Video wird geladen...
Video konnte nicht geladen werden
Kenyon Martin Almost Throws Hands With Nick Young For Being Disrespectful… Tells Him “STFU, You A Child” During Coach Popovich Legacy Talk‼️ Nick Throw Hands Professionally, Kenyon Gonna F-Around and Get Put To Sleep‼️🥴🤛🏿 #KenyonMartin #NickYoung #Fight #Disrespectful #FunniestVideos #stunner #worldstar #Trending #Viral #Unbelievable #Interview #Conversation Mr. Sauce Talk
13,352 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr •via X (Twitter)
0 Kommentare
Keine Kommentare verfügbar
Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt
Ähnliche Videos
![🤬 Burlison: Putting Lacatski Under Oath in a Hearing Wasn't a Top Priority Because He Wouldn't Say Anything New 🤬 (I can't believe I just heard that.) Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "Dr. James Lacatski came on our show. He ran the UFO program for the Defense Intelligence Agency, and he admitted on our show that they breached the hull of a UFO in government possession." Burlison at the Last Hearing: "You reported [that] James Lacatski came to you with government possession of NHI craft and how they ultimately gained entry. Can you testify to the veracity of that claim?" George Knapp at the Last Hearing: "Dr. Lacatski is an honorable man who served most of his career with the DIA. A very trusted, high-level rocket scientist and intelligence analyst who inspired the AAWSAP program, as I said earlier. He said this craft, we had managed to get inside of it. It had no wings, no rotor, no tail, it had no fuel, no fuel tanks. They didn't know how it flew or how it was operated. It clearly looked like it was aerodynamic, but he would not go further. He's a by-the-book guy, and until he gets clearance to say more about that, I don't think we're going to hear much more. "But, it's not ours. It wasn't ours. We didn't make it. We didn't know who made it and how it was built and how it operated. We've got at least one, and I don't know, I think that's enough confirmation that we do have recovered discs and material." (What is written in "Initial Revelations" about that alleged craft, and Lacatski standing by what was written when he was on "Weaponized" is one of the most important claims we've ever had in this field. I don't see it as confirmation that we have craft but we're getting closer. Lacatski saying that he saw it with his own eyes would take it up a notch, but I still wanna see it for myself, and not just in photos and videos. AI is just too good to accept that as proof.) Corbell: "So, and you put that in congressional record. Do you have a way that you can, you know, find out, where is it? He can't tell us, but maybe he can tell you? Where is that craft? Can you go hunt it down? Can you go see it?" Burlison: "You know, that's an interesting question. When it came to Lacatski - and I watched his interview that he did with you guys - and here's what my response to him is. Because he was frustrated that we hadn't reached out to him, but he also kind of, he also admitted that - which is what I was told, and the reason why we haven't reached out to him - is that he's not gonna tell us anything that's not in his books." (Most people on this planet have not read his books!) Corbell: "Well, hold on, hold on. You did reach out to him. There have been three hearings. I reached out to him on behalf of Congress, officially, twice, to say..." Burlison: "You did, that's right, you did." Corbell: "And I had congressional members talk with him the hearing before the last one. He just forgot. But the point is, is that maybe with you guys, in the correct environment, with the right clearances, he can tell you where it is, and you can just put this to bed and go find it." (I'm not against Congress talking to Lacatski in a SCIF, but, IMO, the chances that he tells members of the Secrets Task Force the location of this alleged craft are ZERO. Maybe Rubio would get an answer but he may already know. And if he (Rubio) does know, he's not telling us. At least not yet, and probably, IMO, never.) Burlison: "Yeah. And I remember that. I remember that he was one of the people that we had tasked you to go to reach out to. And for those people that are kind of asking how did that relationship work? Look, we don't have all the contact information for all these people. Why repeat the work that you two have done in building these contacts in your networks? And so, you, basically, patriotically dedicated your time, for free, helping us make contact and kind of coordinate some of those witnesses. (That was an awesome thing for Corbell and Knapp to do and it was for a great cause. The truth!) Burlison: "And I had been told Lacatski is probably not gonna reveal anything that he hasn't already revealed. When I've talked to people, it seemed like it wasn't gonna be new information. And therefore, to me, he wasn't as high of a priority." (He should have been THE priority, as far as witnesses for the hearing. With Lacatski, you have a respected rocket scientist, physicist and intelligence analyst, who has confirmed that this passage from Initial Revelations is accurate: “At the conclusion of a 2011 meeting in the Capitol building with a U.S. Senator and an agency Under Secretary, Lacatski, the only one of this book’s authors present, posed a question. He stated that the United States was in possession of a craft of unknown origin and had successfully gained access to its interior. This craft had a streamlined configuration suitable for aerodynamic flight but no intakes, exhaust, wings, or control surfaces. In fact, it appeared not to have an engine, fuel tanks, or fuel. Lacatski asked: What was the purpose of this craft? Was it a life-support craft useful only for atmospheric reentry or what? If it was a spacecraft, then how did it operate”? And, Lacatski may have seen the craft with his own eyes and entered it. But Burlison (or anybody else on the Task Force) didn't see it as a priority to bring him in, UNDER OATH, and have him repeat what is said in that book, and other important claims from the other two books, and his interviews with Knapp and Corbell? I'm shaking my head as I type this. You know what percentage of the world has read those books and/or watched the, limited, interviews Lacatski has given? Maybe 0.0000000000001% of the population? You had (and still do) a chance to get that man under oath and it wasn't a priority? WTAF? He's getting older and we don't know how much longer he will be around. If, as Rep. Andy Ogles told Matt Laslo, another hearing is coming in January, Lacatski, if he agrees, MUST be part of that. You can ask him about the craft, the alleged paranormal connection, and people getting sick and injured if they get too close to a UAP. And, he can be asked about the hitchhiker effect and claims of contagion. It doesn't matter if he won't add anything new or different than what's in his books or interviews. Put him under oath for the world to see and hear and, hopefully, the mainstream media picks up the story: Rocket Scientist: The USG Has an Otherworldly Craft in its Possession and Have Breached the Hull And maybe, if he's in a Disclosure mood, he'll offer up some surprise like he did in his last interview on Weaponized when he said we have made progress on back engineering these craft but, "it hasn't been achieved to its full extent." That's a MASSIVE claim! Push him to offer up more. And if his answers to many questions are: "It's all in my book"? Make him read from his book so the world can be informed about his claims and what was allegedly discovered in AAWSAP. David Grusch didn't say much more than what he said in his interview with Ross Coulthart and article in The Debrief, but was there ever any thought that he shouldn't have been put under oath and brought in as a witness for that congressional hearing? Of course not!) Burlison: "But to your point, I think getting him in a SCIF and seeing if there's maybe any additional room for him to talk, it might be worthwhile to do that." Knapp: "I think he might. I mean, the last conversations that we've had, it seems like he's edging closer to the idea that, under the right circumstances, he would be willing to share information with Congress, which would be great." (Again, I'm all for putting him the SCIF, too.)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1999618259063308336/amplify_video_thumb/1999591424954957824/img/RtJss2MFC_SNRr-Z.jpg)
![Aspiring California governor Katie Porter sees support plummet after TV outburst | Alexa Cimino, Daily Mail Former Congresswoman Katie Porter has seen a noticeable drop in support for her 2026 California gubernatorial bid after video of her lashing out during a TV interview went viral, a new poll shows. Porter, who had polled at 17 percent in August, now sits at just 11 percent, according to a new UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll released this week. The poll was conducted between October 20 and 27, shortly after Porter's tense televised interview with CBS California reporter Julia Watts. It also follows a resurfaced clip of Porter berating a staffer during a 2021 call with Biden administration officials. The poll found Porter's image ratings have turned negative, with 33 percent of voters viewing her unfavorably compared to 26 percent favorably. Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco now leads the field with 13 percent support. However, the race remains wide open, with 44 per cent of voters still undecided. Porter remains the top Democratic contender, but the poll indicates her campaign may need to rebuild momentum following the controversy. During the exchange with Watts, Porter pushed back against questions about appealing to Trump voters and criticized the tone of the interview as 'unnecessarily argumentative.' In the now-viral conversation, Porter was being probed about current Gov. Gavin Newsom's attempt to redistrict California to benefit Democrats - and what she would say to California Trump voters whom Watts said she will 'need to win.' Porter seemed to disagree as she furrowed her brow and asked: 'How would I need them in order to win, ma'am?' Watts stood her ground. 'Unless you think you're going to get 60 percent of the vote. You think you'll get 60 percent? Everyone who did not vote for Trump will vote for you?' the reporter asked. 'If it is me versus a Republican? I think that I will win the people who did not vote for Trump,' Porter said, after laughing at Watts' initial question. The reporter then pointed out that California's electoral system involves a primary in which several candidates from all parties compete, with the top two candidates moving on to the general election. With that in mind, Porter was pressed on what would happen if her general election opponent was another Democrat. 'I don't intend that to be the case,' she responded. Watts then questioned how Porter could be sure that a Democrat-on-Democrat general wouldn't happen. The question prompted the former congresswoman to get increasingly annoyed, as she said she would build support and cited her experience representing Orange County in Congress, which is a swing district. 'But you just said you don't need those Trump voters,' Watts retorted. With that, Porter finally began to crack, starting to gesture with her hands and questioning Watts' interview. 'Well you asked me if I needed them to win. I feel like this is unnecessarily argumentative, what is your question?' At that point, Watts returned to the original question of wanting to know what Porter would say to Trump voters who were against Newsom's redistricting efforts. 'I'm happy to say that, it's the "do you need them to win" part that I don't understand,' the Democrat responded. She ultimately became fed up with the questions. 'I don't want to keep doing this, I want to call it. Thank you,' she said, suggesting she was about to walk out. 'You're not going to do the interview with us?' Watts asked. 'Nope, not like this, I'm not,' Porter replied. 'Not with seven follow-ups to every single question you ask.' Watts said that 'every single candidate' had gone through a similar interview, with Porter responding: 'I don't care.' 'I want to have a pleasant, positive conversation in which you ask me about every issue on this list and if every question, you're gonna make up a follow up question, we're never going to get there,' Porter continued. Porter indignantly claimed she 'never had to do this before' as she was daring herself to walk out on Watts, who again pointed out that every other candidate had done the same interview. 'I'm me. I'm running for governor because I'm a leader, so I am going to make-' she said before Watts asked: 'So you're not going to answer interview questions from reporters?' Watts then tried to bring the interview back to her list of questions, but Porter refused. 'I don't want to have a negative experience with you and I don't want this all on camera,' Porter said. Watts agreed that she didn't want to have a negative experience either, but she would 'love to continue to ask these questions so that we can show our viewers what every candidate feels about every one of these issues that they care about and redistricting is a massive issue.' The clip was blasted across social media and pounced on by Porter's electoral rivals on both sides. The day after her exchange with Watts, a video from 2021 resurfaced showing Porter sharply reprimanding a staffer during a virtual meeting with a Biden administration official. Porter had recorded a meeting with then-Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm to support the Biden administration in July 2021. An unedited version of the video showed that several minutes into the conversation, a female staffer wearing a facemask ducked into view and a few minutes later could be seen rifling through some items in the background. 'Get out of my f***ing shot,' Porter yelled as she noticed the aide, who said she simply wanted to correct something the congresswoman had said about electric vehicles. 'OK,' Porter replies, clearly irritated. 'You also were in my shot before that. Stay out of my shot.' Later on in the video call, in which Porter touted the Biden administration's climate agenda and promoted electric vehicles, the then-congresswoman reportedly also complained to Granholm that she had not yet visited the White House despite raising a 's**t ton' of money for Biden. 'Never been there,' she lamented. 'Some of my colleagues [have been] there three, four times. I don't fit in the photo-op for some reason.' She also moaned about being out of touch with Biden officials. 'I'm like the least in-connection with the White House member of Congress,' Porter reportedly said, prompting Granholm to try to assuage her. 'That is not true,' the then-Energy Secretary could be heard saying, according to Politico. The final, edited version of the webinar that was published by the Department of Energy, did not include the exchanges. Porter later acknowledged that her conduct toward the staff member was 'inappropriate' and admitted she could have handled the situation more effectively.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1987114587498447213/amplify_video_thumb/1987114464861179904/img/Q9GmLcdAKAjEQHFb.jpg)
!["What [Grusch is] saying is credible." ~Lacatski Did Lacatski See the Craft? Is the Crash Retrieval Program Illegal? Also, Lying for National Security...and Darkness (One of the most important books you can buy is, "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon" by Lacatski, Kelleher, and George Knapp. This interview (which includes L, K & GK) is one of my favs.) ~ Jeremy Kenyon Lockyer Corbell: "What are your thoughts on David Grusch and what he said at that hearing?" Dr. James Lacatski: "I don't know Mr. Grusch. Never met him. I was asked, almost verbatim, the same question by a congressional office to me. A telephone conversation. And I said, 'I don't have a comment. What he's saying is credible.' Now, let me do say one thing that I never witnessed, and I don't know if Colm ever witnessed this. But I never saw any of what I would consider illegal activities. I saw security procedures that are paramount, but not illegal activities. So, I don't concur with that. But, it's reasonable what he's saying, and that's what I told them." Corbell: "Okay, it's reasonable, that we have UFOs we're reverse engineering, that there are biologicals associated with those craft." Lacatski: "Well, we didn't cover biologicals because I can't say anything about that. Uh." Corbell: "Why can't you say, you don't know, or?" Lacatski: "Uh. I can't say anything about that, Jeremy (laughs)." Corbell: "Okay, no, that's great, that's great. So just another question about that, right?" Lacatski: "Well, let me tell you. These books are loaded with questions because someone criticized me, gave me a three rating on 'Skinwalkers at the Pentagon.' Wait 'til they read this one. They said, 'It's textbook-like.' Well, in a sense, they are. They're a learning instrument. And one thing, and I don't know if I discussed this with you, Colm, but I was gonna put, like a textbook, questions in the back of each chapter. What do you think and what do you... Just for the... Now, I wasn't going to give an answer sheet to them. But basically, I think that people really need to delve deeper into the books they have." Corbell: "The big question with David Grusch was there like, well, he didn't see a UFO. Now you're in a meeting in the Capitol Hill, and you're telling them, 'We have a UFO, we've gotten inside of it.' Did you see it yourself?" Lacatski: "Can't answer that." Corbell: "Okay, but if the answer was no, you could answer that, right?" (This is a really important answer. 👇🏼👇🏼👇🏼) Lacatski: "No, that comes...goes back to something that occurred, a similar question, very similar to your question. It wasn't asked by you, but it was asked to Colm, and he said, 'We found no smoking gun.' That is the standard answer we're to give. So I could say 'No,' and it still not be the truth. So the thing is, security is paramount, we followed the rules, and there's a good reason to follow them." (In other words, they can lie to protect national security. And THAT is why Admiral Wilson will say stuff like, Eric Davis? Never met him. When, in fact, Davis met and interviewed Wilson in October of 2002. But the crash retrieval program they discussed is one of the most sensitive programs on the planet. And thus, the lies from Wilson. Corbell really tried his best to push Lacatski. What's the reason for not being able to talk about some of this stuff?) Corbell: "Yeah, you can't tell me that good reason. We've talked about that. You can't give me that good reason, but you're alluding to a really good reason why you can't tell me more about biologics, UFOs, exploitation. You can only say what you said. I get that. I wish you could give me a good reason, because it makes me very suspicious. It makes people like me very suspicious. But what is it? Is the reason so dark, is it so disturbing?" Lacatski: "Oh, I see. If you want my opinion on that, I see no darkness at all here."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1956790504668180683/amplify_video_thumb/1956786447383756800/img/8_UjvCXgYfRuDL4J.jpg)
1:44
Sensitive content
🔥🚨BREAKING NEWS: Jaylenn Earls, the 13-year-old girl in Cincinnati who was missing after being last seen on a family’s ring camera with a black eye, running from her step dad barging into another families house while being chased down has been found safe with an unbelievable twist that has the entire internet divided. In the post made in Harrison Happenings, the girl’s name was revealed to be Jaylenn Earls and she is one of the two daughters of Tiffany Johnson. The original poster was Jordan Adams, who later mentioned that missing Jaylenn Earls stood at the height of 5 ft 3 inches and weighed about 120 lbs. The girl, Jaylenn Earls, came running to Adams’s house crying, asking for help, saying, “He’s coming,” referring to her mom’s boyfriend. Jaylenn Earls, who pushed past Adams’ husband into their home, had a black eye and was running for her life. According to the Facebook post, he tried to talk to calm her down with their two older kids there. In the Facebook post, Jaylenn’s mom, Tiffany commented that the people had wrong everything about her. Tiffany assured them that they would find Jaylenn and also revealed that all these were happening because they told her she couldn’t run the streets and date older men. Also, Jaylenn’s sister, Jenna Earls also came forward to explain what had actually happened. Jenna revealed that her sister, Jaylenn, had run away from home, put her hands on their mom, and had been very disrespectful. Jenna further explained that their mom wouldn’t allow Jaylenn Earls to wear revealing clothes, run the streets, drink & smoke, and date older men. Jaylenn had apparently snuck a 17-year-old guy into their mom’s house while sleeping and had sexual intercourse. Jenna revealed that they had screenshots of her Instagram posts and messages, revealing the truth behind the fiasco. However, they seem to have deleted the comments, and Jaylenn has not said much. Speaking of the guy chasing her, many Reddit users commented that the guy could be Nathaniel Bickel, who had domestic violence charges. She stated, “The videos that’s surfacing of her getting chased was her running from the 17-year-old boys house after cops arrived. While online updates about Jaylenn Earls claim that she is now safe and no longer missing, her own statement on social media tells another story. Taking to the Instagram story with a ring video, she wrote how her mother’s boyfriend touched her inappropriately. Jaylenn Earls goes on to say that she informed her mother, Tiffany, but she instead called her a liar and did not believe her. She says she even informed the Police officials and child protective services multiple times, but they did not do anything. “They didn’t want to hear what I had to say only because I’m a child police kept sending me back with my mom and her boyfriend,” Jaylenn Earls added. While there is no proof or any official news from the local Police about the case, Jaylenn Earls’ mother and sister deny these accusations against her. Regardless of it, the internet seems divided with some buying Jaylenn’s side of story while others are criticizing her acts.
Dom Lucre | Breaker of Narratives
20,659,216 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren
