Transcript/768: Formulaic Objections Part 14

Warning: Bot Generated Content
This transcript was automatically generated by transcription software and likely contains many mistakes and misattributions. Please check the audio for definitive quotes, attribution, and context.

Alex Jones (00:00:04.000)

Red Alert. Red alert. Red alert. Red Alert knowledge five Damn, Jordan I'm sweating knowledge party.com It's time to pray. I have great respect for knowledge by knowledge. I'm sick of them posing as if they're the good guys Shang V or the bad guy knowledge. Dan and Jordan knowledge fight need money Andy and Sandy you're shopping Andy and Ken handy in Kansas. And he started the fray Andy in Kansas. You're on the airplanes rolling. Huge fan. I love your world. Knowledge by knowledge fight.com I love you.

Dan (00:00:58.000)

Hey everybody, welcome back to knowledge right? I'm Jordan. Dudes, like sit around worship at the altar of saline and talk a little bit about Alex Jones. Oh,

Jordan (00:01:07.000)

indeed. We are Dan Jordan.

Dan (00:01:09.000)

Jordan quick question for you. So what's your red spot today buddy? My bright spot today is actually a very recent bright spot and that is right before we started recording I started reciting

Jordan (00:01:19.000)

all right. Okay, all right.

Dan (00:01:22.000)

Will Smith's Welcome to Miami and you were freaking out a little bit your response was pretty pretty makes me feel deeply uncomfortable well, and I realized that maybe there's something that people don't know about me then that is that I know all the lyrics to a number of Will Smith song that is true. Oh

Jordan (00:01:40.000)

you have demonstrated that on multiple occasions and I want the audience to know regardless of drunk or sober

Dan (00:01:47.000)

true true Wild Wild West in particular that one anytime right now without a beat No. Wild Wild West Desperado rough ride I don't want none of his six gun in this brother running this soldier look all right okay. Jim was checked a lot of Biden Doctor step all right a whole new sides

Jordan (00:02:11.000)

of problems having a boss okay

Dan (00:02:14.000)

from the start of this run of the game James West table yep, I can do hours yes hours and Lenin black like to I think you did a song on that

Jordan (00:02:27.000)

soundtrack for Yeah, which it wasn't just here comes the button black again you

Dan (00:02:30.000)

know ironically I don't think I could I don't think I know all the words to Big Willie style ah that's not surprised cheeky with it. I guess Big Willie style was the name of the album

Jordan (00:02:39.000)

Yeah, that's fine getting get jiggy with it getting jiggy with it as I like to say

Unknown Speaker (00:02:43.000)

nononono

Jordan (00:02:46.000)

not that good of a song. I'm gonna throw that out there audio market

Dan (00:02:49.000)

you know psycho we just can't quit gotta get jiggy with it

Jordan (00:03:00.000)

we have four clips today it's gonna be a short show

Dan (00:03:07.000)

you with stuff like that? So anyway,

Jordan (00:03:10.000)

my bright spot is something that I mean obviously One good turn deserves another by Fred so my bright spot is the Australian Open

Dan (00:03:23.000)

All right, so what's what are the highlights of this? This year open?

Jordan (00:03:27.000)

Well, it's gonna be a tough one. First off curios had to drop out with a knee injury. This was his best shot to win his own Australian Open I would have been amazing. That would have been cool Not gonna happen. Rafa Rafa is Rob was coming in off a bad stretch. He's lost six of his last eight oh right and he won his first round match but you don't know if

Dan (00:03:49.000)

that means anything how Sampras looking

Jordan (00:03:50.000)

Oh Sampras is looking great. He's about 70 years old now and his arm hair has established a colony on other people's arm by money's on Agassi's good his, his skull is now actually visible you know, he used to have he used to glue a wig on his head Sure. Then he got rid of that and he was bald and now it's all come back to haunt him and his exposed skull is there

Dan (00:04:15.000)

I don't have any other old tennis references except for maybe like John McEnroe, John McEnroe and still doing great yeah, number three

Jordan (00:04:22.000)

see he's lost three of his feet to diabetes. That's how bad it is. He got two foot transplants so

Dan (00:04:29.000)

you said Ross was not in it.

Jordan (00:04:31.000)

No Rafa is in oh so here he is dropped out and this is Joe KOVITCH is back this year

Dan (00:04:37.000)

because the Vex maybe because they just got rid of him.

Jordan (00:04:40.000)

Yeah COVID is still an issue. Yeah, vaccines still very important. But I mean come on. It was a year ago whatever.

Dan (00:04:48.000)

As much press this year. Yeah, well, I'm excited for you to enjoy that. It'll be great. We have a great time. Watching people go bomb

Jordan (00:04:56.000)

go old man Andy Murray. At learn he One against young man berrettini Whoa bear Dini Merritt dini. Hot Italian played tennis. You gotta love it.

Dan (00:05:09.000)

Wait. So who's your favorite to win?

Jordan (00:05:13.000)

Who's my favorite? Who's most likely to win? Probably joke which or Medvedev?

Dan (00:05:17.000)

They're the Russian president.

Jordan (00:05:20.000)

No, former Russian president. You know, Dmitry Medvedev is a very, very good tennis player.

Dan (00:05:28.000)

Do you say Andy Murray?

Jordan (00:05:29.000)

Andy Murray, old man, Andy Murray.

Dan (00:05:31.000)

Well, who was the young guy?

Jordan (00:05:33.000)

Matteo berrettini.

Dan (00:05:34.000)

Matteo Barrett. Yeah, for some reason I thought like, it was there was Andy Murray married to somebody famous.

Jordan (00:05:41.000)

Yeah. Andy Murray's. The Scottish tennis player. He's knighted.

Dan (00:05:45.000)

No, but wasn't he was he married to somebody famous like a pop star.

Jordan (00:05:48.000)

I don't know who anyone is married to. That is the one thing about pop culture. I have never known about anyone. Every time somebody's like, you know, he's married to him. Like, that's amazing. And I don't remember.

Dan (00:05:59.000)

I don't know if it's him, or I'm thinking of some other person, but I feel like he might have been married to like some pop. Idol. Anyway, enjoy. Thanks. So today, we have four clips. Okay. Right. So, Jordan, we have an episode to do today. And we are going to be having another deposition. No, we're going to be talking about the deposition in the Lewis case. The Texas case with Rob Jacobson. All right. Interesting character, Rob Jacobs. He

Jordan (00:06:31.000)

is he's a cat, that's for sure.

Dan (00:06:34.000)

He is a fella who worked at Infowars from 2004 to 2017. He was there a long, long time. Yeah. And was responsible for such hits as endgame. Great. The Obama deception, tapa marks, well, that was kind of more of his, his bread and butter was a bit more of the like video production and the documentary side of stuff. And he sent leaving Infowars by being fired. He filed an EEOC complaint against Infowars alleging anti semitic treatment that he endured on on from other employees and from Alex. I mean, that's not hard. That's not a hard jump to make. No. Notably, he has alleged and I certainly believe this is true, that Rob do and Owen Shroyer would refer to him as the resident jus, among other things that were made a hostile work environment tracks. So since he's left, he has also taken on a bit of a anti Alex posture, let's say, yeah, he appears in like various documentaries that will be made on on CNN,

Jordan (00:07:50.000)

I guess. Yeah. I

Dan (00:07:51.000)

don't know. He's one of the people you go to whenever you want to have interviews with past Alex employees, he's willing to talk. Right, right, those those folks, whereas maybe a Jakari, Jackson isn't going to show up for the years, we want that part of his life, no to be analyzed. And I think that there is a part of it that Rob feels a desire for some pennants. And I can, I can understand that on some level, but I also find it uncompelled In many ways. So we're going to go through this deposition, but it's challenging a little bit because of that dynamic, that I do feel like he is probably in many ways sincerely guilty about what he was involved in Sure. To the extent that it relates to Sandy Hook. Now, I don't see a ton of examination of the larger catalogue of his work that he did, and how very similar it is to the coverage of Sandy Hook. And how he does not seem to have any, necessarily a problem with like his end game.

Jordan (00:08:59.000)

That's a bit that's a problem.

Dan (00:09:01.000)

So that's tough for me. And we'll wrestle with it as we go along. But before we do, let's say hello to some new walks. That's a great idea. So first, all right, and here it is, guys and all its fine glory. Thank you so much. You're now a policy wonk. I'm a policy wonk,

Jordan (00:09:17.000)

thank you very much.

Dan (00:09:18.000)

Next, Napoleon Bonaparte, thank you so much. You are now policy walk. I'm a policy wonk.

Unknown Speaker (00:09:23.000)

Thank you very much.

Dan (00:09:24.000)

Next V former Chicago and who likes rants about Joule and skilling? Thank you so much. You are now policy walk. I'm a policy wonk. Thank

Jordan (00:09:31.000)

you very much.

Dan (00:09:32.000)

That's not a real former Chicago and because they would want to rant about the jewels. Next, like where's Danny

Jordan (00:09:41.000)

countless when you need

Dan (00:09:42.000)

my guinea pig sing when Jordan laughs but they no longer run from Alex Jones's voice. So your show is one for two in fostering healthy rodent behaviors for stars. Thank you so much for now. ballsy walk. I'm a policy wonk. Thank

Jordan (00:09:53.000)

you very much.

Dan (00:09:54.000)

Thank you. Next married moms need abortions, too. Thank you so much. You're now a policy wonk. I'm a policy what's next? Trudy the Tasmanian tiny, teeny, baby, thank you so much. You're now a policy wonk.

Jordan (00:10:05.000)

I'm a policy wonk. Thank you very much.

Dan (00:10:07.000)

And Robert Evans sent me love Becca from New Zealand. Thank you so much. You are now policy walk. I'm a policy wonk.

Jordan (00:10:14.000)

Thank you very much

Dan (00:10:15.000)

do now. Yeah. The first couple of clips are a bit long. And the reason for that is there is chaos at the beginning of this deposition. Mark. Bankston is taking the deposition. And he begins trying to just say, Please introduce yourself. Good luck. And then Alex's lawyer, Enoch. He comes in and gets out of line. And it's very hard to present this in small chunks. So I have about a five minute clip here. And I think it needs to be presented as a whole thing in order to really get the feeling of this and how there's an ink Enos to it Oh, boy, and a discomfort and you can see it in Rob's face. Yes.

Jordan (00:11:05.000)

Good. Quick question. Yeah. Alex is lawyer. And does Rob also have a lawyer

Dan (00:11:10.000)

Rob does not have a lawyer Rob doesn't have a lawyer is unrepresented? Right. He there's a, the judge has signed off on this deposition taking place. And that Mark can ask questions from on behalf of the plaintiffs. But he is not representing Rob and Rob has no lawyer there. Okay. On behalf of like free speech systems, and all those other lawyers, all those other entities, Enoch is there defending the deposition. Gotcha. But according to Mark, and I think he makes a decent case. He has no right, necessarily to take discovery from Rob Jacobson. Yeah. That is the cross examination has not necessarily been signed off on

Jordan (00:11:52.000)

if I understand what you're saying correctly, Mark can ask questions. But Enoch cannot ask questions. Well, he can theoretically be there

Dan (00:12:00.000)

to object and the drama and the chaos here at the beginning largely comes down to that the fact that Rob Jacobson signed an NDA when he worked at Infowars. Okay. And so, on behalf of free speech systems, and Alex Jones, Enoch can say things like, I don't think you should answer that based on the NDA. Right, right existed in that space. But then it's kind of an open question and a little bit unclear. Well, at least Mark believes one thing and Enoch believes the other right in terms of whether or not Alex's lawyer has the ability to question the witness. Right. And so that is a problem. There disagreement is a mess.

Mark Bankston (00:12:47.000)

Good afternoon, Mr. Jacobson. Can you introduce yourself for our record?

Rob Jacobson (00:12:51.000)

I am Robert Jacobson.

Mark Enoch (00:12:52.000)

I'd like to ask a couple of questions might come in.

Mark Bankston (00:12:56.000)

I don't think you've been given any orders from the court to do any discoveries on no mystery not You're not asking this witness. Any questions? Mr. Jacobson. Mr. Enoch, you serve with subpoena Mr. Enoch, you hired please point me to the order in which you've been allowed to do any discovery or taking any questions of any witness point me to it, Mr. Enoch, please do not right now. appointment to it.

Mark Enoch (00:13:14.000)

Please do not interrupt, then you're not going to stop Mr. Enoch.

Mark Bankston (00:13:17.000)

Stop talking to the witness. Mr. Cheng. Mr. Enoch, this deposition will be suspended and I will sink sanctions. If you speak one more time to this witness Jacobson. Have

Mark Enoch (00:13:25.000)

you been served Mr. Enoch?

Mark Bankston (00:13:26.000)

We're going off the record. We're done that we're not done. The record deposition is suspended. You have no ability to take any testimony, Mr. Enoch, none was zero.

Mark Enoch (00:13:35.000)

Mr. Bankston, I suggest instead of getting emotional about it, you let me ask the question. Were

Mark Bankston (00:13:39.000)

there any questions? Mr. Enoch? Please

Mark Enoch (00:13:40.000)

don't interrupt me again. I

Mark Bankston (00:13:41.000)

have to Mr. Enoch, you have no right to answer questions. Before you ask that question. A single question to that witness. Again, direct me to what authority you think you have served as a pain on this witness.

Mark Enoch (00:13:51.000)

I'm I don't I serve notice of deposition on this or if you didn't serve a subpoena. He's under an NDA and a confidentiality agreement. He is not excused from that you did not provide him with an order to this court. He cannot testify today. You should have served him with the subpoena and you did not you want to take this up with the judge. That's why That's what I want to talk with this witness. If you're not going to talk to him

Mark Bankston (00:14:09.000)

about well, you don't have the ability to do discovery. I'm going to ask this witness questions. Mr. Banker, if you instruct him not to answer and try to prevent this deposition from happening. I will take it up to the court mr. Bankston,

Mark Enoch (00:14:19.000)

you are the one preventing me from asking any questions? I am yes. Do what you need to do, sir. That's why we want to make sure this witness knows his obligations under the nondisclosure agreement and confidentiality agreements that he signed. Are you going to

Mark Bankston (00:14:32.000)

you sent him a letter telling him what his confidentiality agreements are telling him to observe them? You've already had these communications with this witness? You have no reason to ask this witness any questions today? The court has not granted your client any discovery whatsoever, and you will stop interfering of this deposition. You have no reason to be asking this client about confidentiality when you have already informed him of his obligations.

Mark Enoch (00:14:57.000)

Mr. Bankston, I'm going to ask the question then. If you instructed not to answer if you don't, I don't represent this witness. Mr. Jacobson, did you receive a letter from me? In December or so advising of my clients insistence that you maintain confidentiality under your agreements that you reached with Alex Jones and with free speech? I don't recall. Okay. Or do you still have those confidentiality and non disclosure agreements?

Rob Jacobson (00:15:23.000)

I don't recall. I don't I have since chromatic since whatever happened to me at work? My files have been scattered around. I'd also like to add that that non, that NDA was forced upon me after I'm climbing with Alex for over eight years, sort of on the record that

Mark Enoch (00:15:43.000)

sir, you can, I'm not arguing with you.

Mark Bankston (00:15:46.000)

Objection, you've already done what you said you're gonna do. Don't start having conversations if the witness is gonna do it don't influence his testimony. Mr. Mr. Bankston, please stop interrupting me with more than I will put first before you ask your question. 99. Jack to the right, I object. And my objection is to the form of your question

Mark Enoch (00:16:02.000)

very well. Mr. Jacobson? Are you familiar with the requirements and the documents that you signed? That you maintain confidentiality, unless you're subpoenaed?

Rob Jacobson (00:16:13.000)

Me familiar with the action that it was forced upon me after being employed by him with language in that NDA, which includes things like the known universe and stuff? It's garbage? And no, I am not aware of any I know that it was forced upon me. I was employed by Alex for over eight years, and they forced it upon me. I was a so I don't know where it is. I don't know what the language is. And I don't recall anything.

Mark Enoch (00:16:40.000)

I'd like to mark as an exhibit. Please, madam, if you

Mark Bankston (00:16:43.000)

object to any exhibits being offered by you, Mr. Enoch, what are you doing? Good class, let's, let's just talk. What do you think you're doing? I want to make sure that you're not you're not questioning this witness anymore. This is not your deposition, you have no ability to do discovery. I've had extraordinary patients with allowing you to ask the questions of the witness to ascertain whether he knows there's a confidentiality agreement. I will also be asking him about that same confidentiality agreement. Now that that's been done. You have no reason to be questioning, the only reason you're doing it is to influence this witness. That's literally the only reason you're doing it. I consider what you're doing highly improper. And I'm asking you once again, knock this off. Mr. Enoch, what are you doing?

Mark Enoch (00:17:22.000)

Mr. Jacobson? Do you recognize exhibit number one? I don't have any record of this exhibit. Would you look at your signature on the last page, and please identify that we need

Mark Bankston (00:17:30.000)

to go off the record and call the court right now. Mr. Ina?

Mark Enoch (00:17:34.000)

Do you recognize a signature?

Rob Jacobson (00:17:35.000)

I I want you to notice the date. Did you win with my employment started? Sir? Sir. I don't have any representation here. That is when was my employment started? When was the first day I started working?

Mark Bankston (00:17:48.000)

Let's stop for a second. Mr. Enoch started. We're going off the record right now. We're calling the court very well.

Dan (00:17:56.000)

Move. So it's, it's how we start. It's an ugly, little bit of business. Yeah. At the beginning. Yeah, there is there. This is not like any of the other ones I've seen. Right. Right.

Jordan (00:18:09.000)

For sure. So So Enoch, is his strategy. He's coming in. And he's thinking, here's what I'm going to do. Before Mark can say a word. I'm going to interject. I am going to talk over him try and bully him push him back, then I'm going to make Rob Jacobson know that if he says anything, I don't like we're going to go after him because he broke the NDA there.

Dan (00:18:34.000)

Yeah. There is a feeling of trying to influence the testimony by way of the Veiled intimidate. Yeah,

Jordan (00:18:40.000)

absolutely. That's not hard.

Dan (00:18:41.000)

And yeah, you can see it for sure that Rob is getting agitated. But I don't I don't think that he's, I wouldn't describe it as like a breaking down or anything. You know, like, yeah, he is holding his own in in to whatever extent you can really, but but also, I mean, he's not represented, and so like he is going to, you know, possibly yell back. Yeah, that'd be you. And I, there's not really, there's not really much you can do. I mean, Mark isn't his lawyer. Yeah. can't really control the situation. No, Enoch is clearly out of pocket and just in business for himself here. Right. And so it's, it's a mess.

Jordan (00:19:28.000)

I mean, it from what I understand. Here's what I'm understanding is going on. Right. Mark, and Rob are there to do a job. And Enoch is there to stop that job from occurring?

Dan (00:19:43.000)

Yeah, yeah. And the, it's predicated on the idea that there wasn't a subpoena, right? Like if there had been a subpoena, then he would be free from his NDA. Right? And because there was only a court order that isn't enough, or whatever, right and that Rob's feeling about it is It's two pronged. The first is that the, the NDA was forced upon him after years of working there, and that's not appropriate. And then the second thing that he brings up in this next clip that we're going to hear, as the fight continues, is that he has an understanding of the NDA that has to do with like business secrets, business practices, it doesn't cover other things. Right. So I don't think that's in this next clip. I think that's a little bit later.

Jordan (00:20:25.000)

But it but from what I understand that if I understand the reality of the dynamics here, there are two people there, and then there's a lawyer who's just being an asshole to somebody. Yeah, you're trying to protect the business. That's like if I was outside, and Enoch came up to me and asked me that shit, I don't have to answer a goddamn word that Enoch, like I could say, Go fuck yourself, and that's fine.

Dan (00:20:51.000)

And conceivably, it's the same thing. Exactly. For Rob with him,

Jordan (00:20:56.000)

I can't say Go fuck yourself to mark. But he can say you'll probably. Well, I mean, he could but you know, it's supposed to be a deposition there.

Dan (00:21:03.000)

The two of them clearly have at least a mutual respect. Robin Mark are adults, can someone conceivably on the same page? In terms of like, I have questions, you are willing to answer those questions? You got it? Yeah. And in this next clip, they come back from that pause, right. What ends up happening is they tried to call the court they're unable to get a hold of the people at the court. And so they realize, well, we've got to go forward with this right. So let's try and see see how we can do that boy,

Mark Bankston (00:21:39.000)

well, Mr. Enoch, before I stopped my deposition, and you said you were going to ask him one thing about one document and whether he had a signature and now you say you're done. When I asked, he refused to answer the question. He sure did. And when I asked you, okay, you've asked him, Are you done? You completely ignored me continued to break this client? I mean, this person, and he expressed to you that he was very agile, hold on, Mr. Nike expressed he was agitated for you. Are you now saying you have asked the totality of the question, do you intend to ask this witness?

Mark Enoch (00:22:04.000)

Or if not, then I don't then we are suspending this deposition. Know what I'm going to ask her if I'm going to ask anything until you're done with your examination. Mr. Banks? Well, apparently

Mark Bankston (00:22:12.000)

you did, because you started asking questions before I even started my examination, Mr. Enoch. And you know, that's highly improper. I'm asking you right now, or do you intend to question this witness today,

Mark Enoch (00:22:23.000)

Mr. Bankston, I'm alarmed that this witness is not represented by counsel. I am concerned that he is not aware of his rights and obligations under legally binding contracts with my client. I want to make sure he is aware of those to protect himself or to get counsel in his own shoes. You've been able to judge me Do not interrupt me intimidation, not interrupt you you did interested in getting him to voluntarily disclose information that he's obligated not to do with that court order. You did not serve a subpoena. You did not tell him of the effect of that under his agreement. He now knows it. You may continue your deposition. Mr. Enoch,

Mark Bankston (00:22:57.000)

let's make this clear. For the record. I do not have his agreement. When you sent this letter that informed him of that agreement. Who do now I one I asked you at the time, didn't I? Mr. Enoch, when he I sent you a letter said your letters very unclear. It could conflict cause this witness to think he's not supposed to testify today. Wouldn't it be best if you disclose to everybody what that agreement is, you didn't do that you waited until we walked into this room to put it down on the table. You say you have every right to inform this client of this person of his obligations. And you were worried that he doesn't know understand what those were. I understand that, which is why you sent that letter, which I would I think is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. And if you wanted to call this witness, talk to him or contact him that's perfectly appropriate to ambush him at the moment of his testimony is not appropriate. And it is not appropriate to start asking questions before I even ask questions. Mr. If you intend to ask more questions today, let me know because we will suspend the deposition so that Mr. Jacobson can get counsel and so that we can take it up with the court to see if your actions today were proper. Do you want to ask questions today or not? Mr. Enoch, Mr. Bankston,

Mark Enoch (00:23:58.000)

I did not know until my first question of this witness that you had not served him with a subpoena as I think you were obligated to do to contain his testimony. Therefore, I wanted to make sure he was aware of exhibit one that does not allow his voluntary participation in your discovery without a court order subpoena. Now, with respect to questions of this witness, I can't answer that now. Because I haven't heard your questions. I think I'm entitled to ask questions under the rules you think I'm not. So go ahead and ask your questions. Let's see if I have questions. If I do. The rules allow me to make my record. You can object as you wish and then we can take it up with the judge. Well, we spend a lot of time haggling right now. We've taken the witnesses time, asked your questions. You've

Mark Bankston (00:24:38.000)

taken the witness's time as you taken my time Mr. Enoch. That's what you've done. Astra and I can tell you this, I don't represent this witness. And when I'm done asking my questions, if he wants to get up and walk out of this room without saying another word to you, I'm not stopping him. On what basis I'm not stopping him. I have no control over this man. Mr. Enoch, I have none. I don't represent

Mark Enoch (00:24:58.000)

understand the witness to your note Since here from day to day, and you understand Yeah, examination is a what

Mark Bankston (00:25:03.000)

do you want me to do to stop them? What do you want me to do? Why don't you just ask Should I change them to the chairman?

Mark Enoch (00:25:09.000)

Please start asking your questions. Let's get on with the deposition. Will you do that?

Mark Bankston (00:25:13.000)

Yeah. Now we'll do that Mr. Hankey? Sure. We'll do

Dan (00:25:16.000)

so I think we've gotten a number of different vibes from Alex lawyers. Yeah, I think Enoch is maybe one of the worst it is guys an asshole.

Jordan (00:25:29.000)

It is hard to really wrestle with the feeling that I have right now. Which is like, doesn't man sometimes need to be slapped in the face? You know, like, not in a not in a violence kind of manner. But in like a remind you of who you should be kind of way. Perhaps pistols at dawn would be an order for this man or L Cabal? Yes, absolutely. Knock him out, right for a couple hours. And then when he wakes up, you can be like, Oh, you fell asleep? That'll be fine.

Dan (00:25:58.000)

This is where like you splash some water on your face. Let's take it out of the realm of vials. Hold on,

Jordan (00:26:06.000)

sir. Excuse me.

Dan (00:26:07.000)

I just it's it's pretty outrageous. Although if I were Rob and I were hearing this IoT, like, okay, now I know that I can just leave. I mean, yeah, the idea. But that's that that's probably good to be aware of like, I don't have to be subjected to this person's question. Yeah.

Jordan (00:26:24.000)

Mark made sure he knew that part of his rights. Yeah, that's for sure. And so

Dan (00:26:29.000)

with this all behind us this unpleasantness, we jump into the actual questions. That is it behind us now? Not really, over the rest of this, but you know that certainly, we've gone through a lot already. And what an asshole Yeah, total dick. Don't

Jordan (00:26:47.000)

interrupt me when required

Rob Jacobson (00:26:49.000)

by and for worse. I was hired in 2004. By Alex Jones.

Mark Bankston (00:26:54.000)

Do you know what corporate entity you were hired by?

Rob Jacobson (00:26:58.000)

At the time I felt I was hired by Alex Jones. And he was an independent proprietor.

Mark Bankston (00:27:07.000)

Do you know today? What entity your former employer claims you worked for? Yes. What entity? Is that?

Rob Jacobson (00:27:17.000)

Free Speech systems? LLC. Okay.

Mark Bankston (00:27:22.000)

When did your employment end?

Rob Jacobson (00:27:23.000)

My employment ended and may 1 of 2017.

Dan (00:27:30.000)

So keep that time frame in mind. And just consider all of the stuff Infowars did between those 13 years? Yeah. You know, obviously, Sandy Hook is a particularly bad piece of business that they were involved in. Right. But if you look at the totality of their coverage of things over that time, I mean, think about all the stuff that went on. You had the Boston bombing, you had Anders Brevik, you had other school shootings, certainly that Alex denied he had the Aurora massacre, you had so many things that went on during that time. And he was employed through all of that. Yep. And I think it's important to keep keep an eye on that. And remember that, and then secondarily is important to recognize that he was directly and intimately involved in the creation of the Obama deception, and endgame along with a bunch of Alex's other bullshit films. So like, you, it's one thing to work somewhere, it's another to work somewhere for 13 years, and be engaged in constant horseshit. So just keep that in the back your mind.

Jordan (00:28:45.000)

I mean, it does feel like what we have seen from even the most contrite info warrior types is selective responsibility for like things that they've perhaps already received consequences for or are regularly pointed out about, as opposed to the totality of what they have done there.

Dan (00:29:06.000)

I have I have a tough time agreeing with you universally, but I generally do think there may be some folks who, and I think maybe some people who work there shorter, who have I think, Rob, Rob is a pretty unique case.

Jordan (00:29:22.000)

13 years is a long time, a lot of shit to fuck up. And,

Dan (00:29:27.000)

like one of the earliest employees really, I mean, 1004 Alex did not have a robust operation going right. And someone who went along the whole time until he was fired in 2017. He didn't quit. No, he was fired. And I struggle with this because I want to believe the best in folks. Sure. And I do believe that he does have misgivings about what he was involved in. But I don't necessarily And maybe it's a shortcoming of a deposition setting ship because like, obviously, it's not in Mark's interests to be like, What do you feel about?

Jordan (00:30:08.000)

Do you regret everything you have ever done that? Yeah.

Dan (00:30:10.000)

What about the game?

Jordan (00:30:13.000)

You figured out that everything you've done is brought misery to this world?

Dan (00:30:17.000)

Yeah. And so maybe you can't really get a sense of that from this deposition. But I do feel from some of the questions that we'll get to. I don't I feel like he wouldn't say the things that he's saying if there was like, an actual recognition of the nonsense and inappropriate sort of material and content that was put out over the course of those 13 years. It's not a it's, this isn't a, like an isolated thing of Sandy Hook. That is a problem. It's a systematic problem of all of the information that comes out in this information. Right,

Jordan (00:30:55.000)

right. Right, right. I think from here's what I'm I'm getting is like, in terms of the whole, you know, like, when they talk about their fault or responsibility for Sandy Hook. They're really talking about the symptoms of what happened there, as opposed to realizing that Sandy Hook, what they did to Sandy Hook was unique only insofar as the way that it is ended up well, as opposed to it being any different from how they would have covered any other story like that, you know, sure.

Dan (00:31:31.000)

It may be maybe by degree a little more ghoulish in some Blimey? Yeah, but not really that different than a lot of other coverage that they did. Yeah.

Jordan (00:31:45.000)

It's some It's an event that occurred out of their regular process, not an anomaly, right?

Dan (00:31:51.000)

If you are somebody who believes the stuff that Alex believes there's no reason why you wouldn't believe the stuff about Sandy Hook totally. It's, if you believe all the narratives about the globalists and how they do false flags all the time in order to achieve their goals. The stuff Alex was saying about Sandy Hook falls in line with that. Yeah, it's not as outrageous as it sounds to people who aren't in that, that way thinking in that headspace. Right. And that that's something that I don't really feel like I see any kind of grappling with from this deposition, at least.

Jordan (00:32:28.000)

I mean, the truth is, people wouldn't have gone along with the belief of Sandy Hook if it weren't for the years before that. Right. If it weren't for the made it makes sense. Yeah. If it weren't for the priming to get us to this place. So in effect to everybody involved in the lead up is just as involved in the in the act itself, you know,

Dan (00:32:48.000)

yeah. And end game might have been part of it. Yeah, you better believe it. So anyway, mark shows rob the letter that he got sent about the NDA.

Mark Bankston (00:33:00.000)

Apparently, I wanted to show you something I'm gonna wanted to mark as Exhibit one, but I believe Mr. Enoch has already hijacked that exhibit. So I am going to mark this as Exhibit two sidebars describe.

Jordan (00:33:18.000)

Someone hit this man, she is

Mark Bankston (00:33:21.000)

specific to never seen a copy of that before. Do you remember seeing that?

Mark Bankston (00:33:30.000)

Yes, I want to direct you to the second page. I'm gonna read the paragraph that appears on this page to you, you were reminded that you have important continuing obligations under your confidentiality and non disclosure agreements with my clients, you are expected to strictly observe those duties and obligations. Do you do you feel like you understand what obligations are being referred to her ideal? Have you abided by those obligations? Yes, sir.

Rob Jacobson (00:34:04.000)

In fact, may I add something to my understanding of the non disclosures not to reveal any company secrets? I don't think abuse or abusive behavior inside the company constitutes company secrets. I don't think misbehavior inside the company by an adult who runs the business constitutes company secrets. And in fact, I'm here to try to bring light to the truth of abusive and behavior inside the walls of Infowars. And I don't think anything that I say today violates the NDA, which would be constituting of company secrets, their formulas and how they produce the news that nothing like that is going to be revealed today. What will be revealed is abusive behavior. And the behavior of Mr. Jones and his staff

Dan (00:34:49.000)

think I think I can get down with that thinking you know, I think that makes sense tracks. In some ways. He's acting as a whistleblower if you know he's reporting on abuse within the company and right, you know, misbehavior? Well, I mean,

Jordan (00:35:05.000)

if you want to claim that abuse is a company secret, then you have to be like, well see, that's my management style. And that in and of itself might be a larger problem.

Dan (00:35:15.000)

Look, the way the way I mistreat employees is proprietary. Yeah. The specific ways are people, it's part of the business plan.

Jordan (00:35:27.000)

I filed it with my bank 30 years ago. Okay, that

Dan (00:35:29.000)

could be trouble. But yeah, I can I can get down with that. And I think that that is a responsible way. Like, if, if Rob were to be giving out business secrets or whatever that might I think that might be inappropriate. But I don't feel that anything that's done within the context of this deposition comes close to something that should be covered by an NDA.

Jordan (00:35:55.000)

Well, I mean, illegal business practices are not covered by an

Dan (00:35:58.000)

NDA, but he doesn't know any of them. Well, I understand No, any illegal business pry? Right. Well, I

Jordan (00:36:03.000)

mean, now, you know, half of what they do.

Dan (00:36:06.000)

So it's immoral. But one of the one of the things that I really got a sense of, we have a clip kind of really made that clear to me, was it like, I don't think he was that inside with stuff. Yeah, that sounds right. Yeah. I think that Rob might have been a bit on the outside. Yeah. And I also don't think that he has a very good sense of the specific coverage that they were doing even

Jordan (00:36:30.000)

Well, based on the way the other people have talked about them in their depositions, they everybody seems like they've kept him at arm's length for one reason or another.

Dan (00:36:38.000)

Yeah. Probably unfairly. Probably does

Jordan (00:36:42.000)

seem that way. Quite a bit. Yeah.

Dan (00:36:45.000)

You get the sense that maybe there was some bullying, even though it was going on within the walls,

Jordan (00:36:52.000)

the totally believable.

Dan (00:36:54.000)

So Mark asks about when he began at Infowars. And you know, what was? You know, do you believe in that stuff? How do you feel when you started?

Mark Bankston (00:37:06.000)

When you first joined Infowars, did you believe in its mission?

Rob Jacobson (00:37:12.000)

For the most part, yes.

Mark Bankston (00:37:16.000)

Tell me about the kinds of stories or things that you wanted to be working on when you first came to Infowars.

Rob Jacobson (00:37:24.000)

When I first when I first arrived at Infowars, my understanding of of Infowars and Alex is subject matter was the occult, esoteric politics, let's say, what's going on behind the curtain. Things that politicians don't tell us and expos a in that fashion, fringe media of the mainstream, but still honest, what's my impression?

Mark Bankston (00:37:53.000)

Were you passionate about journalism at that time?

Rob Jacobson (00:37:57.000)

I was passionate about filmmaking. And I wanted to be a documentary filmmaker. So in that aspect, yes, that does, I believe, fall under a broader umbrella of journalism. So when it comes to documentary films, I was on board.

Mark Bankston (00:38:17.000)

Did you want to do good journalism? I did.

Dan (00:38:20.000)

Well, that's nice. The the stuff that he's describing, like the stuff behind the curtain, the esoteric, the the power, how they act secretly, yeah, that's the stuff that leads to globalist false flag bullies.

Jordan (00:38:35.000)

Yeah, that's the problem. Yes.

Dan (00:38:39.000)

It seems very difficult for me to disconnect the way Alex treated those subjects and what it led to,

Jordan (00:38:49.000)

right. Well, I mean, a bit that that comes back again, to like, it's the entirety that is the problem. You know, like we're dealing with the results of if that problem is left unchecked. And in a it's not it's not like this specific event is the only problem. That is just part of the problem. Yeah, you know, yeah. And to to pretend like it's anything other than that is willful ignorance or a complete misunderstanding of what is what you've done wrong, if anything.

Dan (00:39:21.000)

Yeah. And so he, you know, he's, he's very much into the filmmaking and the documentary stuff and wants to do good journalism visa vie that that avenue. Sure. One of the issues that I have, and I don't understand exactly what happened or what was done, but like, Alex didn't put out a documentary for like, 10 years at this point now. So like, what was Rob doing after like, 2012? Like strategic relocation, I think was the last documentary Alex put out and that's basically just him talking to Joel Skousen. About places you could bug out to, like, I don't know. What documentary work was being done? Like, was he? I don't know if he was involved in field pieces, or, you know, like,

Jordan (00:40:08.000)

I don't maybe he was just a basic video video editor at that point like, you know, bound would do those reports and maybe just edited the videos together.

Dan (00:40:16.000)

But if he was then he would be far more intimately involved in a way of the content that was being put out, then he's presenting himself as being Yeah, and I don't think that that's necessarily dishonest because the way he answers questions about like, you know, what did what did you know about this theory? Right about Sandy Hook or rare? I don't know if he was intimately in like, aware of like, literally everything. I don't know what he was doing. I am, if you're the documentarian in house at Infowars. And they haven't put out a documentary forever. You're still on the payroll. This is

Jordan (00:40:53.000)

this is a another continuing problem. I don't know what anybody fucking does for a job beyond Owen. And Alex,

Dan (00:41:02.000)

and Harrison. Harrison. Yes.

Jordan (00:41:06.000)

Many of you do.

Dan (00:41:07.000)

Yeah. So Rob, Mark asks, what is what is this good journalism to you?

Jordan (00:41:13.000)

You wanted to do? Good question.

Mark Bankston (00:41:15.000)

Mr. Jacobson. What is good journalism mean to

Rob Jacobson (00:41:17.000)

you? Good journalism means an objective reporting of facts. Somebody who can or if the journalist can remove his emotion, and theory as much as possible from reporting what he sees, or she sees with her or their own eyes and ears, empirical evidence reported to the public with very little bias.

Mark Bankston (00:42:05.000)

In your mind, what is the relationship between good journalism and corroboration of facts?

Rob Jacobson (00:42:13.000)

I think good journalism. If you're going to have a corroboration of facts, I believe the more witnesses and points of view have the same action or activity that is being reported on the better. And, for example, just theoretically thinking one person can see both sides of the cup at once. So when two people are observing it at the same time, you get a better description of the object in question. And so the more witnesses that have viewed it, the more impressions we can get after the fact of what has actually happened and the object that we're observing

Mark Bankston (00:42:53.000)

in your first few years at Infowars, were you comfortable with the style of journalism and the stories you were working on? informally?

Mark Enoch (00:43:06.000)

Anytime I make a suggestion like that certainly can go. Off and one thing, I may ask you not to answer based on the privilege, that's your choice. That's, that's my client trying to protect the privilege. But when I jet, say objection, form, or leading, you can go ahead and answer okay.

Mark Bankston (00:43:27.000)

Do you like me to ask that question, I guess, please. In those first few years at Infowars, were you comfortable with the style of journalism and the stories you were working on?

Rob Jacobson (00:43:41.000)

I was comfortable with the films I was producing and helping Alex produce, I found them interesting. And I found that Alex did present enough expert testimony that it held water in my mind,

Dan (00:43:59.000)

that's absolutely terrible judgment. That's

Jordan (00:44:01.000)

an insane thing to say.

Dan (00:44:03.000)

I think that some of the stuff that he's saying makes a lot of sense, like the idea that he can see both sides of the cup at the same time. So having the most perspectives on the cup allows you to know what the cup is. Great. That's good on paper. There's one viewpoint in those documentaries that he put out. And that's Alex, it does seem to be the case. You know, there's not anything that unbiased and that there's, there is complete misrepresentation of very basic facts. It's It's nonsense. If you really wanted to do the kind of work that you're describing, then your documentary would have had people who are like, this is a load of bullshit, right? Or giving at least some kind of a counter perspective to, to Alex's utter nonsense, right? Instead of just interviewing Big Jim Tucker, in a bar while he smokes cigars and hangs out with Daniel is stolen.

Jordan (00:44:56.000)

Right? Right. Right. So maybe what he's more thinking is like his style of journalism is, you know, like one person can't see both sides of the cup. But one person can tell you that the cup is actually a goat. And if you have 1000 people behind that, but one person convincing you that that cup is a goat, then you're probably going to believe that cup is a goat.

Dan (00:45:14.000)

Right? That makes sense. And if you present things with enough, quote unquote, experts, people who appear to be experts, like dumb as Big Jim Tucker, then you give the appearance of something that can hold water. Yep. Yeah, I think if that's the perspective that you have in like, 2018 2019, about the work that was done on endgame. Yeah, then you're missing the forest for the fucking trees. Yeah. Because that was a bad documentary.

Jordan (00:45:47.000)

I don't want to I don't want to denigrate STEM education, because I do think it's very, very important. But a lot of the times, I feel like maybe one of the larger problems that we have is just the inability to translate words into concepts and have them make sense. And maybe that starts young. That's all I'm saying.

Dan (00:46:04.000)

I think I think that there is a big dip. There's a difficulty that I have combining this seeming. Being fine with the documentary work, that holds water, and simultaneously being somebody who within Infowars was saying this coverage of Sandy Hook is bad at the time. Yeah. You know, like being aware of that, and still being fine with what you did with endgame. That's trouble. That's, that's very weird for me. Well, I

Jordan (00:46:38.000)

mean, you have to stop and say, Okay, well, what are the problems that you had with this, specifically? And in what way? Did those not apply to literally everything you've ever done there?

Dan (00:46:49.000)

Right. So there's a issue of like fact checking that Alex does. This was this seems dumb.

Mark Bankston (00:46:58.000)

Mr. Jacobson in terms of Infowars consistency or process for corroborating facts. In your mind, had that changed between the start of your employment and the end of your employment? Objection? Objection.

Rob Jacobson (00:47:17.000)

I feel that from the beginning, when I first started working there, the fact collection was mostly Alex and mostly himself was the researcher. By the end, Alex did let a lot of others do research for him. And I don't know if these people were specifically qualified or experienced enough to do that kind of

Dan (00:47:39.000)

work. Ah, now here's the twist. Neither was out.

Jordan (00:47:42.000)

Yeah, there we go. That was the that's the interesting problem I'm having with this explanation.

Dan (00:47:49.000)

Why were things weren't sunny in 2005 2006. Like things were so rigorous, and everything was by the book and Alex, Alex in his precise checking methodology know he was full of shit. And he hired a bunch of other people who are full of shit, right? And they care even less.

Jordan (00:48:09.000)

Yeah, well see, when Alex stopped making up his own bullshit. That's when it all went downhill. That's when he gave creative control over fantasy reality to other people. Now, God knows what could happen. Well, like when

Dan (00:48:22.000)

Alex says he has the documents. It makes sense. When Owen says Alex has the documents. i It's bullshit.

Jordan (00:48:29.000)

Yeah. Okay. All right. Okay. What what do you think, though? What, what is it? What is the issue that people? Oh,

Dan (00:48:37.000)

man. So I will say that one of the things I do appreciate, and we can't really take away is that Rob does own up to and clearly feels bad about being involved in whatever capacity he was with the coverage of Sandy Hook. And so he talks about that a little bit and what he tried to do at the time,

Mark Bankston (00:49:00.000)

a few months back, do you remember calling me about this case? Yes, sir. Why did you do that?

Rob Jacobson (00:49:05.000)

I was concerned. I wanted to make sure. I felt that was part of something just being in that building. When all this was going down. I felt terrible would happen. I even though I myself. Know I wasn't directly involved in you know, putting this out there directly just being in the building, I feel complicit I feel I have to right or wrong that I was involved in even though I was part of that wrong. I want to at least stack a couple of correct decisions up with some of the mistakes that I've made in the past.

Mark Bankston (00:49:47.000)

When you say that you weren't directly involved in putting this out there. What is this? This would

Rob Jacobson (00:49:55.000)

be Sandy Hook. Anything that Infowars put out Concerning Sandy Hook, I had absolutely no involvement in

Mark Bankston (00:50:05.000)

during your employment. Were you exposed to Infowars coverage of Sandy Hook?

Rob Jacobson (00:50:13.000)

During my employment I had other assignments to do. And I wouldn't much pay attention to the show. However, when I did, and I heard about Sandy Hook, it actually bothered me.

Mark Bankston (00:50:27.000)

Tell me what you mean by that. What did you hear that bothered you?

Rob Jacobson (00:50:31.000)

I heard them making accusations based on extremely narrow cross sections of information that I did my best to make the writers and the staff aware that what they were doing was speculation based on not enough information. It bothered me that bothered me that I felt they had no concept of journalist ethics.

Mark Bankston (00:51:00.000)

Did you tell anyone at Infowars your feelings about the Sandy Hook coverage,

Rob Jacobson (00:51:07.000)

I attempted to make it as clear as possible to the writers that there is something called journalist ethics and how what they were doing was in a direct violation of that, anytime I caught wind of the Sandy Hook story on Infowars. Now mind you, I would like to add that it's not something I was thinking about all the time, considering I had other things to do, I'd be working on other projects. But when it would come on the screen, I would make it my business to go into the writers and explain to them as clearly as possible that there is journalist ethics, and I tried to demonstrate what those ethics are and why they are violating them and what the damage could possibly be. In fact, they remember

Rob Jacobson (00:52:02.000)

I must have been in that room, four to five times at least, and only to be received with laughter and jokes.

Dan (00:52:12.000)

I don't understand what the journalist ethics he's talking about here is because if it's like taking a small cross section of information, or like, that's all Infowars does, uh, yeah, I mean, the like, the, like, the principle behind whatever he's describing is exactly the same as Yeah, 90% of the work that he does. Now, if this is the case, and he's working on these other projects, and whenever he catches wind, that Sandy Hook is being covered, there is some offense that he takes it that I don't understand how you like, let's say you're barely ever watching the show. And sometimes you catch it, and you're they're talking about Sandy Hook, and you're like, This is fucked up. Yeah. I don't understand why your next step wouldn't be like, maybe we should watch more of the show and see if they're doing this all the time. Yeah, maybe I should see if they're treating other subjects with this much disrespect and lack of care. Maybe I'm involved in a really awful thing here. Yeah, it seems like. And I think that everybody wants to pretend this, especially everybody who worked at Infowars. This is like a unique, isolated thing. Yeah. It's just an aberration.

Jordan (00:53:25.000)

It's crazy that this happened. It's not connected to anything. Yeah, it is that the thing? Here's what I can. The only way I can make sense of it is, it's easy to understand when you fucked up if you receive negative consequences. Or if like, people make it aware to you that you fucked up. It's really hard to understand you fucked up if people give you positive consequences for it, or encourage you to keep doing it. Well, so so to me, it does make sense in a certain way for him to think that he's done a good job on some stuff, because people gave him positive reinforcement for sure. You know, and it's easy for him to understand that this is bad, because people have been negative about it. He's in a deposition. Right.

Dan (00:54:09.000)

Right. But he didn't do anything wrong.

Jordan (00:54:13.000)

I know of that's the weirdest part about this. Yeah. Is that I that's the thing. I don't understand. Yeah, I can't I can't reconcile that.

Dan (00:54:20.000)

On all accounts. He did things right. His coverage of stuff than his work. Product didn't involve Sandy Hook. When he caught wind internally that it was being covered. He told people this is bad. Don't do this. I know. You know, it's not. He doesn't have like I get working at Infowars is bad. And all of it is bad. But that's what he has to feel bad about. Yeah, not the sandboxed. I mean, he was never any business being in this deposition, obviously. Yeah.

Jordan (00:54:55.000)

Normally I would be like, Oh, well, obviously he's, he's lying, but we have evidence that he did. To say,

Dan (00:55:00.000)

Yeah, stop it. Yeah. You know, Salazar bullied.

Jordan (00:55:05.000)

I don't I don't understand this at all right? Just no way to reconcile this in a way that makes sense. And there's no consistency. It feels like the aberration is him being like, Oh, well, this is wrong. Right. Well, but that's the that's the week's

Dan (00:55:21.000)

confusing. I don't really I don't Yeah. So anyway, Rob talks about his complaints that he made to Don Salazar,

Rob Jacobson (00:55:30.000)

whenever this subject came up, I would immediately clarify to the writers that there is a journalistic ethics that they're violating. And what I've pointed out to Adan specifically, is that you're taking the word of one witness primarily, and a couple of speculative others facts, and calling it the truth without actually going down and investigating it ourselves, or actually going with our own reporters, and corroborating what these people are saying, I made it aware to Adan that Wolfgang Halbig could have a lot of issues, that we're not considering that by taking the word of this one man so heavily with such a great accusation that he's accusing people of was so irresponsible, so damaging, because I asked him, consider the size of the audience. And Adan Salazar responded with. And I'm going to quote him, and because he said it to me many times. I want to print up a t shirt that says How big was right. I want bumper stickers that say How big was right. To a laughing room.

Dan (00:56:45.000)

Yeah, there's been other people who have said that, yes, you know that that story checks out? But like,

Jordan (00:56:52.000)

and he's emotional about I don't understand. What is it about this? That is different from the Aurora?

Dan (00:57:01.000)

Sure. Or what about this is different than like, he's saying relying on Wolfgang how big Yeah, maybe he has other problems? Like, what about thinking about end game and relying on Jim Tucker, who works for a holocaust denying publication? Or maybe has a severe alcoholism, even as demonstrated in the fucking film? You made it clear? Or what about relying on Daniel estulin, who's a lunatic and citations to people who think their space God, I don't in his book, like, this is the product that he was, you know, put out that title, Rob Jacobs in this documentary that he thinks is not like these other things that Infowars has done? And it just doesn't make sense to me? I don't know. I don't I don't get it. I don't I don't get it because I don't think he is. Honestly, as it relates to Sandy Hook. The only thing he has to apologize for, I guess, is that he didn't quit. Yeah, that's all he has to apologize for. And that has no real relevance in a courtroom. No, it has no real relevance in a deposition. As they go through the questions about this stuff that is relevant to Sandy Hook. He doesn't know that much. The only thing that you could really concretely take away from this perhaps is that like, he's an AV guy. Right? He can speak with some credibility about the idea of Anderson Cooper's nose on a blue screen. Sure. So like there's that, that he can offer as like my expert witness witness. But there's other people you could get to do that. Yeah, I don't I don't know. I guess I appreciate on some level that he feels bad about connecting him being connected to this right. But I, I don't know, it feels like he's asking for for sort of forgiveness or penitence for the wrong thing. Yeah. It just doesn't make sense.

Jordan (00:58:58.000)

It is a group of thoughts that I cannot imagine having in your brain simultaneously, like I did wrong, but I didn't do wrong. But also I did do wrong, but also I did. Like it's wild. I don't I don't understand how many different possible avenues that he can both excuse his behavior, be excused for his behavior, and then still not understand that his behavior is reprehensible. And there's no excuse for you know, like, I don't I don't get it.

Dan (00:59:29.000)

Yeah, the behavior that's the problem is being a part of creating like foundational texts within the Infowars canon, right? They are relied on to lend credibility to things like the coverage of Sandy Hook right? There is there is that to wrestle with, and let's not present here at all.

Jordan (00:59:49.000)

It's somebody who helped build a church who helped build this entire church and then it's like, oh, man, I'm really sorry for those guys who put that steeple on there that the church is terrible. Now, you know, I just don't And not even that I don't even

Dan (01:00:01.000)

it's it's, it's, I don't know, it doesn't make a lot of sense now. So anyway, Rob explains, like a problem that he has with Infowars coverage. And I would say if you have a problem with this, you got to go back to page one baby,

Mark Bankston (01:00:15.000)

when you're at Infowars. In general, if a person did something in public, that was agitating, was that good for their career at Infowars or bad for their career, it

Rob Jacobson (01:00:28.000)

was, it was excellent for their career. I can point to several examples where it's not recording at all, it's pure agitation, by many, several if, and I have also been very critical of that. It's been it's been pure. In fact, some of it is so agitating. It's almost to the level of public disruption. So including, can I go on?

Mark Enoch (01:00:54.000)

Please? Objection non responsive so far.

Mark Bankston (01:00:59.000)

Let me ask, Can you give me an example of some of the things you're talking about when you say agitation?

Rob Jacobson (01:01:03.000)

Yes, Miss Millie Weaver last year or the year before that? I'm not sure when, but it was in the last perhaps 12 months, I believe. Because it was after I left. She showed up at a Hillary Clinton book signing event that was our book people. These people were not there to protest. These people were not there to Hillary, this is far after the election, nobody was campaigning. But Miss Millie Weaver decided to show up with a lot of Trump gear, which obviously is going to be as we follow the news, we know is agitating towards in a very political way, you know, so, in my opinion, just by looking at that, I noticed that reporters don't show up sponsoring politicians. So for her to go there and say and in fact, the name of this video on YouTube is called journalist harassed or something. She identifies herself as a journalist, while she shows up wearing political gear, directly aiming at the opposite end of the spectrum, asking a brace of questions about Hillary Hillary Clinton. Now that's not journalism. That's agitation. And that is a clear cut case example of them swapping out the words agitation for journalism and vice versa.

Dan (01:02:28.000)

But this is fundamental like Alex's family crest might as well have a bullhorn on it. That's his whole claim to visitation. He agitates he goes in yells at people and makes a scene. That's how that's who he is.

Jordan (01:02:43.000)

It's not it's not tyranny, journalism. It's tyranny Crusher.

Dan (01:02:46.000)

No most a large portion of endgame is him yelling, he's yelling.

Jordan (01:02:51.000)

He's going to a place where people are not protesting or whatever. And he's causing problems. Yeah,

Dan (01:02:58.000)

this is the Info Wars bottle. Alex paid people to yell Bill Clinton as a rapist was

Jordan (01:03:03.000)

on TV. That was the thing that journalists and a contest for people

Dan (01:03:09.000)

to do that right, like it's it. Again, this is missing the forest for the trees entirely. You take issue with Millie Weaver doing that. But that is what Infowars is. That is the business that you were involved in for 13 years? Yeah. And how could you not know you obviously know that you have to know that maybe you're blocking yourself from being aware of it or showing awareness? It's possible, but like that is not in any way different than what they do? Nope. This is what the business model is. Yeah. Being if you have a problem with it, then I don't know what to tell you.

Jordan (01:03:46.000)

Yeah, I mean, it did you Did he have like four years of reflection and therapy and stuff. And he honestly say no, because this is what we've lost a year after

Dan (01:03:55.000)

he left. Oh, he got fired. So it's maybe a year or third. Wow. I

Jordan (01:04:00.000)

mean, I hope so. That'd be nice. But seems like he's passionate about them fucking up in this case. Sure. Yeah,

Dan (01:04:07.000)

I would, I would love to see a larger understanding or reflection on the way that the things that he's complaining about are actually essential pieces of Infowars. Not things that are recent, not things that have only to do with Sandy Hook. They are what Alex does. These are bugs. These are features what his documentaries featured as well. Yeah, not absolutely not just Infowars outside of his projects and things. Yeah. So I don't know. I don't know what to say. Anyway. There. He definitely had some complaints internally. Yes. Wow. Sandy Hook was happening. Dr. Coverage. Yeah. And there was another person who did and that is Paul Joseph Watson. And so Mark asks about Paul's opinion.

Mark Bankston (01:04:58.000)

Can you tell us who Paul was? Watson is.

Rob Jacobson (01:05:01.000)

Paul Watson is sort of Alex's alternate host. He's basically like Alex's sidekick. Okay.

Mark Bankston (01:05:15.000)

We're Have you ever been aware of Mr. Watson's opinions about the Sandy Hook hoax allegations?

Dan (01:05:23.000)

No. See, that is one of the reasons that I think he's pretty outside any kind of like internal stuff.

Jordan (01:05:32.000)

Well, he doesn't really communicate at all with Paul Watson. Right.

Dan (01:05:36.000)

Yeah. But also Paul made a big deal out of it. He, you know, that email? He had Buckley on it. They were supposed to tell everyone to stop talking about Sandy Hook. Conceivably, that might have involved in all hands meeting you would expect? I don't know. It seems like if you didn't know that Paul, took great issue with this. Yeah. And you also took great issue with this. That seems to me that everybody is disconnected. And Paul is clearly on the inside. Yeah. And maybe Rob is over here? Well, I

Jordan (01:06:08.000)

mean, I would assume they didn't know that. I mean, I don't think they really publicized internally that people didn't like it.

Dan (01:06:18.000)

They definitely seem to think they did.

Jordan (01:06:21.000)

Well, no, I mean, like in the other. Like, I don't assume that Rob do. And Alex, were both going around being like, Hey, make sure that we don't do this thing. They say that they did. Well, they say that they did, but they clearly obviously didn't.

Dan (01:06:36.000)

I don't know. All right. I don't know what to believe. Anyway, the like I said, one of the things that Rob's testimony could be good for is the audio visual aspect. And so they talk about the blue screen situation. And I think unfortunately, Rob affirms Alex's conspiracy. Oh, no.

Mark Bankston (01:06:55.000)

Would anybody with competent video experience have serious doubts about saying this was blue screen objection form?

Rob Jacobson (01:07:05.000)

I feel they would they would, they would be on the fence. If, if they saw this video, they would have questions. Okay. Can I go further and explain that?

Mark Bankston (01:07:20.000)

X? Let me ask you a question on that. Your opinion about whether or not it can be fairly asserted that this is clearly blue screen? In forming your opinion on whether that could be asserted? Can you tell me about any of the things you see in this video or any of your experience that would inform that opinion?

Rob Jacobson (01:07:41.000)

There's nothing sorry, objection form. There's nothing in that video that will clearly indicate to me that that was blue blue screen video.

Mark Bankston (01:07:50.000)

Okay. If a witness if anyone was to say, I can look at that video, I work with blue screen, it's got all the telltale signs. That's clearly blue screen. In your opinion, is that person acting responsibly?

Rob Jacobson (01:08:08.000)

No, I don't. I think that based on what we see on that screen, that could be that error in the nose could have been caused by a number of different reasons. And none of them are clear. From what we see there without knowing what happened behind the scenes with the operating room controllers, and so on and so forth. That could have been a natural glitch that happens all the time on YouTube. We see it all the time where pixels smudge, there is no secret about that there's must be a million videos or more where pixels smudge all the time. In order for that connection to continue,

Mark Bankston (01:08:51.000)

if you if you have more facts that you bear

Rob Jacobson (01:08:53.000)

base, the only thing I could do, the only thing I could tell you about that is the only way that that is possibly green screen is if Anderson Cooper is not standing next to that woman.

Dan (01:09:02.000)

Yeah, that is what Alex claims.

Jordan (01:09:04.000)

Yeah, that would be

Dan (01:09:05.000)

Yeah. So I mean, like, obviously, there is a usefulness there in terms of like, now, if you know about green screen blue screen technology, that is not something you would immediately jump to right, you'd have questions and there will be 100 explanations for what you see there. Right blue screen is not definite Alex saying it's definite is irresponsible. But then the the only way that's blue screen is if Anderson Cooper wasn't there, it's like that is yeah, that's what Alex is saying.

Jordan (01:09:33.000)

Yep. Yep. That's that's kind of the point. Did they do they have it like, okay, so I'm envisioning now, like Rob is working in an office, right. Okay. And sometimes Alex comes and sees him. So he thinks that he's working in an office with Alex, but it's actually like entirely across town. You know, like he's not even in the same building as those people know, because

Dan (01:09:57.000)

he goes to the writer. He's gone to the haters in the facility,

Jordan (01:10:02.000)

it's insane to me how far away from the reality of the business he seems to

Dan (01:10:08.000)

be. Yeah. You know what, here's the other thing like maybe I've been in some jobs in my short, let me just say that, haven't we all? And there have been times when I have not done a lot of work, but definitely wanted to look like. We're sure that's been there. And maybe Rob's other assignments were just killing time. I mean, has he just been doing nothing for 10 years? Just hoping Alex doesn't notice.

Jordan (01:10:36.000)

Really? Like, if I keep my head down? I think I could just stay here.

Dan (01:10:40.000)

I have definitely done that at certain times. So I was looking outside of the, like, possibility in terms of how, you know, some sometimes you can fly under the radar. You know, don't bring too much attention to yourself.

Jordan (01:10:55.000)

I have in the past or asked myself the question, how long can I get away with this for? Yeah, that's that's definitely true.

Dan (01:11:02.000)

Yeah. My days are numbered here.

Jordan (01:11:06.000)

I'll just hang out and see what happens. I

Dan (01:11:09.000)

can't believe I made it three months longer than I thought I would. Great. So, Rob, his awareness of the fact that like parents of victims were not happy. did not come from anything internal. Turns out he was watching PBS.

Mark Bankston (01:11:29.000)

anytime during your time at Infowars. Pass 2013. Were you aware that parents had been complaining about this coverage?

Rob Jacobson (01:11:38.000)

No, not immediately. I really became aware of it. sometime afterwards, when I saw actually, I think a PBS special on what was going on, and it really hit home at that point. I was like this is.

Dan (01:11:51.000)

So he watched a PBS special right. And that's how we became aware of the parents weren't happy, right? And this PBS special also was where he learned that there was harassment going on.

Mark Bankston (01:12:03.000)

Did you ever become aware that parents were being harassed by believers in the Sandy Hook hoax conspiracy theory?

Rob Jacobson (01:12:10.000)

Yes, I became aware of that.

Mark Bankston (01:12:13.000)

When do you think you became aware of that?

Rob Jacobson (01:12:16.000)

Somewhere around 2014 2015, maybe 2015?

Rob Jacobson (01:12:31.000)

When I saw that PBS documentary.

Mark Bankston (01:12:35.000)

So the PBS documentary you saw that was when you were employed, and

Rob Jacobson (01:12:39.000)

I was still employed there.

Dan (01:12:41.000)

He was still employed there saw this, it all became very real to him. And then he still worked there for two more years. And

Jordan (01:12:48.000)

I put my hat on, and I said, Good morning, Sam. Good morning, Ralph. That's weird. Ah, oh,

Dan (01:12:57.000)

I don't understand that at all. Really?

Jordan (01:13:02.000)

I mean, I feel like I don't I feel like maybe I am just, I guess morally inflexible in a way that I thought that I thought was far more reasonable. But maybe it's just a bit unusual. Because that seems to me like the moment you find that out, you can't be like, well, least it's not my department, and then just go back to work the next day,

Dan (01:13:23.000)

you kind of I think, have to shut down any pretense that you have a moral connection told or doing totally, and it has to, like it's so cynical to go back to work after after saying it became very real to you and becoming aware of the parents are being harassed. Yep. And you know what I mean, like he got fired two years later, he didn't even quit eventually. Like, he presumably would still be working there under harassing awful abusive conditions. Like I'm not saying he deserves that are being sure. But had he not been fired? Would he still be working there?

Jordan (01:14:00.000)

Possibly. Maybe?

Dan (01:14:03.000)

It's, I don't get this. I don't understand.

Jordan (01:14:07.000)

I recognize that that concept of like, well, that's the businesses fault, not mine. Right. So I get that so but it's not like you're in that's not like you're working for Chase Bank, as like an analyst of insurance or something like that, where it's like, yeah, I get it. The company you work for is evil. I understand that. But it's not like a business where you can go talk to the CEO doing evil shit, and be like, Hey, stop it and he can tell you to go fuck off. You know, you're just a cog in that little machine. This is a different story. Well,

Dan (01:14:39.000)

I think that he has obviously marketable skills. Sure he has talent in a way that a lot of other people who work for Infowars don't like a lot of the writers are not employable anywhere else right? Do shit work because they're bad writer. The reporters suck, they can't work anywhere else. The people on air don't have the chops to cut it. Any Where else? He has audio visual skills that like he has a trade basically, that could be employed somewhere else. I

Jordan (01:15:08.000)

mean, he could walk into a local TV station. Yeah, I'm fairly certain that that saying those jobs are just available to anybody. But you know what I mean? Yeah, he could

Dan (01:15:18.000)

find a job somewhere else much more easily than I think a lot of the other people were locked up in info war. Totally. I'm not saying I'm not saying it would be the simplest thing ever. But it is a possibility in a way that a lot of other people probably think I'm completely unemployable anywhere else because of this being on my resume. Maybe not as much for Rob. I don't think that it's always the simplest thing when people work in places that you know, like, you have some misgivings about the ethical nature of what you're doing. Yeah. But there that's on a different scale. A lot of time from the the reality of Infowars. Yeah, and I don't know, I don't I find it, I find it to be worse, that he knows how bad this is. Yeah. You know, the fact might be the issue, the fact that he was saying to people, while the Sandy Hook coverage was going on that this is bad. That makes it more difficult for me to understand his non quitting. Yeah, because it should have wore on him more. Because he does have a moral compass. He's demonstrated that certain things are beyond a line for him. And it turns out that maybe just the line doesn't matter.

Jordan (01:16:38.000)

Yeah, I don't know. I mean, I guess now we're kind of getting into a more deeper conversation about the diffusion of responsibility, you know, to, like, at what point do you say, Well, I can't work on an oil derrick, like it's morally reprehensible? Because it is, I mean, that's a true thing. I go, What do you say to that? You know, you have to ask yourself that question.

Dan (01:17:02.000)

I get what you're saying. And I think the difference is abstraction. The I agree, the abstractness of the harm that you're causing, by working on an oil derrick or something is different than the very clearly traceable line totally from the dissemination and promotion of Sandy Hook conspiracy theorist. And the harm you're seeing brought home in very vivid light in PBS special, right, you know, like, there is a very clear line. When the line started, you were aware of how bad it could be. And when the line ended, you saw Oh, I was right, about how bad it could be. And these are people whose lives are clearly severely negatively impacted by the work that we do at my job.

Jordan (01:17:54.000)

Yeah, I suppose I suppose that's that's kind of it. That's the really the line there is just like, Hey, I saw this, you do this, I told you to not to do this, that it's wrong. And then you continue doing it. So I can't work here anymore, right?

Dan (01:18:08.000)

If you are somebody who works at an oil rig, and you have an understanding of like a harm that's being done to the world and stuff, right, there is not all that much that you can do to remedy that harm. Right, in the broad sense outside of like,

Jordan (01:18:25.000)

quit stay, it's not really going to make any difference in terms of

Dan (01:18:29.000)

well, and you can make an argument maybe that Rob quitting wouldn't have made that big a difference either towards the damage done, but like the, in order to make any kind of headway. You need to change the energy consumption patterns of the world. Yeah. You know, there's a much larger thing that needs to be done right. To to assuage your concerns with Rob. I, you can? I don't know.

Jordan (01:18:58.000)

I don't know.

Dan (01:18:58.000)

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

Jordan (01:19:00.000)

I don't know.

Dan (01:19:00.000)

I don't think it's the same.

Jordan (01:19:01.000)

It doesn't feel the same. Nope.

Dan (01:19:04.000)

So he was severe for him when he was concerned about the behavior of the writers. He does say it as a 10 on the outrageousness scale.

Mark Bankston (01:19:17.000)

When you were, as you mentioned earlier, communicating your thoughts to people at Infowars about the Sandy Hook coverage. Can you describe to me on a scale of one be not outrageous at all? And 10 being extremely outrageous on that one to 10 scale? What is the level of outrageousness of this conduct that you were trying to impart? I thought it was a 10. Tell me why you thought that

Rob Jacobson (01:19:51.000)

mean it's one thing to make a mistake. It's another thing to have somebody come in and I don't even I'm not aware if I was the one and only person or not but But I know I was doing it to come in and say, Hey, this is wrong, you're making a mistake. It's one thing you know, to actually have a mistake. And something else that have it pointed out to you, not just once, but over and over and over again. And to not only hear the damage that you're doing to people outside of your zone, but to actually laugh about it. I thought it was a that's a 10. If it's

Dan (01:20:28.000)

a 10, what are you doing? Why don't I just don't understand why

Jordan (01:20:32.000)

you don't quit. If you're saying that that's a 10, then nothing can make you quit. It's also what you're saying.

Dan (01:20:37.000)

True? There is no 11 there's no 11 now and here's the other thing that is something you should grapple with. If this is a 10 out of 10 on the outrageousness scale, and the people who are doing it are not fired by Alex. They are congratulated may be loud. Id maybe

Jordan (01:20:56.000)

see even bonuses and shit. Yes. Which we know has happened. Maybe

Dan (01:21:01.000)

that should be a strong indication that this this rock goes to the core. Yeah, the entire business. Alex incentivizes 10 out of 10 on the outrageousness scale, because his sign on his family crest is a bullhorn.

Jordan (01:21:17.000)

I mean, that's, that's such a weird. I don't know if you if you're claiming to that kind of moral relativity. That's just insane. That's at a certain point. That just means like, oh, well, listen, I want him to keep it at a seven of outrageousness. That's where I think it's supposed to be. That's good journalism. Like that's insane. Well,

Dan (01:21:38.000)

I would, I would argue that it's possible to make the argument that a seven is not what you'd call good journalism, but maybe it's something sustainable and like, you could get along with like a publicity stunt might be a seven, like a semi tasteless publicity stunt, like yelling Bill Clinton as a rapist and having people paying people to do that. Maybe that's a seven out of 10 Chevy outrageousness scale, and I could see you staying employed, you know, and being like, oh, whatever, maybe I'm not a huge fan of that. But you know, we'll do our work. A 10 out of 10 in this, like, you gotta quit, man, what are you doing?

Jordan (01:22:16.000)

I know, I don't understand this person.

Dan (01:22:21.000)

Unless there's like, blackmail or a gun to his head or something. Just, I it's, it's make more sense. Yeah, I can't I can't make it make more sense.

Jordan (01:22:30.000)

I, you know, I don't know, if it's an abusive, maybe it's an abusive relationship. And we can't really judge him for not being able to exit that relationship the way that he wanted, you know, if you experience that much abuse, and you think that's where you belong, or deserve to be placed, perhaps he's perhaps his penance really was enduring the continued abuse? Fuck if I know, the psychology of this man is beyond me. That's what I'm trying to

Dan (01:22:59.000)

say. If that's the case. I don't want to get into I don't even want to get

Jordan (01:23:03.000)

into it. Yeah. I don't understand you.

Dan (01:23:07.000)

So in this next clip, Rob discusses that he has guilt. And that's good. I guess. Do you today

Mark Bankston (01:23:13.000)

have any sense of guilt about the coverage about Sandy Hook that came out of Infowars

Mark Enoch (01:23:23.000)

form? Leading?

Rob Jacobson (01:23:25.000)

Yes, as I've mentioned in my statements previously, the reason why I'm here is because a tremendous amount of guilt that I didn't act faster. Maybe I should have quit. Maybe I could have caught the story faster. Been better at explaining but yes, I do.

Mark Bankston (01:23:46.000)

Responsible. Are you still on friendly terms with Infowars? No. Were you terminated?

Dan (01:23:52.000)

Yes. So I don't like I said already. I don't understand why he has any guilt. Not the the notion of like, maybe I should have quit. Yeah. But that's about you. Yeah, that's for you to wrestle with has nothing to do with anything else. The the idea that maybe I could have done something better, or maybe I could have gotten this story. I could have acted more internally. No, you fucking couldn't. Paul Joseph Watson is one of the most powerful people within Infowars true. He was opposed to this made it clear to Alex got Alex's cousin who was a manager at Infowars. who agreed with him, yeah. looped in on the same thing that didn't do shit. There was not anything that could have been done because this is what Alex wanted. That's true. This is how things were going to go no matter what. So yes. The only thing I think maybe he should feel guilty about maybe not the only thing but the primary thing here is that he didn't quit and that's about his own well being that is about his own shit. Yeah. Is he owes no real apology necessary. I don't know, I don't I put

Jordan (01:25:05.000)

out this that actually I can understand I can understand the feeling. Because if you do believe that this is something of an anomaly, right? I can understand the feeling of someone just being like, Oh, well, there's more I could have done it. You know, if, if one of my friends gets into a car accident, and we were supposed to do something, and they quit, or whatever, maybe I would feel like, Oh, I could have done more to keep them from getting in that car. Like I can recognize that kind of guilt there, they can recognize the feeling of like, well, this is my fault, or it's somewhat misplaced, though it is very misplaced. The guilt that we're dealing with here is best placed, yeah, everywhere is misplaced.

Dan (01:25:47.000)

Well, but here's the thing, like all these other people that we've heard talk about stuff, it's misplaced in the sense of like trying to evade responsibility, whereas with Rob, there is a feeling of like trying to dodge an overcorrection. Yeah, and I don't understand why, like, I obviously can't speak for anybody who's involved or anything, but like, he didn't do things that contributed to making this story worse, right. As far as we know, from all available information, right? He did what he could internally to de incentivize people to do it speaking out saying it's wrong. What have you like, but you

Jordan (01:26:25.000)

know, I mean, that's part of what he's recognizing, though, is like, maybe I could have done more, I should have done more. Or maybe I could have quit, I should have quit, you know, maybe you should have quit in 2004. That's what would have made the most sense, but we can't we can't read litigate this deposition. Otherwise, I'd have to start talking shit to Enoch. Okay, true. That's where we'd really get into trouble.

Dan (01:26:46.000)

I guess I'm just confused. This is a very different deposition in terms of like, what you can walk away from it from, because there isn't a lot of like, super relevant information that you glean from it. There is just somebody who is really seeking some kind of forgiveness, absolution. Uh, yeah. In a way, that doesn't make sense. None. And I hope he finds whatever he needs. And I wish him the best. I'm not I'm not I don't want to sit around and shit on him right or anything? Because I think that certainly the ability to feel guilt, even if misplaced, is a drastic improvement. So it'll serve other people better than everybody else. But yeah, it's just very confusing. Yeah. So one of the things that is also relevant is that Rob has his EEOC complaint at this time, and it's still to be seen how it'll play out. And there is a question about like, you know, if this case does go forward, do you stand to profit from that? Right? And Rob is says no. And in fact, he stands to lose Yeah, in as much as like he won't be

Jordan (01:28:04.000)

a primary creditor, even if he did when he would be far more far less likely to receive any percent of his money period. Yeah.

Dan (01:28:12.000)

So he only stands conceivably to not the opposite of benefit from this. Yeah. And he makes the point that he's, I think

Jordan (01:28:20.000)

one of the remedies, hurting EEOC complaint is to immediately receive your job back, which I do not really

Dan (01:28:27.000)

know. So but he makes a point. And I think it's fair to make note of that he's not interested in compensation, in terms of his involvement, right.

Rob Jacobson (01:28:38.000)

I'm not doing any of this for compensation. I'm doing this because Alex is disgracing himself so badly, and the way he has made the parents suffer, as well as myself. He's still on the air to this day, saying things that are arguably true or arguably not true, we don't know. But we do know that affects his audience in a way that angers them and mobilizes them. And it's unclear of anything he's saying is fact or fiction, opinion or speculation, isn't it? What he does do is mobilize a large amount of people in irrational thinking, because there's no way to tell whether what Alex is saying on the air is news or not true or false speculation or opinion, jokes or not, but he advertises it all as news, he is the Info Wars.

Dan (01:29:29.000)

But when was that not the case? I mean, granted, I agree with him to the extent of like, if I'm gonna try and make this better, I would say that Alex has gotten more like outrageous or unhinged, sure. But like, not not knowing whether he's saying things that are opinion or fact. Say he constantly when we go back to 2003 and we're listening these episodes he's like this has been proved Bam, yeah, you know, like he's saying all this complete bullshit. And he's inciting people. He's making them angry about this existential threat to their life. Like this has been his MO the entire time. It's not a recent thing. So I don't know, I feel like if there was a, like a sincere belief that this is the problem, then it would be. It would always be a problem. Maybe you're not aware of it earlier, automate, become aware of it, right. But then this, these complaints should be much more holistic,

Jordan (01:30:35.000)

I suppose I suppose here's the questions that I would want is I would want to ask, what was the first time Alex did something that broke what you were your moral framework? You know, what was the first time that he's overstepped those boundaries? And then why did you decide to stay?

Dan (01:30:55.000)

That would be a good question for like a grilling, maybe not for marks purposes,

Jordan (01:31:00.000)

not for marks purposes by me for our purposes of this conversation? Sure. That's what I would like to know before I can be like, Oh, here's why.

Dan (01:31:07.000)

I wonder if you'd get an answer. I wonder if because the answer should be documentaries, I worked, you know, it is like,

Jordan (01:31:13.000)

I wonder if the answer is something that he would even be able to express on, not just honestly, but like, truly, you know, like, Is the answer that he would give something that he's created in his own mind as an answer for that question. Yeah. And it's not a true answer, even though he may believe it to be you know, it? Sure. It's that question. And

Dan (01:31:32.000)

I'll grant that there have been other interviews that he's done that I have. I haven't listened to. So I don't know. I don't know if he explained some of that stuff in those interviews. But I'm not covering those. Yeah, here we are. Yeah, we're in a deposition. Yeah. So Mark wraps things up. And let's Rob go to the hallway. How is he not going to be a dick? And

Mark Bankston (01:31:54.000)

that's all I have for you at this time.

Mark Enoch (01:31:56.000)

I appreciate it. Go ahead. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you go? Sure.

Mark Bankston (01:31:58.000)

I'm I have. That's all I have for you. In terms of questions. I have a few things I need to put on record. Your email? Yeah, sure. They don't need to concern you. If you would like to be excused, while I put this on the record, I

Mark Enoch (01:32:12.000)

can do that. And I would like to ask questions, you're going to prevent me from doing that more?

Mark Bankston (01:32:16.000)

We're going to talk about that on the record in just a moment. Well, that's what I'm asking you. Yeah, so we're gonna let Mr. Jacobson go. Because we're not going to have this discussion in front of a witness or we're not going to do we're not going to let him leave the building mark, we're going to let Mr. Jacobson go to the bathroom. And then I am going to put something on the record. And then if you have some things to say about it, you can say whatever you want on the right steps, and then Mr. Jacobson, will be in the building. And if you want to permit

Mark Enoch (01:32:37.000)

me to ask questions, yes, hold on, I

Mark Bankston (01:32:39.000)

don't think I can stop you. I don't I literally don't think I can. I think I would have to like go over there and physically restrain you. Because you won't, you won't abide by rules. But if Mr. Jacobson is just going to go to the bathroom, now he's going to come back, and he's going to sit down in that chair, and whether he wants to sit around and listen to anything you say is not my choice. But I'm not releasing him from the building right now. Mr. Jackson, would you like to step out of the room, maybe for a moment, you can use the restroom if you need to otherwise, just wait in the front report.

Dan (01:33:06.000)

So the questioning has come to a close. Rob goes out in the hallway. And that Mark put some things into the record. And one of the things that's important to in the things that he's putting into the record are things about Enoch behavior in the previous deposition? Yes, yeah. And this is this is troubling.

Mark Bankston (01:33:31.000)

I need to put this on the record. Because we are now in our third deposition of this case. And the first deposition of Mr. Jones, which Mr. Enoch was not defending, but was merely an observer, his name appeared in all caps, where he's speaking and interjecting into the record 28 times during the testimony of Mr. Jones. And that's taking up the times that it appeared for housekeeping matters, like getting the witness water. We're talking about the PIO at the end of the deposition. And I don't want to be tag teamed, and it was ridiculous and improper, but I normally wouldn't call it out on the record. But I've reviewed the transcript. And I've done this to confirm this, that there were questions on the floor about what a certain building was, and whether it was the school or not. And as part of his interruption, Mr. Enoch blurted out to the witness that it's the firehouse and the video word that had not previously appeared in the deposition. So of course, right after that, Mr. Jones says, quote, and I later corrected, you know, that was one of the things that had been said that wasn't true was that they were at the firehouse. There was there was other footage from the school. At best, this was highly improper conduct, and it's exactly why we don't allow speaking objections in Texas. At worst, it was an attempt to communicate an idea to the witness conduct which is absolutely repellent to the idea of justice. Yet on the following day, the problems continued. I only have a video not a transcript, but one again, Mr. Enoch repeatedly interrupted a deposition he was not defending it which he was simply an observer. And again, I've watched the video to confirm and so as my co counsel to confirm both of ours memories that Mr. Du, the corporate representative, visibly reacted to a gesture from Mr. Enoch during a difficult question. And Mr. Ogden had to call them out on it. And you can see Mr. Jews reaction and they were his eyes are in the deposition. During both depositions, Mr. Enoch was repeatedly asked to leave the deposition, if you refuse to stay quiet, he stayed but continued to interrupt. I am putting this all on the record right now, because this deposition began rather continuously. And my reaction to it was one of significant disturbance. So

Dan (01:35:44.000)

there's a bit of a pattern of behaviors here of disrupting these depositions in such a way as to give answers to questions. That's bad. Yeah. What What year

Jordan (01:35:59.000)

is this one's

Dan (01:36:00.000)

2018 2018? Yeah.

Jordan (01:36:02.000)

Okay. So, so that left pretty early on, I just want to remind people, all right, this happened year one, and Mark had to deal with this continued type of shit. For five fucking years. Yeah. And Mark has committed zero crimes afterwards. That's amazing.

Dan (01:36:26.000)

Yeah, this was one of the first depositions that that they did.

Jordan (01:36:30.000)

I Yeah. I mean, I would if Mark was a serial killer right now, I'd be like, Well, I think it's wrong, but I can understand how you get there.

Dan (01:36:38.000)

And it's it's such an interesting way that these other lawyers that Alex has had been so frustrating and dickish in different ways. And Enoch is kind of like, one of the more lawyerly dickish Yeah, vibes. Yeah, he feels like he's trying to use law to be an asshole, whereas some of the other folks have just been like, I don't know. You're a

Jordan (01:37:02.000)

dick. That's been a little bit of like, childish kind of, this is this is very much if you were watching a movie, and an asshole lawyer was showing up. This is what the asshole lawyer would do. Every single time. This is the asshole lawyer.

Dan (01:37:18.000)

Yeah. Whereas norm is more of the pull your pants down and say the N word. 100%.

Jordan (01:37:23.000)

Yeah, he's he's Lionel Hutz. Yeah. You know, he's evil, but he's also ridiculous. Yeah.

Dan (01:37:29.000)

So also mark needs to put on to the record the discomfort surrounding what's happening because he is not in a position to defend Rob Jacobson's rights. Right.

Mark Bankston (01:37:40.000)

I do not feel I am equipped to defend this witness's rights. I don't represent him. What is happening is totally on consistent with the court's order. We have attempted to contact the court because I believe the court would be would be wanting to have some sort of input on when an order like this only gives me the right to question whether Mr. Enoch should be allowed to question this witness who does not currently have counsel, I'm very disturbed by this turn of events. I want this all on the record in case the these matters need to be brought to the court in any kind of connection with sanctions. Right now. I'm going to finish. And I'm going to ask Mr. Jacobson to return to the room. I'm going to tell Mr. Jacobson that I have concluded with my deposition, the deposition that was ordered in the court's order, and that I have no further need of Him to be here. I do not know what Mr. Enoch is going to do at that point. I do not know if Mr. Enoch is going to attempt to try to keep the witness here. I don't know what's going to happen. I do know that I am extremely concerned about a witness who is I'm in about a lawyer who has already exhibited an incredible pattern of astonishing bad conduct and deposition to now take this very unorthodox turn. That being said, those are my comments on the record. I will allow Mr. Jacobson to return to the room and allow him to make the decision in his own best interest.

Mark Enoch (01:38:59.000)

And I do not intend to respond tit for tat, which what I think is self serving diatribe and will respond appropriately. when appropriate.

Jordan (01:39:10.000)

What a deck. What dick? Yeah, just a real piece of shit. But

Dan (01:39:14.000)

that is a like, pretty valid concern that Mark has, yeah, but like if he's going to be grilled and questioned by his clearly antagonistic former employers, lawyer. Mark can't act as his lawyer. No. And so that is gonna be going to be ugly. Yeah. And so Rob comes back in from the hallway.

Mark Bankston (01:39:37.000)

Mr. Jacobson. That's all I have for you today. Thank you for your time.

Mark Enoch (01:39:40.000)

Mr. Bankston, if I ask questions, are you going to seek sanctions against me? I'm like, Mr. Yeah. Mr. Jacobson. Are you leaving? He's leaving.

Jordan (01:39:53.000)

Right,

Dan (01:39:54.000)

comes in, takes off his mic and then just looking

Jordan (01:39:56.000)

come get me. Why would you? Why would I give a shit what you have to say, Oh fucking you subpoena me if you want to if you want me to ask questions, you're the one who wins the bullshit subpoena thing. Yeah.

Dan (01:40:10.000)

I am not here to answer your questions. I don't have to be here literally don't work for you. Yeah. So that's, that's kind of a nice resolution and end to the proceedings. But yeah, I, you know, as we as we reach the end of the deposition, I find myself feeling a lot different than I do with our, our deposition episodes. True. Like I told you on the last one that we did that there was a couple that we had that are conflicting, a little bit strange. And this is a little bit strange to me, because I just I think that the only thing that he has to be like, I mean, obviously, I think you should own up to how shitty his entire careers work has been, for sure. But that's a matter for maybe a different venue, right, but the only thing he really has to apologize for is not doing more, which is pointless, right? He wouldn't have done anything No. And he did something to his credit while he was there. And then the only other thing he has to feel guilt for is not quitting and that is something he has to deal with on his own. I

Jordan (01:41:15.000)

know I mean rain it is it is consistent, though. With topsy turvy world and so far is the one thing that Rob Jenkinson, Rob Jacobson should feel like he he did a commendably which is trying to intervene in this situation is the one situation he feels guilty for not doing something and everything else. He seems to be fine with. Yeah, he

Dan (01:41:38.000)

seems to think that there is a a plausible way to claim what like endgame is good journalism or good documentary. I don't know he should do check out that bibliography for

Jordan (01:41:50.000)

ways good journalism, putting a mike Microsoft Encarta is just your pure reference.

Dan (01:41:55.000)

It helps. Yeah, good thing. Yeah. I feel a little bit even conflicted about the idea of that. This is like we're covering this. But I mean, it's a deposition. There's, there's something interesting, there's an insight into Infowars in some way. Yeah. And so I don't know, the here's, here's where I'm that. Yeah. Here's, here's what I come back to over and over again. Okay. Like he and Paul Joseph Watson are two people who spoke out against the Sandy Hook coverage, right, demonstrably at the time. And I think that Paul's reaction makes much more sense. In his deposition. He was like, Yeah, I thought that was shit. I thought that was, I thought that was really bad. I told them not to do it. But he's not bending over backwards to try and pretend that like, there isn't a larger thing, right? That it's a part of, right. That's, that's the thing that makes this so different for me. Like when I hear Paul's deposition, like, yeah, that'll make sense. This doesn't

Jordan (01:43:04.000)

I mean, I suppose that's that's an argument of different expectations for for different psychopaths. I mean, like, Paul, very, I'm just as just as much as on the hook for not quitting. Like care. That that's that's the difference. But that makes sense. It makes sense. It only makes sense. If you don't care. It really does. That's No, I understand. Yeah, I understand. And we're grappling with somebody who appears to care. Yeah. And who appears to not be lying, or at least I can't sense any lies from it.

Dan (01:43:33.000)

I don't necessarily think he's lying. But his actions don't track with somebody who cares. No. And that's the part that is really, really tough to understand. Yes. And I guess, you know, people act differently in different circumstances. I don't know what other pressures existed in his life or, or whatever.

Jordan (01:43:51.000)

Oh, what a strange animal is man. I don't know. I don't know, man. I don't know.

Dan (01:44:00.000)

I wonder how things would be different if he didn't get fired in 2017. I wonder how things would be different if they got sued for endgame. I wonder how different these things would play out in slightly different circumstances.

Jordan (01:44:18.000)

Yeah, I don't know. I just don't know.

Dan (01:44:21.000)

I've not been as confused by a deposition is I have the this one perhaps. Yeah.

Jordan (01:44:27.000)

Yeah, cuz I don't know if there's much to take away from it other than this person is uniquely situated inside of this company at this team yours for 13 years. And look at how weird this shit is. You know,

Dan (01:44:46.000)

he was there for 13 years doesn't seem to understand that his fundamental complaints about stuff applied to the time he was there.

Jordan (01:44:58.000)

Man, what is he thinking, Yeah, it hurts my brain to try and put myself in a space where what he's done, can be reconciled with what he's saying. That's yeah, you know what I'm saying? It hurts my brain to try and fit cognitive dissonance in there that is so expansive as to encompass a man's entire career. Yeah.

Dan (01:45:20.000)

Well, I guess we'll continue to wrestle with that

Jordan (01:45:24.000)

someday, somehow, perhaps we will cover the truth. But

Dan (01:45:28.000)

I'd still on whatever level I appreciate that he has. You know, I appreciate first of all, that he internally stood up about this at the time. I can't that commendable. And I think it takes a certain amount of courage to come out in the way that he has true, you know, while someone like Enoch is trying to intimidate you with this NDA. Yeah. You know, I just, I guess, I wish, if you can't always get what you want, as Dr. House once said, he said that multiple many times. Yeah. But like, I would wish that the diagnosis was more comprehensive. Yeah, about like, because I think that he could conceivably have a wealth of information about how these same problems that he has about the Sandy Hook stuff and about Millie Weaver, hell, this applies to the fundamental business model and the way right Infowars operates. But I don't

Jordan (01:46:36.000)

I mean, I don't, I don't really know quite how to quite how to react to somebody who is clearly contrite, or at least, you know, giving off every appearance of such an experiencing remorse for that. But there it's not a an incident. It's not a thing that they did. Yeah, it is their entire career. So how exactly do you say that? Oh, well, we're on a road redemption arc or anything along those lines when it's like a redemption? No, there isn't.

Dan (01:47:07.000)

You did. The incident doesn't involve you. Exactly. The only involves you and as much as you worked there, and you didn't stop working.

Jordan (01:47:14.000)

The redemption that the redemption that you want is impossible to get because you didn't do it. And the redemption you need is something that you're not looking for.

Dan (01:47:25.000)

What are you doing man? Music. Anyway, we're not gonna get answers on this. Today, at least this by saying it is Wednesday. And so the tickets to do second live show should be live at 10am Central Time, central time. And so if you'd like to grab those, please do a nice and we'll be back. But until then, we have webs. It's true.

Jordan (01:47:52.000)

It's knowledge.com. Where I was on Twitter. We are on Twitter at that knowledge underscore fight.

Dan (01:47:57.000)

Yep, we'll be back. But until then, I'm Neo. I'm Leo. I'm DCX Clark. I'm also Dan and you know what I liked

Jordan (01:48:03.000)

Dan. And now here comes the sex robots.

Alex Jones (01:48:06.000)

Andy in Kansas, you're on the air. Thanks for holding. Well, Alex, I'm a first time caller. I'm a huge fan. I love your work. I love you.