Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

‼️EXPOSED: From the Very FIRST Press Conference… Something Was ALREADY Wrong — Chief Long FROZE When Asked About The GUN While Beau Mason Stared Him Down! 😱 This is from the very first press conference after Charlie Kirk was assassinated. Reporter asks UVU Police Chief Jeff Long a simple...

ProjectConstitu's profile picture

Project Constitution

294,086 subscribers

71,927 views • 8 days ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

So this happened today, When Rahul Gandhi was leaving after concluding his press conference, a reporter from Tamilnadu said to him that he didn’t get a chance to ask a question. Then, Rahul Gandhi returned back and took a question from him. Once again he has shown his love for Tamilnadu. On the other side, no press conference by Modi in the last 9+ years.
1:50

So this happened today, When Rahul Gandhi was leaving after concluding his press conference, a reporter from Tamilnadu said to him that he didn’t get a chance to ask a question. Then, Rahul Gandhi returned back and took a question from him. Once again he has shown his love for Tamilnadu. On the other side, no press conference by Modi in the last 9+ years.

Shantanu

155,198 views • 2 years ago

One thing everyone should appreciate about Spencer Pratt is that when he’s asked a question, he doesn’t deflect. He just answers the question This is so different than basically everyone else in politics CNN asks him, why he’s a Republican He doesn’t dance around the real reason, even through many democrats likely wouldn’t like the answer It’s for the second amendment But then he explains exactly why. It makes perfect sense He explains his plan to protect schools from fun threats even thought he’s for the second amendment and having a gun to protect yourself He has a real, and clear plan One other thing I notice here is CNN asks the question and lets him answer. They don’t push back with propaganda, they just ask a few questions for more clarity This is what the media used to be, and should be. Good job Spencer and CNN for this exchange
1:38

One thing everyone should appreciate about Spencer Pratt is that when he’s asked a question, he doesn’t deflect. He just answers the question This is so different than basically everyone else in politics CNN asks him, why he’s a Republican He doesn’t dance around the real reason, even through many democrats likely wouldn’t like the answer It’s for the second amendment But then he explains exactly why. It makes perfect sense He explains his plan to protect schools from fun threats even thought he’s for the second amendment and having a gun to protect yourself He has a real, and clear plan One other thing I notice here is CNN asks the question and lets him answer. They don’t push back with propaganda, they just ask a few questions for more clarity This is what the media used to be, and should be. Good job Spencer and CNN for this exchange

Wall Street Apes

22,869 views • 2 months ago

With the Russia hoax being exposed more every single day, there is another hoax making its rounds again. Hoax: In 2018 Putin said that he directed his people to help Trump win the election. A short, out of context clip is now their "proof" of Russian election interference to help Trump in 2016. Brennan talked about it. Peter Baker posted about it a couple days ago. Bill Maher played it on his show last night, claiming it was proof of Russian interference to help Trump. It's all over MSNBC and CNN again. They probably all know the truth about the clip but it doesn't stop them from lying about it. Firstly, it should come as no surprise that CNN's clip is different from almost all of the others broadcasted, as you will shortly see. Top clip is the hoax: Putin is asked if he wanted Trump to win and then asked if he directed his officials to help him. Putin answers "yes I did." Here's what actually happened. Putin had just stated that he in no way directed anyone to interfere in the election, that there was no collusion, and that it was all ridiculous nonsense. Putin called the accusations garbage more than once in the press conference. Putin was then asked by a reporter why people should believe his denials about election interference and if he would hand over the 12 people Mueller indicted (show indictments btw). Putin took out his translator ear piece and gave a long answer about working with Trump to find out if crimes were committed, America and Russia working together on other stuff, treaties, etc. During that answer (bottom clip) he again said the accusations of interference were not true. At the end of his answer, the same reporter who asked him the previous questions asked "Did you want Trump to win and did you instruct officials to help him." By watching any other broadcast than CNN, it becomes very clear what happened. Putin did not hear the first half of the reporter's followup question because he was putting on an ear piece and the volume of the reporter's mic was down. Watch the top clip and the last 20 seconds of the bottom clip. Look at the difference. You will see it is obvious that Putin did not hear the first question and only heard the second question about if he instructed people to help Trump. It's obvious that he thought it applied to what he was just talking about, which was America and Russia working together. It's so funny how in the foreign broadcasts and some of the American ones, it's clear that Putin didn't hear the first half of the question. But on CNN the volume is magically up and it appears that Putin heard both questions. But the fact is that Putin had just spent most of the press conference denying any interference in the election or collusion with Trump. He wasn't all of a sudden admitting it now. He didn't hear the first question. The hoaxers never play any of the rest of the press conference with all the denials. In another press conference after this one Putin again says it was all a hoax cooked up to undermine Trump's presidency. If the MSM cared at all about America or the truth they would lay out what I just did. If you don't want to watch all the context, just watch the top clip, the beginning of the bottom clip, and the last 20 seconds of the bottom clip and you will see clearly what happened.
8:02

With the Russia hoax being exposed more every single day, there is another hoax making its rounds again. Hoax: In 2018 Putin said that he directed his people to help Trump win the election. A short, out of context clip is now their "proof" of Russian election interference to help Trump in 2016. Brennan talked about it. Peter Baker posted about it a couple days ago. Bill Maher played it on his show last night, claiming it was proof of Russian interference to help Trump. It's all over MSNBC and CNN again. They probably all know the truth about the clip but it doesn't stop them from lying about it. Firstly, it should come as no surprise that CNN's clip is different from almost all of the others broadcasted, as you will shortly see. Top clip is the hoax: Putin is asked if he wanted Trump to win and then asked if he directed his officials to help him. Putin answers "yes I did." Here's what actually happened. Putin had just stated that he in no way directed anyone to interfere in the election, that there was no collusion, and that it was all ridiculous nonsense. Putin called the accusations garbage more than once in the press conference. Putin was then asked by a reporter why people should believe his denials about election interference and if he would hand over the 12 people Mueller indicted (show indictments btw). Putin took out his translator ear piece and gave a long answer about working with Trump to find out if crimes were committed, America and Russia working together on other stuff, treaties, etc. During that answer (bottom clip) he again said the accusations of interference were not true. At the end of his answer, the same reporter who asked him the previous questions asked "Did you want Trump to win and did you instruct officials to help him." By watching any other broadcast than CNN, it becomes very clear what happened. Putin did not hear the first half of the reporter's followup question because he was putting on an ear piece and the volume of the reporter's mic was down. Watch the top clip and the last 20 seconds of the bottom clip. Look at the difference. You will see it is obvious that Putin did not hear the first question and only heard the second question about if he instructed people to help Trump. It's obvious that he thought it applied to what he was just talking about, which was America and Russia working together. It's so funny how in the foreign broadcasts and some of the American ones, it's clear that Putin didn't hear the first half of the question. But on CNN the volume is magically up and it appears that Putin heard both questions. But the fact is that Putin had just spent most of the press conference denying any interference in the election or collusion with Trump. He wasn't all of a sudden admitting it now. He didn't hear the first question. The hoaxers never play any of the rest of the press conference with all the denials. In another press conference after this one Putin again says it was all a hoax cooked up to undermine Trump's presidency. If the MSM cared at all about America or the truth they would lay out what I just did. If you don't want to watch all the context, just watch the top clip, the beginning of the bottom clip, and the last 20 seconds of the bottom clip and you will see clearly what happened.

MAZE

58,564 views • 1 year ago

#WATCH | Chennai, Tamil Nadu | On being asked about her weight in a press conference, Actress Gouri G Kishan says, "My co-actor was asked, 'We see you picking her up in some romance sequences, how was her weight like'. The second question to the director was that it was a miscasting because the hero is so tall, and I am out of shape or short... He (journalist asking the question) then defended it for a long time... For some people in the presser, women are just there, they should not have an opinion..." (07.11)
2:17

#WATCH | Chennai, Tamil Nadu | On being asked about her weight in a press conference, Actress Gouri G Kishan says, "My co-actor was asked, 'We see you picking her up in some romance sequences, how was her weight like'. The second question to the director was that it was a miscasting because the hero is so tall, and I am out of shape or short... He (journalist asking the question) then defended it for a long time... For some people in the presser, women are just there, they should not have an opinion..." (07.11)

ANI

613,907 views • 8 months ago

Providence Police Chief Oscar Perez owes the public an apology. Or he should resign. At a press conference about an active shooter, reporters asked one simple question: What did the suspect yell before opening fire? Multiple witnesses reported the suspect shouted “Allahu Akbar and the victim was one of the only outspoken Christian conservatives on campus. The chief REFUSED to answer. Repeatedly. That is not protecting an investigation. That is actively impeding one. He ran interference for the jihadi. Why? Police do not get to withhold identifying information due to their woke leanings. They do not get to prioritize optics over public safety. They do not get to treat the truth like a PR liability. This was a dereliction of duty, in real time. The choice is simple. Apologize publicly for evading the public. Explain exactly why that information was withheld. Or step aside. Because when a police chief cannot answer a yes or no question that directly affects public safety, he is no longer protecting the public. He is protecting the narrative. And that is not his job. If you agree, say it in the comments. Do NOT let this get buried. Oscar cannot hide from the truth forever.
1:41

Providence Police Chief Oscar Perez owes the public an apology. Or he should resign. At a press conference about an active shooter, reporters asked one simple question: What did the suspect yell before opening fire? Multiple witnesses reported the suspect shouted “Allahu Akbar and the victim was one of the only outspoken Christian conservatives on campus. The chief REFUSED to answer. Repeatedly. That is not protecting an investigation. That is actively impeding one. He ran interference for the jihadi. Why? Police do not get to withhold identifying information due to their woke leanings. They do not get to prioritize optics over public safety. They do not get to treat the truth like a PR liability. This was a dereliction of duty, in real time. The choice is simple. Apologize publicly for evading the public. Explain exactly why that information was withheld. Or step aside. Because when a police chief cannot answer a yes or no question that directly affects public safety, he is no longer protecting the public. He is protecting the narrative. And that is not his job. If you agree, say it in the comments. Do NOT let this get buried. Oscar cannot hide from the truth forever.

Jews Fight Back 🇺🇸🇮🇱

79,598 views • 7 months ago

They chased him off the property. Even if the teen had a gun, and even if that gun fell during the chase, the bigger question is whether he had reason to fear for his own life once grown men were pursuing him away from the store. From his perspective, he may not have known what they intended to do. He could have believed they were chasing him to beat him, hold him, or even kidnap him. In that situation, it is fair to ask whether he also had a right to defend himself. The focus should not only be on whether he had a gun. The focus should also be on why he was chased off the property in the first place and whether the people chasing him created the danger that led to the shooting.
2:50

They chased him off the property. Even if the teen had a gun, and even if that gun fell during the chase, the bigger question is whether he had reason to fear for his own life once grown men were pursuing him away from the store. From his perspective, he may not have known what they intended to do. He could have believed they were chasing him to beat him, hold him, or even kidnap him. In that situation, it is fair to ask whether he also had a right to defend himself. The focus should not only be on whether he had a gun. The focus should also be on why he was chased off the property in the first place and whether the people chasing him created the danger that led to the shooting.

Arthur Watkins Jr. 🇺🇸

14,383 views • 2 months ago

P’Zee and Mixxiw story T: They started talking around 3am. 5am they still didn’t get what each other was saying. But they had such a long conversation. They sat and talked properly. I heard it from the distance. Mixxiw asked this P’Zee answered that. I turn to P’Tum “Are they talking on the same subject? I’m confused” T: P’Zee is really nice. He wants to give Mix an answer. He wants to answer but answer to the right subject or not, that’s another story. So I told Mixxiw to ask P’Zee indirectly. Ask around the subject. If you want him to answer this question. You should ask another question that is not the direct question but with that keyword. Maybe he might come to the subject. T: 3am to 5am they still didn’t get what each other was saying. 2 hours have passed. Anyway, P’Zee have something that he wants to say, the advice that he wants to give to Nong (Mix). He has ideas, he wants to tell nong the story. That’s why he didn’t listen to the question that much. He say what he wants to say. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 #ZeePruk #mixxiw
1:35

P’Zee and Mixxiw story T: They started talking around 3am. 5am they still didn’t get what each other was saying. But they had such a long conversation. They sat and talked properly. I heard it from the distance. Mixxiw asked this P’Zee answered that. I turn to P’Tum “Are they talking on the same subject? I’m confused” T: P’Zee is really nice. He wants to give Mix an answer. He wants to answer but answer to the right subject or not, that’s another story. So I told Mixxiw to ask P’Zee indirectly. Ask around the subject. If you want him to answer this question. You should ask another question that is not the direct question but with that keyword. Maybe he might come to the subject. T: 3am to 5am they still didn’t get what each other was saying. 2 hours have passed. Anyway, P’Zee have something that he wants to say, the advice that he wants to give to Nong (Mix). He has ideas, he wants to tell nong the story. That’s why he didn’t listen to the question that much. He say what he wants to say. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 #ZeePruk #mixxiw

คุณครัวซองต์ของน้องมิกซิวค่ะ | YILOVEY

28,090 views • 7 months ago

This guy is asked if he is a US Citizen. He answers with the window up, so he rolls the window down and refuses to answer the question again. I hope this person sat there all night because this was not the time nor the place to act like his rights were violated. Why am I wrong?
4:54

This guy is asked if he is a US Citizen. He answers with the window up, so he rolls the window down and refuses to answer the question again. I hope this person sat there all night because this was not the time nor the place to act like his rights were violated. Why am I wrong?

BiffBifford™ 🇺🇸

7,482,115 views • 2 years ago

Amanda Anisimova on why she did not answer that question about playing under the American flag: "In my other press conference, the fact that I didn’t want to answer a question that was obviously intended for a headline and clickbait, that was my right. It had nothing to do with my political views or anything like that. The fact that people assume that they know my stance on certain important topics is just wrong. It’s not factual. It’s tough but I’ve learned to get used to it.” (via Australian Open Press)
1:07

Amanda Anisimova on why she did not answer that question about playing under the American flag: "In my other press conference, the fact that I didn’t want to answer a question that was obviously intended for a headline and clickbait, that was my right. It had nothing to do with my political views or anything like that. The fact that people assume that they know my stance on certain important topics is just wrong. It’s not factual. It’s tough but I’ve learned to get used to it.” (via Australian Open Press)

The Tennis Letter

668,241 views • 6 months ago

BREAKING - EXPLOSIVE: Republican Congressman Jim Jordan (Rep. Jim Jordan) confronts Dr. Fauci on alleged COVID-19 cover-up and outright lies. WATCH Question: Thank you, Mister Chairman. Doctor, why was it so important that the virus not have started in a lab? Answer: We don't know where it started. And that's the reason why I keep an open mind. So I don't know what you mean by why was it so important. It wasn't important. Question: You still don't know where it started. The guys you gave money to figured out in three days. Answer: No, no, no. They said, Mister Anderson said on January 31, 2020, virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory. The very next day, Doctor Gerry said, I don't know how this happens in nature. It'd be easy to do in a lab. And then three days later, Shazam, they switched and say it has to be nature. So they figured out in three days. But you still don't know. Answer: No. In fact, if you look at what they were saying, Congressman Jordan, they were saying that it was not a manufactured virus. It still could have evolved out of a lab. Question: Let me read something here to you. They're not incompatible. In our study on the censorship of the Biden administration working with big tech, I want to read you a WhatsApp message from Mark Zuckerberg. Can we include that? The White House put pressure on us to censor the lab leak theory? Answer: Is there a question? Question: Here's another email to Mark Zuckerberg. It says, subject line COVID misinformation, Wuhan lab leak theory. Due to continued public pressure and tense conversations with the new administration, we started removing five COVID claims, including the lab leak theory. Mister Zuckerberg responds, this seems like a good reminder that when we compromise our standards due to pressure from an administration in either direction, we often later regret it. Why was it so important the virus not have started in a lab? Answer: It wasn't so important that the virus not. We don't know. Question: We know it was important to someone in the Biden administration. So much so that the top people at Meta, the top people at Facebook are asking, why are we getting all this pressure to downplay the lab leak theory? And we have an email from June of the same year, June 4, 2021, saying the same thing. It was certainly important to somebody. Answer: Well, what does that got to do with me? Question: I'm asking you because you're the expert on the coronavirus. I'm saying, why was the administration so pushing not to have the lab leak theory as something that was viable? Answer: I can answer that. I've kept an open mind throughout the entire time. Question: Doctor Fauci. Open mind. Answer: That is correct. Question: What happened in those three days? Why did Mister Anderson and Doctor Gerry, why did they change their mind in 180 degrees? Because what Christian Andersen says three days later after he said virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory, three days later, he says the main crackpot theories going around at the moment relate to this virus being somehow engineered. And that is demonstrably false. Question: How did they figure all that out in three days? Answer: Well, what they did is that, you know, they testified before this committee what they did. They went back and looked at the sequences and realized that their initial concern was unfounded about that. And it did not look at all like it was manufactured. Question: But in three days, they figured that out? Answer: Exactly. You could do that in three days. You can scan sequences in a day. You don't need three days. Question: Okay, who's Robert Redfield? Answer: The former director of the CDC. Question: Doctor Redfield. Right. And he was also in the coronavirus task force. Is that accurate? Answer: He was a member of the coronavirus task force. Question: Here's what he said to this committee. He said, Redfield said that Fauci and Collins left him out because Redfield suspected that coronavirus had leaked from the Chinese lab. Is that accurate? Answer: Well, he said that, but that's not true. That is incorrect. Question: Congressman, Doctor Redfield's lying to the committee? Answer: When he sat right where you sat when he said that I kept him out. That is an incorrect statement. Question: The roster who was on the phone, was Doctor Redfield in that conference call on February 1 when you had Mister Anderson and Doctor Gerry on that call? Answer: He was not. And the conference call was put together by Jeremy Farrar. So no one kept him out. Question: He said he was kept out because did US tax dollars. Answer: You want me to answer the question? Question: Yeah. I would just wonder why it wasn't on the call. It seems to me the head of CDC, part of the coronavirus task force, which was formed two days prior to that call, would have been on the call. Answer: Well, the call was arranged by Jeremy Farrar. You should ask him. Question: Okay. Did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? Answer: I'm sorry, what was? Question: Did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? Answer: Yes, of course. It was a sub-award to the Wuhan Institute. Question: And who approved that award? Answer: Excuse me? Question: And who approved that award? Answer: What agency approved that award? Answer: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Question: Your agency approved that, right? Answer: Yes, it did. Question: Does that have anything to do with this downplaying of the lab leak theory? Answer: No, nothing to do with it. Question: Nothing. Do you agree that there was a push to downplay the lab leak theory? Answer: Not on my part. Question: Really? Really. Wow. Wow. I think most of the country find that amazing. Answer: I've kept an open mind throughout the entire process. Question: All right, I yield back.
5:43

BREAKING - EXPLOSIVE: Republican Congressman Jim Jordan (Rep. Jim Jordan) confronts Dr. Fauci on alleged COVID-19 cover-up and outright lies. WATCH Question: Thank you, Mister Chairman. Doctor, why was it so important that the virus not have started in a lab? Answer: We don't know where it started. And that's the reason why I keep an open mind. So I don't know what you mean by why was it so important. It wasn't important. Question: You still don't know where it started. The guys you gave money to figured out in three days. Answer: No, no, no. They said, Mister Anderson said on January 31, 2020, virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory. The very next day, Doctor Gerry said, I don't know how this happens in nature. It'd be easy to do in a lab. And then three days later, Shazam, they switched and say it has to be nature. So they figured out in three days. But you still don't know. Answer: No. In fact, if you look at what they were saying, Congressman Jordan, they were saying that it was not a manufactured virus. It still could have evolved out of a lab. Question: Let me read something here to you. They're not incompatible. In our study on the censorship of the Biden administration working with big tech, I want to read you a WhatsApp message from Mark Zuckerberg. Can we include that? The White House put pressure on us to censor the lab leak theory? Answer: Is there a question? Question: Here's another email to Mark Zuckerberg. It says, subject line COVID misinformation, Wuhan lab leak theory. Due to continued public pressure and tense conversations with the new administration, we started removing five COVID claims, including the lab leak theory. Mister Zuckerberg responds, this seems like a good reminder that when we compromise our standards due to pressure from an administration in either direction, we often later regret it. Why was it so important the virus not have started in a lab? Answer: It wasn't so important that the virus not. We don't know. Question: We know it was important to someone in the Biden administration. So much so that the top people at Meta, the top people at Facebook are asking, why are we getting all this pressure to downplay the lab leak theory? And we have an email from June of the same year, June 4, 2021, saying the same thing. It was certainly important to somebody. Answer: Well, what does that got to do with me? Question: I'm asking you because you're the expert on the coronavirus. I'm saying, why was the administration so pushing not to have the lab leak theory as something that was viable? Answer: I can answer that. I've kept an open mind throughout the entire time. Question: Doctor Fauci. Open mind. Answer: That is correct. Question: What happened in those three days? Why did Mister Anderson and Doctor Gerry, why did they change their mind in 180 degrees? Because what Christian Andersen says three days later after he said virus looks engineered, virus not consistent with evolutionary theory, three days later, he says the main crackpot theories going around at the moment relate to this virus being somehow engineered. And that is demonstrably false. Question: How did they figure all that out in three days? Answer: Well, what they did is that, you know, they testified before this committee what they did. They went back and looked at the sequences and realized that their initial concern was unfounded about that. And it did not look at all like it was manufactured. Question: But in three days, they figured that out? Answer: Exactly. You could do that in three days. You can scan sequences in a day. You don't need three days. Question: Okay, who's Robert Redfield? Answer: The former director of the CDC. Question: Doctor Redfield. Right. And he was also in the coronavirus task force. Is that accurate? Answer: He was a member of the coronavirus task force. Question: Here's what he said to this committee. He said, Redfield said that Fauci and Collins left him out because Redfield suspected that coronavirus had leaked from the Chinese lab. Is that accurate? Answer: Well, he said that, but that's not true. That is incorrect. Question: Congressman, Doctor Redfield's lying to the committee? Answer: When he sat right where you sat when he said that I kept him out. That is an incorrect statement. Question: The roster who was on the phone, was Doctor Redfield in that conference call on February 1 when you had Mister Anderson and Doctor Gerry on that call? Answer: He was not. And the conference call was put together by Jeremy Farrar. So no one kept him out. Question: He said he was kept out because did US tax dollars. Answer: You want me to answer the question? Question: Yeah. I would just wonder why it wasn't on the call. It seems to me the head of CDC, part of the coronavirus task force, which was formed two days prior to that call, would have been on the call. Answer: Well, the call was arranged by Jeremy Farrar. You should ask him. Question: Okay. Did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? Answer: I'm sorry, what was? Question: Did US tax dollars flow through a grant recipient to the lab in China? Answer: Yes, of course. It was a sub-award to the Wuhan Institute. Question: And who approved that award? Answer: Excuse me? Question: And who approved that award? Answer: What agency approved that award? Answer: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Question: Your agency approved that, right? Answer: Yes, it did. Question: Does that have anything to do with this downplaying of the lab leak theory? Answer: No, nothing to do with it. Question: Nothing. Do you agree that there was a push to downplay the lab leak theory? Answer: Not on my part. Question: Really? Really. Wow. Wow. I think most of the country find that amazing. Answer: I've kept an open mind throughout the entire process. Question: All right, I yield back.

Simon Ateba

997,322 views • 2 years ago

From Moon-Walker for the People on Facebook. "I finally got the chance to meet Beau Bayh in person yesterday. Right from my heart, I asked him to "stand with victims today and denounce Apollo Global and Marc Rowan by name," noting that Marc Rowan had continued to socially and financially transact with Epstein post-conviction, and that Beau had solicited donations from Marc Rowan. 1. He does not denounce Apollo Global and Marc Rowan by name, and claims to not "know the details of the figures" I was talking about. [See: MAGA Mike Johnson for a similar strategy]. I asked him a simple yes-or-no question, and as an attorney, he knows better than to evade a question like this if he wants to avoid giving others the impression of deceit. 2. He was so irritated by this question that he nearly refused to answer the next question someone asked. Catch his eyeroll as he turns away from me. What do you notice?" She isn't wrong. The body language and how he answers the question tells me he gets flustered easily. There needs to be a Beau Bayh Blythe Potter IN debate. SAUCE:
1:14

From Moon-Walker for the People on Facebook. "I finally got the chance to meet Beau Bayh in person yesterday. Right from my heart, I asked him to "stand with victims today and denounce Apollo Global and Marc Rowan by name," noting that Marc Rowan had continued to socially and financially transact with Epstein post-conviction, and that Beau had solicited donations from Marc Rowan. 1. He does not denounce Apollo Global and Marc Rowan by name, and claims to not "know the details of the figures" I was talking about. [See: MAGA Mike Johnson for a similar strategy]. I asked him a simple yes-or-no question, and as an attorney, he knows better than to evade a question like this if he wants to avoid giving others the impression of deceit. 2. He was so irritated by this question that he nearly refused to answer the next question someone asked. Catch his eyeroll as he turns away from me. What do you notice?" She isn't wrong. The body language and how he answers the question tells me he gets flustered easily. There needs to be a Beau Bayh Blythe Potter IN debate. SAUCE:

indy reporter

14,698 views • 2 months ago

Genuine question for the ones choosing not to believe this. May I ask why? Why do yall want Tory to be guilty so bad? His DNA was not found on the gun. Is it not possible Megan made a mistake? Is it bc yall would be ashamed to admit that she made the world believe he was guilty?
3:44

Genuine question for the ones choosing not to believe this. May I ask why? Why do yall want Tory to be guilty so bad? His DNA was not found on the gun. Is it not possible Megan made a mistake? Is it bc yall would be ashamed to admit that she made the world believe he was guilty?

Glamour🧚🏽‍♀️🥀

55,689 views • 1 year ago

Pope Leo XIV sent a video-message to the young people participating in the annual “SEEK” Youth Conference in the United States. In it, he says Jesus is asking each of us the same question he asked the first disciples: "What do you seek?" This shows that he knew what was in their hearts, and that they were “restless, but in a good way.” The Pope explains there is only one answer to this question: Jesus.
0:27

Pope Leo XIV sent a video-message to the young people participating in the annual “SEEK” Youth Conference in the United States. In it, he says Jesus is asking each of us the same question he asked the first disciples: "What do you seek?" This shows that he knew what was in their hearts, and that they were “restless, but in a good way.” The Pope explains there is only one answer to this question: Jesus.

Vatican News

41,454 views • 7 months ago

A BBC interviewer asked a Nobel physicist the simplest question in the world: why do two magnets push each other apart. He refused to answer it. What he did instead is the best seven minutes on thinking ever filmed. The man is Richard Feynman, at home in 1983, no blackboard, no notes, sitting in an armchair. He does not dodge because he cannot answer. He dodges because he wants you to see what the question is actually asking. So he takes an ordinary sentence, that a woman slipped on the ice and broke her hip, and starts asking why, and every answer opens another why, until the ground gives way. Then he turns it around on the interviewer with a question about ice that sounds trivial and is not. The point he arrives at is the uncomfortable one. Every explanation is only a translation into something you already accept without explanation. Magnets have no such translation. There is nothing more familiar than magnetism to reduce magnetism to, which is why every answer you were given at school was a picture, not a reason. It matters more now than it did in 1983. Any tool will hand you a fluent answer in a second. Knowing which questions actually have a bottom is the part that is still yours. One question. Seven minutes. It is in the video.
7:30

A BBC interviewer asked a Nobel physicist the simplest question in the world: why do two magnets push each other apart. He refused to answer it. What he did instead is the best seven minutes on thinking ever filmed. The man is Richard Feynman, at home in 1983, no blackboard, no notes, sitting in an armchair. He does not dodge because he cannot answer. He dodges because he wants you to see what the question is actually asking. So he takes an ordinary sentence, that a woman slipped on the ice and broke her hip, and starts asking why, and every answer opens another why, until the ground gives way. Then he turns it around on the interviewer with a question about ice that sounds trivial and is not. The point he arrives at is the uncomfortable one. Every explanation is only a translation into something you already accept without explanation. Magnets have no such translation. There is nothing more familiar than magnetism to reduce magnetism to, which is why every answer you were given at school was a picture, not a reason. It matters more now than it did in 1983. Any tool will hand you a fluent answer in a second. Knowing which questions actually have a bottom is the part that is still yours. One question. Seven minutes. It is in the video.

Stefan.

2,103,637 views • 4 days ago

Crockett: For Trump to say Epstein is a non-factor—when we can go and find picture after picture of the two of them together—that’s a very interesting concept, right? This idea that he’s a “non-factor”—well, why were you hanging around with non-factors, Mr. President? What was that about? I think he’s making it worse now that he’s seemingly privy to everything in the files—and suddenly doesn’t want to release them. When he was on the outside, I guess he just wasn’t confident in the investigations and didn’t think there was anything that necessarily linked him. He is, overall, a creep. Like—we know he’s a creep. The question is: is he also a criminal in that way? And the fact that he’s so adamant about not releasing the Epstein files—I think that kind of answers the question.
1:57

Crockett: For Trump to say Epstein is a non-factor—when we can go and find picture after picture of the two of them together—that’s a very interesting concept, right? This idea that he’s a “non-factor”—well, why were you hanging around with non-factors, Mr. President? What was that about? I think he’s making it worse now that he’s seemingly privy to everything in the files—and suddenly doesn’t want to release them. When he was on the outside, I guess he just wasn’t confident in the investigations and didn’t think there was anything that necessarily linked him. He is, overall, a creep. Like—we know he’s a creep. The question is: is he also a criminal in that way? And the fact that he’s so adamant about not releasing the Epstein files—I think that kind of answers the question.

Acyn

51,268 views • 1 year ago

🔥Benny Johnson says of the Charlie Kirk assasination story “SOMETHING IS BEING KEPT FROM US & I AM ANGRY ABOUT IT..THE FEDS ARE NOT GIVING US THE FULL PICTURE” I’ll be honest Benny is becoming one of my favorite Truth tellers and I’ll be honest something feels off when he points out the similarities between Crooks & Robinson..he says they both have virtually no footprint. So here are my questions. We have the most high profile MAGA figure aside from Trump. Why do we have photo stills but not video of the stairwell where we can see him with the gun? Why do we not have the full discord messages? WHY haven’t we been told exactly WHOSE GUN IT IS? Why did we have ONE press conference with a guess of this nation? What is the Drop off spot? When he was TURNING HIMSELF IN. What he asked anything you want to share with the public? THERE IS ZERO CHANCE SOMEONE THAT OBSESSED AND SPEAKING ABOUT THE UPCOMING KIRK EVENT AND THE WORDS HE USED WASNT CHATTING ONLINE ANWYERE..but like Crooks it is the case again. I agree w Benny Johnson that something feels off…a legendary icon was not brutally taken from us in public and we have questions
13:32

🔥Benny Johnson says of the Charlie Kirk assasination story “SOMETHING IS BEING KEPT FROM US & I AM ANGRY ABOUT IT..THE FEDS ARE NOT GIVING US THE FULL PICTURE” I’ll be honest Benny is becoming one of my favorite Truth tellers and I’ll be honest something feels off when he points out the similarities between Crooks & Robinson..he says they both have virtually no footprint. So here are my questions. We have the most high profile MAGA figure aside from Trump. Why do we have photo stills but not video of the stairwell where we can see him with the gun? Why do we not have the full discord messages? WHY haven’t we been told exactly WHOSE GUN IT IS? Why did we have ONE press conference with a guess of this nation? What is the Drop off spot? When he was TURNING HIMSELF IN. What he asked anything you want to share with the public? THERE IS ZERO CHANCE SOMEONE THAT OBSESSED AND SPEAKING ABOUT THE UPCOMING KIRK EVENT AND THE WORDS HE USED WASNT CHATTING ONLINE ANWYERE..but like Crooks it is the case again. I agree w Benny Johnson that something feels off…a legendary icon was not brutally taken from us in public and we have questions

Johnny St.Pete

193,945 views • 10 months ago

Due to the strategic implication of this press conference, here is a slightly longer clip from a different part of the conference that adds in more context...and also makes Gov. Walz's position more clear. I also tried to clean up the audio a bit at the beginning so that the reporter's *original* question can be discerned slightly more clearly. Originally the reporter asked the following: "Just to clarify the intention of the National Guard, is there any chance that National Guard could be deployed against federal agents to protect Minnesotans?" -> At this point Gov. Walz gestured for the reporter to repeat her question as he could not hear her. -> She then changed the question entirely and asked: "Has the Minnesota National Guard *ever been* deployed against federal agents to protect Minnesotans, and if not, (unintelligible) what happened today?" The clip attached below is the full answer to this question from Gov. Walz and right at the end, he directly states quite clearly that his National Guard forces have been given the WARNO to prepare for deployment to "protect Minnesotans" from a "rogue federal agent". Can't get much more clear than that.
2:35

Due to the strategic implication of this press conference, here is a slightly longer clip from a different part of the conference that adds in more context...and also makes Gov. Walz's position more clear. I also tried to clean up the audio a bit at the beginning so that the reporter's *original* question can be discerned slightly more clearly. Originally the reporter asked the following: "Just to clarify the intention of the National Guard, is there any chance that National Guard could be deployed against federal agents to protect Minnesotans?" -> At this point Gov. Walz gestured for the reporter to repeat her question as he could not hear her. -> She then changed the question entirely and asked: "Has the Minnesota National Guard *ever been* deployed against federal agents to protect Minnesotans, and if not, (unintelligible) what happened today?" The clip attached below is the full answer to this question from Gov. Walz and right at the end, he directly states quite clearly that his National Guard forces have been given the WARNO to prepare for deployment to "protect Minnesotans" from a "rogue federal agent". Can't get much more clear than that.

S2 Underground

191,727 views • 6 months ago

Charlie Kirk told multiple people he thought he was going to be killed. This is confirmed now by many. So here’s the real question: Why did Erika lie about it? If Charlie telling the truth posed no threat to her, why deny it? Why panic? Why change her story? Or… did it actually affect her? Because the moment she went on TV and admitted Charlie slept in his daughter’s bedroom the night before he was assassinated, the picture sharpened: The only reason a man leaves his own bedroom is because someone close wouldn’t listen. Wouldn’t believe him. Or fought him when he tried to speak. Was the argument the night before about the very thing Erika didn’t want to acknowledge that he was being hunted? Yeah… that’s exactly what makes sense. RIP Charlie. Truth always finds its way back to the surface.
2:01

Charlie Kirk told multiple people he thought he was going to be killed. This is confirmed now by many. So here’s the real question: Why did Erika lie about it? If Charlie telling the truth posed no threat to her, why deny it? Why panic? Why change her story? Or… did it actually affect her? Because the moment she went on TV and admitted Charlie slept in his daughter’s bedroom the night before he was assassinated, the picture sharpened: The only reason a man leaves his own bedroom is because someone close wouldn’t listen. Wouldn’t believe him. Or fought him when he tried to speak. Was the argument the night before about the very thing Erika didn’t want to acknowledge that he was being hunted? Yeah… that’s exactly what makes sense. RIP Charlie. Truth always finds its way back to the surface.

Phantom Pain

22,064 views • 5 months ago

As the days dragged on, the bigger question loomed: why had Durov been arrested at all? Carlson asked him directly. “Why were you being held against your will by the French government? In the first four days, did they make it clear to you?” Durov said he was told it had something to do with Telegram’s supposed failure to respond to legal requests from France. “So I understood that they were worried about the alleged lack of response from Telegram towards the judicial requests coming from France,” he said. But he insists that wasn’t true. “Which turned out to be not true, because we’ve never received a single legally binding legal request coming from France.” Confused, he pressed French authorities on why they hadn’t followed the proper legal channels. “I asked the French policeman, why haven’t you been following the European law and serving your legal requests in the way prescribed by this law?” “They didn’t answer,” Durov said. “But thank God they started to do it and then they started to receive responses helping them to identify criminal suspects.” And Telegram wasn’t resisting cooperation, he explained. “This was something that we had in place since a year ago before that, so it’s not something that the French have forced us to do, it’s something that we already had in place.” “Somehow the French have ignored it completely.”
1:43

As the days dragged on, the bigger question loomed: why had Durov been arrested at all? Carlson asked him directly. “Why were you being held against your will by the French government? In the first four days, did they make it clear to you?” Durov said he was told it had something to do with Telegram’s supposed failure to respond to legal requests from France. “So I understood that they were worried about the alleged lack of response from Telegram towards the judicial requests coming from France,” he said. But he insists that wasn’t true. “Which turned out to be not true, because we’ve never received a single legally binding legal request coming from France.” Confused, he pressed French authorities on why they hadn’t followed the proper legal channels. “I asked the French policeman, why haven’t you been following the European law and serving your legal requests in the way prescribed by this law?” “They didn’t answer,” Durov said. “But thank God they started to do it and then they started to receive responses helping them to identify criminal suspects.” And Telegram wasn’t resisting cooperation, he explained. “This was something that we had in place since a year ago before that, so it’s not something that the French have forced us to do, it’s something that we already had in place.” “Somehow the French have ignored it completely.”

Vigilant Fox 🦊

42,573 views • 1 year ago

“Why did he want Candace back?” If Charlie actually wanted Candace back, why didn’t he text her to invite her back? There were 48 hours from the time he texted that PRIVATE text in the group chat to the time he was assassinated…if he was so sure, why didn’t he text her? And if—as she claims—he wanted her back because she’d warned him about all these people, then why didn’t he text her the night before when he was so afraid he was going to be killed? Wouldn’t she be the first person he’d text? Definitely on the list, though, right? So why no text? I thought she was his “David”?
1:51

“Why did he want Candace back?” If Charlie actually wanted Candace back, why didn’t he text her to invite her back? There were 48 hours from the time he texted that PRIVATE text in the group chat to the time he was assassinated…if he was so sure, why didn’t he text her? And if—as she claims—he wanted her back because she’d warned him about all these people, then why didn’t he text her the night before when he was so afraid he was going to be killed? Wouldn’t she be the first person he’d text? Definitely on the list, though, right? So why no text? I thought she was his “David”?

Natalie Jean Beisner

12,033 views • 2 months ago