Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

🚨🎙️MLS BAN WARNING FOR MESSI? THREE-GAME SUSPENSION COULD BE ON THE TABLE “I think Lionel Messi has a serious disciplinary problem on his hands after what happened against Philadelphia, and I would not be surprised if MLS decides to come down heavily on him. “We have to separate the... player Messi is from the incident itself. He is one of the greatest footballers the sport has ever produced, but that does not mean he gets a different set of rules when he is involved in an off-the-ball incident. “What makes this interesting is that it was not part of a footballing action. Messi was involved in a confrontation with Quinn Sullivan, there was a lot of pushing and talking, and then you see Messi make contact with the back of Sullivan’s head or neck. The referee did not issue a card at the time, but MLS has the ability to look at incidents retrospectively. “If the disciplinary committee decides that the contact was intentional and constitutes violent or unsporting conduct, then a suspension becomes a realistic possibility. They will have to look at the video, the referee’s report, the sequence of events before the contact and whether Messi was reacting to something Sullivan had done. “For me, the fact that there was no serious injury does not automatically make it acceptable. The disciplinary process cannot simply say, ‘It was Messi, so it was harmless.’ The question should be whether the action crossed the line. “I could see MLS considering a three-game suspension if they believe the slap was deliberate and that the incident deserves punishment beyond what the referee saw on the night. Whether they actually go that far is another question, because there are mitigating circumstances and the contact itself was relatively minor. “But MLS also has to think about the message it sends. If another player did exactly the same thing and the footage clearly showed an intentional slap to an opponent’s head or neck, would we expect the league to investigate? Of course we would. “Messi cannot be immune from that standard simply because of his status. In fact, with his profile, there is probably an even bigger responsibility on him to avoid these situations. “And remember, this was already a very heated match. The game finished 2–2, there was another confrontation late in the match, two players were sent off, and emotions were clearly boiling over. MLS will have plenty of footage to examine. “So I would not say Messi is definitely getting three games. That would be irresponsible at this stage. But if the committee concludes that he deliberately struck Sullivan and believes it falls under conduct deserving disciplinary action, three games is certainly a punishment they could consider. “The big question now is whether MLS treats this as a minor incident that warrants a fine, or whether they decide that putting a hand to an opponent’s head off the ball deserves a suspension. Messi’s name should not decide that. The evidence should.”show more

MatchReport

11,382 subscribers

69,028 views • 5 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Ok. So, it is very early and I'm only catching up now. If I got this right: 0. The organizers of the event took government money to facilitate the event, fully knowing that Messi playing was key to the money being awarded as a grant. 1. Messi and Suarez were injured, but Martino never mentioned to the organizers that they wouldn't play. The game was held without warning fans that the main reason they were there was not going to feature. 2. David Beckham was booed during the award ceremony for this friendly. 3. Martino acknowledges the failure in letting folks know Messi was not going to play. 4. They play Japan's Vissel Kobe on Wednesday after embarrassing losses and a win in Hong Kong. Yup, this preseason tour is going great and leaving a wonderful image of MLS to the rest of the world. Well done, Inter Miami. #InterMiamiCF | #mls Inter Miami CF 📷:CNN and Joel Chan

Ok. So, it is very early and I'm only catching up now. If I got this right: 0. The organizers of the event took government money to facilitate the event, fully knowing that Messi playing was key to the money being awarded as a grant. 1. Messi and Suarez were injured, but Martino never mentioned to the organizers that they wouldn't play. The game was held without warning fans that the main reason they were there was not going to feature. 2. David Beckham was booed during the award ceremony for this friendly. 3. Martino acknowledges the failure in letting folks know Messi was not going to play. 4. They play Japan's Vissel Kobe on Wednesday after embarrassing losses and a win in Hong Kong. Yup, this preseason tour is going great and leaving a wonderful image of MLS to the rest of the world. Well done, Inter Miami. #InterMiamiCF | #mls Inter Miami CF 📷:CNN and Joel Chan

