Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

‼️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... question: “Was the gun recovered?” Watch Long’s face. He looks terrified. He freezes. He stumbles. He even pretends he didn’t hear the question and asks the reporter to repeat it — buying himself time. Now watch Commissioner Beau Mason standing right next to him. The second that question is asked, Mason turns and locks eyes on Long like he’s throwing daggers. The message is clear: do not answer that. After stumbling over his words, Long finally says: “Um… I… Um… At this point I can’t disclose that.” Let’s be real. According to their own official timeline, the gun wasn’t “found” until the next day — September 11th. So why not just say “No”? Why the panic? Why the non-answer? Why the intense stare from Mason the second the question hits? Because they were already hiding something. The cover-up didn’t start weeks later. It started in that press conference. CC: Candace Owensshow more

Project Constitution

294,086 subscribers

71,927 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Nachrichten & Politik

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche 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.

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 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

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

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 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

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.

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 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

#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)

#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

614,979 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

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.

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. 🇺🇸

14,400 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

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?

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™ 🇺🇸

7,482,288 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

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

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 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

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)

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 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

Abhijeet Dipke is one of the biggest liars and fools I have ever seen. When he was asked why he was protesting at Shivaji Park, Mumbai, without permission, and that he would first need permission from the BMC, this liar claimed that he had already asked for permission. He then stubbornly said, “But I have to protest there. How does Fadnavis get permission for an election rally?” When the reporter pointed out that they also take permission from the BMC, he got triggered and started saying, “Next question, next question,” trying to shut the reporter up. These people do not want to protest. They just want chaos and nothing else, just like they did at Jantar Mantar in Delhi.

Abhijeet Dipke is one of the biggest liars and fools I have ever seen. When he was asked why he was protesting at Shivaji Park, Mumbai, without permission, and that he would first need permission from the BMC, this liar claimed that he had already asked for permission. He then stubbornly said, “But I have to protest there. How does Fadnavis get permission for an election rally?” When the reporter pointed out that they also take permission from the BMC, he got triggered and started saying, “Next question, next question,” trying to shut the reporter up. These people do not want to protest. They just want chaos and nothing else, just like they did at Jantar Mantar in Delhi.

Amit Kumar Sindhi

47,804 Aufrufe • vor 5 Tagen

BREAKING: The question everyone already knew needed asking finally got asked. And as usual Albanese had no answers. When a reporter put it to Albanese whether he felt like a fraud collecting an international award after bungling the Bondi terror attack, and with his standing collapsing at home, he didn’t explain. He didn’t own it. He didn’t even pretend to confront it. He just said “no” Then he pivoted to the next reporter and started talking about Papua New Guineas James Marape introducing him on Wednesday. That was the entire response about the fallout from the Bondi terror attack. Just one word. No. Then his itinerary. Albanese will never answer for his government’s failings, not Bondi, the security warnings that were ignored, not the royal commission he still refuses. He collects the applause overseas and when the questions get too hard, he just shrugs off the dead at home. A one word “no” is not leadership. It’s contempt.

BREAKING: The question everyone already knew needed asking finally got asked. And as usual Albanese had no answers. When a reporter put it to Albanese whether he felt like a fraud collecting an international award after bungling the Bondi terror attack, and with his standing collapsing at home, he didn’t explain. He didn’t own it. He didn’t even pretend to confront it. He just said “no” Then he pivoted to the next reporter and started talking about Papua New Guineas James Marape introducing him on Wednesday. That was the entire response about the fallout from the Bondi terror attack. Just one word. No. Then his itinerary. Albanese will never answer for his government’s failings, not Bondi, the security warnings that were ignored, not the royal commission he still refuses. He collects the applause overseas and when the questions get too hard, he just shrugs off the dead at home. A one word “no” is not leadership. It’s contempt.

Ryan Dally

12,761 Aufrufe • vor 16 Tagen

Clarence Thomas explained the Second Amendment in one sentence. And every politician who talks about what gun rights they are willing to “let” you keep should hear it. The Second Amendment does not grant the right. It assumes the right already exists. That means the government does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. The amendment tells the government what it cannot do to a right you already had. Rights first. Government second. That is the order. And once you understand that, every gun law looks different. Because now the government is the one that has to explain itself. Not you. Then Thomas tells a story about Justice Breyer asking what he would do if a man with a machete walked up on his porch demanding money. Thomas’s answer? He would be cleaning his guns. That is why this clip hits different. He does not just rule on the Second Amendment. He understands it. He lives it. And he connects it to the history most gun control speeches leave out: The 14th Amendment. Freed slaves. The right to defend yourself from people trying to kill you. Because a citizen who cannot protect his own life does not stay a citizen for very long. Do you think most politicians understand the Second Amendment, or do they just talk around it? Shop the America Hat here:

Clarence Thomas explained the Second Amendment in one sentence. And every politician who talks about what gun rights they are willing to “let” you keep should hear it. The Second Amendment does not grant the right. It assumes the right already exists. That means the government does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. The amendment tells the government what it cannot do to a right you already had. Rights first. Government second. That is the order. And once you understand that, every gun law looks different. Because now the government is the one that has to explain itself. Not you. Then Thomas tells a story about Justice Breyer asking what he would do if a man with a machete walked up on his porch demanding money. Thomas’s answer? He would be cleaning his guns. That is why this clip hits different. He does not just rule on the Second Amendment. He understands it. He lives it. And he connects it to the history most gun control speeches leave out: The 14th Amendment. Freed slaves. The right to defend yourself from people trying to kill you. Because a citizen who cannot protect his own life does not stay a citizen for very long. Do you think most politicians understand the Second Amendment, or do they just talk around it? Shop the America Hat here:

Colion Noir

109,757 Aufrufe • vor 23 Tagen

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:

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

15,328 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

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?

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 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

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.

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.

3,015,730 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

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.

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

41,529 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

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.

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 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

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.

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 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten