1:06:20

Well, no. I mean, like,

1:06:21

in the other like,

1:06:24

I I don't assume that Rob Drew and Alex were both going around being

1:06:26

like, hey, make sure that we don't do

1:06:28

this

1:06:28

thing. They say that they did. Well,

1:06:30

they say

1:06:31

that they did, but they clearly,

1:06:34

obviously, didn't. Mhmm. I don't

1:06:36

know. Alright. I I don't know what to

1:06:38

believe. Anyway, the like I said, one

1:06:40

of the things

1:06:42

that Rob's testimony could be good for is the

1:06:44

audiovisual aspect. And so they talk about the

1:06:46

blue screen situation. And

1:06:48

I think

1:06:50

unfortunately, Rob affirms Alex's

1:06:52

conspiracy here. Oh, no.

1:06:54

Would anybody with competent

1:06:58

video experience have serious doubts about saying this

1:07:00

was blue screen detection

1:07:01

768?

1:07:02

I feel they

1:07:05

would. They would. They would

1:07:07

be on the fence.

1:07:10

If if they saw

1:07:12

this video, they would have

1:07:14

questions. Okay.

1:07:17

Can I go further and

1:07:19

explain that? Actually, let me ask you a

1:07:21

question on that. Okay? Okay. Your

1:07:24

opinion about whether

1:07:26

or not it could be fairly

1:07:28

asserted that this is clearly blue

1:07:32

screen. In in your opinion on whether that could be

1:07:34

asserted. Can you tell me about any of

1:07:36

the things you see in this video or any of

1:07:38

your experience that would inform

1:07:40

that

1:07:40

opinion? There's nothing in

1:07:42

I'm sorry. Objection. There's

1:07:44

nothing in that video that will clearly

1:07:46

indicate to me that that was a

1:07:49

blue a

1:07:49

blue screen Okay. If

1:07:52

a witness, if anyone was to

1:07:54

say, I can look at that video

1:07:57

768 work with blue screen. It's got

1:07:59

all the telltale signs.

1:08:02

That's clearly blue screen. In

1:08:04

your

1:08:04

opinion, is that person acting responsible?

1:08:06

Attention from? No, I don't. I think

1:08:09

that based on what we see on

1:08:12

that

1:08:13

screen, that could be

1:08:16

that error in the nose could

1:08:18

have been caused by a number

1:08:22

of different reasons. And none of them are clear

1:08:24

from what we see there without knowing

1:08:26

what happened behind the scenes with the

1:08:29

operating room controllers. And so on and so forth.

1:08:32

That could have been a natural

1:08:34

glitch that happens all the time on

1:08:36

YouTube, 768 see

1:08:38

it all the time where pixels There is secret about million

1:08:43

videos or more where

1:08:45

pixels smudge all the time. In order for that,

1:08:47

should I continue? If if you have more facts

1:08:49

that you bear basic The only thing

1:08:52

I could 768 only

1:08:54

thing I could tell you about that is the only way

1:08:57

that that is possibly green screen

1:08:59

is if Anderson Cooper is

1:09:01

not standing that to that woman. Yeah.

1:09:03

That is what Alex claims. Yeah. That

1:09:04

would be yeah. So I I mean, like, obviously, there is

1:09:06

a 768 usefulness there in in terms of, like,

1:09:10

768 if you know about green screen,

1:09:13

blue screen technology, that is not

1:09:15

something you would immediately jump

1:09:18

to. Right. You'd have questions. And there would be a hundred for

1:09:20

what you see there. Right. Blue screen

1:09:22

is not definite. Alex, saying it's 768, is

1:09:26

irresponsible. But then the the only way that's blue screen is

1:09:28

if 768 Cooper wasn't there. It's like, that is -- Yeah.

1:09:31

-- that's what Alex is saying. 768.

1:09:34

Yep.

1:09:34

That 768 that's kind of the point. Do

1:09:36

they do they have it's

1:09:39

like, okay. So I'm

1:09:41

envisioning now like Rob is working in an office. Right.

1:09:43

Okay. And sometimes Alex comes and sees him. So he

1:09:45

thinks that he's working in an

1:09:47

office with Alex. 768 it's

1:09:51

actually, like, entirely across town. You know, like, he's not

1:09:53

even in the same building as those

1:09:55

people. No. Because he said he

1:09:57

goes

1:09:57

to the writer he's gone

1:10:00

to the he's in the facility. It's insane

1:10:02

to me how far away from

1:10:04

the the reality of the

1:10:06

business he seems to be. Yeah.

1:10:09

You know what? Here's the other thing. Like,

1:10:11

maybe I've been in jobs in my Sure. -- let me say there have

1:10:14

been times when I

1:10:18

have not done

1:10:20

a lot of work, but definitely wanted to look

1:10:22

like it was a lot of work. Sure.

1:10:24

That's been there. Ed, maybe Rob's other assignments

1:10:26

were just killing

1:10:27

time. I mean, has he just been doing nothing for

1:10:29

ten years? Just I 768 hoping

1:10:32

Alex doesn't 768. Sandy,

1:10:35

is there really anything? Like, if I keep my head

1:10:37

down, I think I could just stay here.

1:10:39

I have definitely done

1:10:40

that at certain 768.

1:10:42

There's a text. So IIII

1:10:46

don't think it's outside the like, possibility in terms of how, you know, some you

1:10:49

can fly

1:10:51

768 the Sure. You know, don't bring too

1:10:54

much attention to yourself. I have

1:10:55

in the past asked myself the 768, how long

1:10:57

can I get away

1:10:59

with this

1:11:00

for? Yeah. That's that's definitely true. Yeah. My days

1:11:02

are numbered here in a long time. Yeah. Mine as well. Mine

1:11:04

as well just hang out

1:11:06

and see what 768. Yeah. Can't

1:11:10

believe I made it three

1:11:12

months

1:11:12

longer

1:11:13

than I would. Great. So, Rob,

1:11:15

he his awareness of

1:11:18

the fact that, like, parents of victims

1:11:21

were not happy -- Yeah. --

1:11:23

did not come from anything

1:11:25

internal. Uh-huh. Turns out he

1:11:27

was watching PBS.

1:11:28

At any time during your time,

1:11:30

mid infill wars past twenty thirteen, were you aware that Clarence had been

1:11:33

complaining about

1:11:36

this

1:11:36

coverage? No. Not immediately. I

1:11:38

really became aware of it sometime afterwards

1:11:43

when I saw actually, I think, a

1:11:45

PBS special on what was going on, and it 768 really hit home at that point. I

1:11:48

was 768, this

1:11:51

is So He

1:11:53

watched the PBS special -- Right. --

1:11:55

and that's how he became aware the parents weren't happy. Right. And PBS special also was where

1:11:57

he learned that there was harassment

1:12:00

going on. 768

1:12:03

you ever become aware that parents were

1:12:05

being harassed by believers in the

1:12:07

Sandy Hook Hooks conspiracy

1:12:09

theory? Yes. I became aware

1:12:12

of that. When do you

1:12:14

think you became aware of that? Somewhere around twenty fourteen, twenty fifteen,

1:12:19

maybe twenty fifteen,

1:12:30

Like he said,

1:12:30

768 when I saw that PBS documentary?

1:12:33

So the PBS

1:12:36

documentary you saw, that was when you

1:12:38

were employed and that was still employed. There.

1:12:40

He

1:12:40

was still

1:12:41

employed there, saw this, it all became very real to

1:12:43

him, and then he 768 worked

1:12:46

there for two more

1:12:47

years. Then

1:12:48

my hat on and

1:12:50

I said, good

1:12:52

morning, Sam. Uh-huh. Good

1:12:53

morning, Ralph. That's weird.

1:12:55

Ah. Boom. I don't understand

1:12:58

768 at all,

1:12:59

really. I

1:13:00

mean, I feel like --

1:13:02

Oh, I don't. -- I feel like

1:13:05

maybe

1:13:07

I am just I guess morally inflexible in a

1:13:09

way that I thought that I thought was far more reasonable, but maybe it's

1:13:12

just unusual.

1:13:16

Because that seems to me like the moment you

1:13:18

find that out, you can't be like, well, at least it's not my department. And then

1:13:21

just go back to work the next say. You you kind

1:13:23

of, I think, have to shut down

1:13:25

any pretense that you have a

1:13:28

moral

1:13:30

connection totally doing. Totally. It has to like, it's so cynical

1:13:32

to go back to work after

1:13:34

after being saying it became

1:13:37

very real to

1:13:39

you

1:13:39

and that becoming aware the parents are being

1:13:42

harassed. Yep. And you know what? I mean, like, he got fired two years later.

1:13:45

He didn't even

1:13:48

quit eventually. Like, he presumably would still

1:13:50

be working there under harassing awful abusive conditions.

1:13:52

Like, I'm not

1:13:55

saying he deserves 768. Sure. But

1:13:57

had he not been fired, would he

1:13:59

still be working there possibly? Maybe. It's

1:14:03

I don't get

1:14:03

this. I mean, 768 don't understand. III

1:14:06

recognize

1:14:07

that that concept 768, like,

1:14:09

well, that's the business's

1:14:11

fault, not mine. Right. So I get

1:14:13

that. So But it's not like you're in that's not like you're working for Chase

1:14:15

Bank as, like, an

1:14:19

analyst of in assurance or something like that,

1:14:21

where it's 768, yeah, I get it. The company you work for is evil. I understand

1:14:24

that. But

1:14:27

it's not like a a business where you can go talk to the

1:14:29

CEO doing evil shit and be like, hey,

1:14:31

stop it 768 he

1:14:33

can tell you to go fuck off. You know, you're just

1:14:35

a cog in that little

1:14:36

machine. This is a different story. Well,

1:14:38

I think that he has obviously marketable

1:14:42

skills. Sure. He has talent in a

1:14:44

way that a lot of other people who

1:14:46

work for in force don't. Like 768 lot

1:14:49

of the writers are not employable anywhere else --

1:14:51

Right. -- they do shit work. Because they're bad

1:14:53

768. The reporters suck. They can't work

1:14:55

anywhere else. The people on

1:14:57

air don't have the chop to cut it anywhere else.

1:14:59

Yep. He has audiovisual skills that

1:15:02

like, he has a trade

1:15:04

768

1:15:06

that could be employed somewhere else. Yeah. I mean, he walk

1:15:08

into a

1:15:08

local TV station. Yeah. I'm fairly certain

1:15:10

that I'm not saying those

1:15:14

jobs are just

1:15:15

available right buddy. But you know what I mean? Yeah. 768 he could find

1:15:16

a job somewhere else much more easily than I

1:15:18

think a lot of the other people

1:15:21

who were mocked up

1:15:23

in Info Wars. Totally. I'm

1:15:25

not saying I'm not saying it would be the simplest thing ever, but

1:15:27

it is a possibility in a way that a lot of

1:15:29

other people that

1:15:32

probably think I'm completely unemployable anywhere

1:15:34

else because of this being on my resume. Right. Maybe not as much for

1:15:40

for Rob. I don't

1:15:42

think that it's always the simplest thing when people work in places that, you

1:15:44

know, like, you

1:15:47

have some misgiving about the

1:15:50

the ethical nature of what you're

1:15:51

doing. Yeah. But there are that's on a

1:15:53

different scale a lot of

1:15:55

time from the the the

1:15:59

reality of 768 wars. Yeah. And I

1:16:01

don't know. I 768 don't

1:16:03

III find

1:16:05

768. I find it to be worse

1:16:07

that he knows how bad this is.

1:16:09

Yeah. You know, the fact that might

1:16:11

be

1:16:11

the issue. The fact that

1:16:14

he was saying two 768, while the San Diego coverage

1:16:16

was going on that this is bad,

1:16:18

that makes it more difficult for

1:16:21

me to understand his non quitting. Yeah.

1:16:23

Because it should have war on 768, more because he

1:16:26

does have a moral

1:16:28

compass. He's

1:16:31

demonstrated that things line for him. And it

1:16:33

turns out that maybe just the line

1:16:35

doesn't

1:16:35

matter. Yeah. I

1:16:38

I don't know. I

1:16:40

mean, I guess now we're

1:16:42

kind of getting into a more

1:16:44

deeper conversation about the diffusion of

1:16:46

responsibility, you know, to like, 768 what

1:16:49

point do you say? Well, I

1:16:51

can't work on an oil

1:16:51

Derek. Like, it's morally reprehensible. Because it it

1:16:53

is. I

1:16:54

mean, that's a true thing.

1:16:57

768 go, what do you say to that?

1:16:59

You know? You have to ask 768 that question. I

1:17:02

get what you're saying and I think the

1:17:04

difference is abstraction. Yep.

1:17:06

The I agree. The abstractness of the harm that you're causing by working on

1:17:09

an 768, Derek,

1:17:12

or something, is

1:17:14

different than the very clearly traceable line totally from

1:17:17

the dissemination

1:17:20

and promotion of

1:17:22

Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists. And the harm seeing home

1:17:27

768 very vivid light

1:17:29

in CBS special. Right. You know, like, there is a

1:17:31

very clear line. When

1:17:35

the line started, 768 were

1:17:38

aware of how bad it could be. Mhmm. And when the line ended, you saw, oh, I was

1:17:40

right about how

1:17:43

bad it could be. 768

1:17:46

these are people whose lives are clearly

1:17:48

severely negatively impacted by the

1:17:51

work that we do at

1:17:53

my job.

1:17:54

Yeah. I suppose I suppose that's

1:17:56

that's kind of it. That's really the

1:17:58

line there. It's just

1:17:59

768, hey, I saw this you

1:18:01

do this. I told you not to do this, that it's wrong, and

1:18:03

then you continue doing it, so can't work here

1:18:08

anymore. Right. If you are somebody who

1:18:10

works at an oil rig 768 you have an understanding of, like,

1:18:12

a harm that's being done to the world

1:18:14

and stuff -- Right. -- there is not

1:18:18

all that much that you can

1:18:20

do to remedy that harm --

1:18:22

Right. -- in the broad sense outside

1:18:24

of, like, 768, It's not

1:18:26

really

1:18:26

going to make a in terms of

1:18:29

Well, and you can make an argument maybe that Rob quitting

1:18:31

wouldn't have made that big a difference either -- Sure. -- towards the damage done.

1:18:33

But, like, the in

1:18:36

order to make

1:18:38

any kind of headway, you need to change the energy consumption

1:18:41

patterns of the

1:18:44

world. Yeah. You

1:18:46

know, there's a much larger thing

1:18:48

that needs to be done -- Right.

1:18:50

-- to to assway your

1:18:53

concerns. Mhmm. With Rob,

1:18:54

You can

1:18:56

I don't I don't know. I don't know. I don't

1:18:58

know if it's the same. I don't know. I

1:18:59

don't think it's the same.

1:19:02

It doesn't feel the same. Nope.

1:19:04

So It was severe for him

1:19:06

when he was concerned about the behavior

1:19:08

of the

1:19:09

writers. Mhmm. He he

1:19:11

does say 768 is

1:19:14

a ten on the outrageousness

1:19:16

scale. When you were, as

1:19:18

you mentioned earlier, communicating your thoughts

1:19:21

to people 768 Infowars about the Sandy Hook

1:19:23

coverage. Can you describe to

1:19:25

me on a scale

1:19:27

of one being knocked outrageous

1:19:31

at all. And ten being extremely

1:19:33

outrageous. On that one

1:19:35

to ten scale, what is

1:19:37

the level of outrageousness of

1:19:39

this conduct that were trying to

1:19:42

impart. I thought it

1:19:43

was a ten. Tell me

1:19:46

why you

1:19:47

thought that. I mean, it's one thing

1:19:50

to make a mistake. It's another

1:19:52

thing to have somebody come in and

1:19:54

I don't even I'm not aware 768

1:19:57

was the one and only person or not. But it's but

1:19:59

I know I was doing it. To come in and say, hey, this is

1:20:02

wrong. You're making a

1:20:04

mistake. 768 it's

1:20:06

one thing, you know, to actually have a mistake and and something else to have it pointed out to you, not

1:20:08

just once, but over and

1:20:11

over and over 768. And

1:20:15

to not only hear the

1:20:17

damage that you're doing

1:20:20

to people outside of

1:20:22

your

1:20:23

zone, but to actually laugh about it? I thought 768 it

1:20:25

that's a ten. If it's a ten,

1:20:27

what are

1:20:30

you doing? Why don't I I just don't understand why you don't quit.

1:20:32

If you're saying that that's

1:20:33

a ten, then nothing can make you quit. It's also

1:20:35

what you're saying. True. Then there is no

1:20:37

eleven. There's no eleven. Now and here's

1:20:39

the other thing that is something you

1:20:42

should grapple with. Mhmm. If this is a ten out of ten on the outrageousness 768,

1:20:44

and 768 people

1:20:47

who are doing it are not fired

1:20:50

by Alex. They are

1:20:52

congratulated,

1:20:53

768 be lauded, maybe see Even

1:20:56

bonuses and shit.

1:20:57

Yes. Which we know has

1:20:59

happened. Maybe that should be

1:21:01

a strong indication that

1:21:03

this this rock goes to the

1:21:05

core of the entire business. Alex incentivizes ten out of ten on the

1:21:08

outrageousness 768. 768 his

1:21:12

sign on his family crest is

1:21:14

a

1:21:14

bullhorn. I mean, that's

1:21:17

that that 768 that's

1:21:19

such a weird

1:21:21

I don't know

1:21:22

if you if

1:21:23

you're plumbing to that kind of moral relativity, that's just insane. That's at 768

1:21:25

a certain point,

1:21:28

that just means like, oh, well,

1:21:30

listen. I want him to keep it at a seven of outrageousness. That's where I think

1:21:32

it's supposed to

1:21:34

be. That's good journalism. Like,

1:21:37

that's insane. Well, I I would argue that it's possible to make

1:21:39

the argument that a seven is not what

1:21:42

you'd call good journalism,

1:21:44

but 768 it's

1:21:46

something sustainable and, like, you could get along with, like, a publicity stunt might be a seven.

1:21:48

Like 768 like a

1:21:51

semi tasteless publicity stunt, 768

1:21:55

Bill Clinton is a rapist 768 having people paying

1:21:57

people to do that. Maybe that's a

1:21:59

seven out of ten. Sure.

1:22:01

768 is a scale. Sure. And I could see you

1:22:04

staying employed, you know, and

1:22:06

being like, whatever. Maybe I'm

1:22:08

not a huge fan of

1:22:09

that, but you know, we'll do our

1:22:11

work.

1:22:11

Mhmm. ten

1:22:11

What are you

1:22:14

doing? I know. I

1:22:16

I

1:22:18

don't understand this person unless 768, like,

1:22:21

blackmail or a gun to his

1:22:23

head or something. I'd I

1:22:26

it 768 it's more

1:22:27

sense. Yeah. I can't I can't make it

1:22:30

make more sense. I,

1:22:30

you know, I don't know. That is a

1:22:33

bit It's

1:22:33

an 768, baby. It's an abusive relationship and we can't really judge him for not

1:22:35

being able to exit that relationship the way that

1:22:37

he wanted. You know, if you 768 that

1:22:40

much 768, and

1:22:43

you think that's where you 768 or deserve

1:22:45

to be 768, perhaps he's

1:22:47

perhaps his pendants really

1:22:50

was enduring the continued abuse. Fuck if I know.

1:22:52

The psychology of this man

1:22:55

is beyond me.

1:22:57

That's what I'm trying

1:22:58

to say. If that if that's the case. I 768

1:23:01

to get into it. I don't even

1:23:02

wanna get into it. Yeah. I

1:23:06

don't understand

1:23:07

you. So In his next clip, discusses that he has

1:23:09

guilt, and that's good, I guess.

1:23:11

Do you

1:23:15

today have any sense of guilt about the

1:23:17

768,

1:23:17

about Sandy Hook that

1:23:20

came out of

1:23:22

768. They should inform

1:23:24

Lee

1:23:24

Yes.

1:23:24

As I've

1:23:25

mentioned in my statements previously, the reason why

1:23:27

I'm here is because

1:23:30

a tremendous amount of

1:23:32

guilt that I didn't

1:23:34

act faster. Maybe I

1:23:35

should 768 quit. Maybe

1:23:37

I could have

1:23:39

caught the story faster. Been

1:23:42

better at explaining, but yes, I do. Are

1:23:44

you still on friendly

1:23:47

terms with Info Wars?

1:23:51

No. Were you

1:23:52

terminated? Yes.

1:23:52

So I don't like I've said already, I don't

1:23:55

understand why he has any guilt.

1:23:58

Now

1:23:59

the the notion of, like,

1:24:01

maybe I should 768

1:24:03

quit. Yeah. But that's about you. Yeah. That's for you to

1:24:08

wrestle with. Has nothing to do with

1:24:10

anything else. The the idea that maybe I could have done something better or maybe

1:24:12

I could 768, you

1:24:15

know, gotten this story could

1:24:17

have acted more internally, no, you fucking couldn't. Paul Joseph Watson is one

1:24:19

of the most powerful people within 768

1:24:22

True. He was opposed to this

1:24:25

768 it

1:24:27

clear to 768. Got Alex's cousin who

1:24:29

was a manager at Info Wars

1:24:31

who agreed with him -- Yeah. --

1:24:33

looped in on the same thing.

1:24:35

That didn't do was anything that could have been done

1:24:37

768 this is what Alex wanted. That's true. This

1:24:40

is how things were

1:24:42

going to go no matter

1:24:44

what. So yes, the only thing

1:24:46

I think maybe he should feel guilt about, maybe not the only thing, but the primary

1:24:48

thing here is

1:24:51

that he didn't

1:24:52

quit. 768 that's about

1:24:54

his own well-being. That is about his own shit. Yeah.

1:25:00

He owes no real apology necessary. I don't

1:25:02

I don't I but at this that actually 768

1:25:04

can't understand. I can

1:25:07

768 the feeling because if

1:25:10

you do believe that this is something of an

1:25:12

anomaly. Right? I can understand the

1:25:14

feeling of someone just being 768, oh,

1:25:16

well, there's more I could have done

1:25:18

you know, if if one of my

1:25:20

friends gets into a car accident and we

1:25:22

were supposed to do something and they

1:25:24

quit or whatever, maybe I would feel

1:25:27

like, oh, I could have done more to

1:25:29

keep them from getting in that

1:25:30

car. Sure. Like, I can recognize that kind of guilt there. Yeah. I can't recognize the feeling of,

1:25:32

like, well, this is my fault

1:25:34

or it's somewhat misplaced, though. It

1:25:38

is very

1:25:39

misplaced. The guilt that we're dealing

1:25:41

with here is is misplaced. Yeah.

1:25:43

I feel like everywhere

1:25:45

is this placed. Well, but here's the thing. Like, all all these other

1:25:47

people that we've heard talk about stuff. It's

1:25:50

misplaced 768 the sense

1:25:53

of, like, trying to evade responsibility. Whereas with Rob, there

1:25:55

is a feeling of, like, trying to dodge an over 768.

1:26:00

Yeah. And I 768 don't understand why.

1:26:02

Like, I obviously can't speak for anybody who's involved or anything, but,

1:26:06

like, he didn't do things that contributed to making

1:26:08

this story worse 768- Right. --

1:26:10

as far as we know from

1:26:13

all available information. Right.

1:26:15

He did what he could 768 to

1:26:17

de incentivize people to do it. Speaking out saying it's

1:26:20

wrong,

1:26:21

what have

1:26:24

you? Like, Well, you know, I mean,

1:26:26

that's part of what he was recognizing though is, like, maybe I could have done more. I should have done more.

1:26:29

Maybe

1:26:30

I could have quit. Should have

1:26:32

quit. You know, he

1:26:33

Maybe 768 should have quit in two thousand four. That's what it would have made the most sense,

1:26:35

but we

1:26:36

can't we can't

1:26:39

redidicate this deposition. Otherwise, I'd have to start

1:26:41

talking shit to

1:26:42

Enoch. Okay? True. That's where

1:26:43

we'd really get into trouble. Yeah. 768 I said, I'm

1:26:45

just confused. This is this is

1:26:47

a very different 768

1:26:50

deposition in terms of, like, what he

1:26:52

can walk away from it from. Mhmm.

1:26:54

Because there isn't a lot of,

1:26:57

like, super relevant information that you glean from it.

1:26:59

Yeah. There is just

1:27:02

somebody who is really

1:27:04

seeking some

1:27:07

kind of forgiveness, absolution --

1:27:09

Yeah. -- in a way

1:27:11

that doesn't make sense.

1:27:14

None. And I I hope

1:27:16

he finds whatever he needs. Mhmm. And

1:27:18

I wish him the best. I'm not

1:27:20

I'm not I don't wanna

1:27:22

sit around and shit on him -- Right. -- or anything because

1:27:24

I think that certainly the

1:27:26

ability to feel guilt even

1:27:30

if misplaced is a drastic

1:27:32

768. Yes, bro. It'll suit other people

1:27:34

there. 768 better than everybody else.

1:27:36

But, yeah, it's just very

1:27:38

confusing. Yeah. So one of the

1:27:40

things that is also relevant is that Rob

1:27:42

has his EEOC complaint at this time. Right. And

1:27:47

it's still be seen how it'll play out.

1:27:49

And there is a question about, like,

1:27:51

you know, if this case

1:27:53

does go forward, do you

1:27:56

stand to it

1:27:58

from that. Ryan Rob is says no. And in fact, he stands to lose -- Yeah. -- in as much

1:27:59

as, he won't be a

1:28:02

primary creditor even if he

1:28:04

did, 768 he

1:28:06

would be far more far less likely

1:28:08

to receive any percent of his it

1:28:11

might appear. Yeah. So

1:28:13

he only stands conceivably to not

1:28:15

the opposite of benefit from this. Yeah. Yeah.

1:28:16

Yeah. And he makes the point that he's not I

1:28:18

mean, one of the remedies or he or 768

1:28:22

complain light is to immediately receive your job back,

1:28:24

which I didn't believe. No

1:28:26

thanks. No thanks. So but

1:28:28

he makes a point, and

1:28:30

I think it's fair to make note

1:28:32

of that he's not interested in compensation in

1:28:35

terms of his involvement

1:28:35

here. Right. I'm not doing any

1:28:38

of this for compensation. I'm doing

1:28:40

this because

1:28:42

Alex is disgracing himself so

1:28:44

badly and and the way he has

1:28:47

made the parents suffer as well

1:28:49

as myself.

1:28:50

He's still

1:28:50

on the air to this day saying things

1:28:53

that are arguably true or arguably not true. We don't 768. But

1:28:55

we do know that -- Don't we -- --

1:28:57

affects

1:28:57

his audience

1:28:58

in a way that angers them

1:29:01

and mobilizes them. And it's unclear of anything he's saying is fact or fiction,

1:29:04

opinion, or speculation. Isn't it? What

1:29:06

he does do is mobilize a

1:29:08

large amount

1:29:11

of people in irrational thinking because there's no way

1:29:13

to tell with whether what Alex is

1:29:16

saying on the air

1:29:18

is news or not, true or false speculation or opinion,

1:29:20

jokes or not, but he

1:29:22

advertises it all as news

1:29:26

he is the info wars.

1:29:28

But when was

1:29:31

that not the case? I

1:29:34

I mean, 768, I I

1:29:36

agree with him to the extent of, like,

1:29:38

if I'm 768 try and make this

1:29:41

better, I would say that Alex

1:29:43

has like, -- Sure. But,

1:29:48

like, not not knowing whether

1:29:50

he's saying things that are opinion or fact, say

1:29:52

constantly, when we go back to two thousand 768

1:29:54

and we're listening to these 768, he's like,

1:29:57

768 has

1:29:59

been proven. Yeah. You know, like, he's saying all this

1:30:01

complete 768, and he's inciting

1:30:04

people. He's making them

1:30:06

angry about this existential threat to their life.

1:30:08

Like, this has been his MO the

1:30:10

entire time. It's not a recent 768.

1:30:12

So I don't know. I

1:30:14

feel like if there was a

1:30:17

like a sincere belief that this is the problem, then it

1:30:19

would be it would

1:30:22

always be a problem.

1:30:26

Maybe you're not aware of it earlier on.

1:30:28

Maybe 768 aware of it. Right.

1:30:30

But then it it this

1:30:33

these complaints should be much more holistic.

1:30:35

I suppose I suppose here's I would want is I

1:30:37

would want to ask, what was

1:30:39

the first time

1:30:42

Alex

1:30:43

did something that broke what you your

1:30:46

moral framework. You know, what was the first time that he's overstepped those boundaries?

1:30:51

And then why did you decide to stay? That would

1:30:53

be a good question 768, like,

1:30:55

a grilling, maybe not

1:30:58

for Mark's