José Roberto Nuñez

247,119 views • 2 years ago

Breen said this was "so much contact" and Legs thought there was a lot of contact to the back of Amen's head. But the replay disproves that. The block is clean, and we know that after that, the rest of the minor contact is deemed marginal. And I just don't see contact to the head

Breen said this was "so much contact" and Legs thought there was a lot of contact to the back of Amen's head. But the replay disproves that. The block is clean, and we know that after that, the rest of the minor contact is deemed marginal. And I just don't see contact to the head

BBALLBREAKDOWN

206,169 views • 4 months ago

🚨🎙️Micheal carrick was asked the difference between Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi 🗣️Michael Carrick:The difference between Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi, for me, is what Ronaldo gives you in the biggest moments. When everything is on the line, he has that ability to produce something special. He turns up when his team needs him most.” “I’ve played with Cristiano, and I’ve seen it firsthand. Finals, knockout games, title deciders—he always found a way to make the difference. Whether it was a goal, a header, a run, or simply inspiring the team, he delivered when it mattered.” “Messi is an extraordinary footballer, one of the greatest to ever play the game, but Ronaldo has that extra edge in decisive moments. He gives you that little bit more when the pressure is at its highest, and that’s what separates him for me.”

🚨🎙️Micheal carrick was asked the difference between Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi 🗣️Michael Carrick:The difference between Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi, for me, is what Ronaldo gives you in the biggest moments. When everything is on the line, he has that ability to produce something special. He turns up when his team needs him most.” “I’ve played with Cristiano, and I’ve seen it firsthand. Finals, knockout games, title deciders—he always found a way to make the difference. Whether it was a goal, a header, a run, or simply inspiring the team, he delivered when it mattered.” “Messi is an extraordinary footballer, one of the greatest to ever play the game, but Ronaldo has that extra edge in decisive moments. He gives you that little bit more when the pressure is at its highest, and that’s what separates him for me.”

Hk🐐🇵🇹🇯🇵

32,285 views • 1 month ago

‡ Yet Another Dubious Stewards Decision There is a long-standing complaint relating to stewards decisions that is shared by virtually all horseplayers: they should be more consistent in their decision making. Such complaints are legitimate, and consistency should always be a goal, not only in the officiating of horse racing. But it seems to me that the problem illustrated by the DQ in Del Mar's 11th race on Saturday is, in some ways, even more frustrating. I am referring to what seems to be a far too common inability of stewards to watch replays carefully, and thoughtfully process what has been seen. While I credit Del Mar for having edited together all three views of the incident in the embedded clip, it would have been better if they had (also) slowed down the drone view, which, as is so often the case, appears to be the definitive view. I have extracted the salient drone view portion and zoomed in on the action, so that readers might more easily see the crucial incident that the stewards apparently failed to take into account. The dubious decision to DQ the winner (#3 red and white silks) was made on the basis that nearing the wire, it drifted out, and caused the eventual fourth-place finisher (#5 pink silks) to steady, possibly costing that one a better placing. But I would argue that a careful, and reasonably thoughtful viewing of the drone shot, clearly shows something different. Just before the incident referred to by the stewards, the #5 horse (pink silks) and #9 (yellow silks) made contact, and it was that contact which initially caused the former to steady. The winner did subsequently drift out, but that was incidental, and did not, at least on its own, cost the #5 a placing. In fact, that the two even came so close was arguably a direct result of the #5 briefly losing its hind-end as a result of the bumping with the #9 horse. Had it not been for that initial contact, causing the #5 to angle in towards the eventual winner, there almost certainly would not have been any meaningful loss of momentum. Parsing it even more finely, it appears, again from the drone shot, that the #9 was not at fault, and it was, ironically, the "victim" in the questionable eyes of the stewards (#5), which angled in and lost its hind-end as a result of that earlier contact. Given that the rider of #5 had understandably steadied more sharply after the initial, far more dangerous incident, the most important momentum loss had already occurred before the rider again steadied slightly, due to the winner drifting out. In summary, there were clearly two incidents which contributed to a loss of momentum on the part of the #5 horse. Equally clearly, it was the initial incident, not even mentioned by the stewards, that caused the greater loss of momentum. In my view, the incident that the stewards used to rationalize the DQ was trivial, relatively speaking, and given the broader context, there should not have been any change in the order of finish.

‡ Yet Another Dubious Stewards Decision There is a long-standing complaint relating to stewards decisions that is shared by virtually all horseplayers: they should be more consistent in their decision making. Such complaints are legitimate, and consistency should always be a goal, not only in the officiating of horse racing. But it seems to me that the problem illustrated by the DQ in Del Mar's 11th race on Saturday is, in some ways, even more frustrating. I am referring to what seems to be a far too common inability of stewards to watch replays carefully, and thoughtfully process what has been seen. While I credit Del Mar for having edited together all three views of the incident in the embedded clip, it would have been better if they had (also) slowed down the drone view, which, as is so often the case, appears to be the definitive view. I have extracted the salient drone view portion and zoomed in on the action, so that readers might more easily see the crucial incident that the stewards apparently failed to take into account. The dubious decision to DQ the winner (#3 red and white silks) was made on the basis that nearing the wire, it drifted out, and caused the eventual fourth-place finisher (#5 pink silks) to steady, possibly costing that one a better placing. But I would argue that a careful, and reasonably thoughtful viewing of the drone shot, clearly shows something different. Just before the incident referred to by the stewards, the #5 horse (pink silks) and #9 (yellow silks) made contact, and it was that contact which initially caused the former to steady. The winner did subsequently drift out, but that was incidental, and did not, at least on its own, cost the #5 a placing. In fact, that the two even came so close was arguably a direct result of the #5 briefly losing its hind-end as a result of the bumping with the #9 horse. Had it not been for that initial contact, causing the #5 to angle in towards the eventual winner, there almost certainly would not have been any meaningful loss of momentum. Parsing it even more finely, it appears, again from the drone shot, that the #9 was not at fault, and it was, ironically, the "victim" in the questionable eyes of the stewards (#5), which angled in and lost its hind-end as a result of that earlier contact. Given that the rider of #5 had understandably steadied more sharply after the initial, far more dangerous incident, the most important momentum loss had already occurred before the rider again steadied slightly, due to the winner drifting out. In summary, there were clearly two incidents which contributed to a loss of momentum on the part of the #5 horse. Equally clearly, it was the initial incident, not even mentioned by the stewards, that caused the greater loss of momentum. In my view, the incident that the stewards used to rationalize the DQ was trivial, relatively speaking, and given the broader context, there should not have been any change in the order of finish.

Tinky

10,997 views • 1 month ago

Sergio “Kun” Agüero revealed in a livestream that Messi and the Argentina coach did clash after the World Cup final loss to Spain and also talked about how Messi’s teammates let him down. “I honestly didn’t like how things ended in the final with the national team, especially with Messi having a disagreement with Lionel Scaloni. Messi told me he had a clash with Scaloni over the coach’s tactics and how he handled the match. Messi told him there was no way they could sit back and let Spain have all the ball because they were going to lose that way, but the coach still insisted on playing a low block while waiting for a counter. I mean, who the hell goes against the words of the greatest player in the world? Messi sees the game differently, but the coach was too full of pride to follow his advice. Enzo’s challenge was very reckless. When you already have a yellow card, you still went for that type of tackle. Argentina had already lost the game before the final even kicked off, and it’s just so sad how Lionel Scaloni and the teammates let Leo down in his last World Cup after everything he has done for the national team.”

Sergio “Kun” Agüero revealed in a livestream that Messi and the Argentina coach did clash after the World Cup final loss to Spain and also talked about how Messi’s teammates let him down. “I honestly didn’t like how things ended in the final with the national team, especially with Messi having a disagreement with Lionel Scaloni. Messi told me he had a clash with Scaloni over the coach’s tactics and how he handled the match. Messi told him there was no way they could sit back and let Spain have all the ball because they were going to lose that way, but the coach still insisted on playing a low block while waiting for a counter. I mean, who the hell goes against the words of the greatest player in the world? Messi sees the game differently, but the coach was too full of pride to follow his advice. Enzo’s challenge was very reckless. When you already have a yellow card, you still went for that type of tackle. Argentina had already lost the game before the final even kicked off, and it’s just so sad how Lionel Scaloni and the teammates let Leo down in his last World Cup after everything he has done for the national team.”

SIR1⭐️

3,549,155 views • 1 month ago

This is the damage that a six-year-old autistic girl did to a classroom when the teacher told her no and try to discipline her. The teacher was suspended for three days. Was this a fair punishment to the teacher, or do you think it goes too far? I realize that this is a room splitter. I don’t understand if an adult in charge is not allowed to discipline an unruly child then what are they there for ..? Yes even if the child has special needs. What’s the right course of action here? Song “girl on fire” Alicia Keyes

This is the damage that a six-year-old autistic girl did to a classroom when the teacher told her no and try to discipline her. The teacher was suspended for three days. Was this a fair punishment to the teacher, or do you think it goes too far? I realize that this is a room splitter. I don’t understand if an adult in charge is not allowed to discipline an unruly child then what are they there for ..? Yes even if the child has special needs. What’s the right course of action here? Song “girl on fire” Alicia Keyes

Leah Rain ✝️🇺🇸🎸🏝️

27,541 views • 4 days ago

🚨Ronaldinho on what made Cristiano Ronaldo different from him, Messi, Neymar and other great players: 🗣️ Ronaldinho: “What made Cristiano different? I played against him, I played alongside some of the greatest players ever, I played with Messi and Neymar, and you could feel that Ronaldo was built differently. “I had my tricks, my smile, my freedom. Messi has his incredible dribbling and that ability to make the impossible look simple. Neymar has the creativity and imagination. But Cristiano was obsessed with becoming better. “When I faced him, you could see it. You could score against him, beat him, have a good game, and he would come back the next time looking even more determined. He didn’t accept staying at the same level. “What really separated him was the way he transformed himself. He arrived at Manchester United as a talented winger who loved taking players on. Then suddenly he was scoring more, becoming stronger, improving his movement, his heading, his finishing, everything. “I have played with players who were naturally gifted and could decide a game without thinking. Cristiano was different. He treated football like a responsibility. He wanted to master every part of it. “That is why when people compare me, Messi, Neymar and Cristiano, I don’t look at who had the most beautiful style. I look at who kept finding another level. “And that is Cristiano. He didn’t just want to be one of the best players of his generation. He wanted to make sure nobody could take his place at the top.”

🚨Ronaldinho on what made Cristiano Ronaldo different from him, Messi, Neymar and other great players: 🗣️ Ronaldinho: “What made Cristiano different? I played against him, I played alongside some of the greatest players ever, I played with Messi and Neymar, and you could feel that Ronaldo was built differently. “I had my tricks, my smile, my freedom. Messi has his incredible dribbling and that ability to make the impossible look simple. Neymar has the creativity and imagination. But Cristiano was obsessed with becoming better. “When I faced him, you could see it. You could score against him, beat him, have a good game, and he would come back the next time looking even more determined. He didn’t accept staying at the same level. “What really separated him was the way he transformed himself. He arrived at Manchester United as a talented winger who loved taking players on. Then suddenly he was scoring more, becoming stronger, improving his movement, his heading, his finishing, everything. “I have played with players who were naturally gifted and could decide a game without thinking. Cristiano was different. He treated football like a responsibility. He wanted to master every part of it. “That is why when people compare me, Messi, Neymar and Cristiano, I don’t look at who had the most beautiful style. I look at who kept finding another level. “And that is Cristiano. He didn’t just want to be one of the best players of his generation. He wanted to make sure nobody could take his place at the top.”

SethOfficial

488,127 views • 6 days ago

Regarding the Eric Trump / Daniel Cormier “text scandal”, I am open to being convinced otherwise, but I do not believe for one second that Eric Trump would text something so stupid to Daniel Cormier. It’s laughably stupid on its face to think that Eric Trump would ask a UFC commentator if any of the fights are “rigged”. That he would ask it in writing. And that he would not, for example, just pick up the phone and call Dana White or Joe Rogan himself. That said, I just want to understand what happened. Daniel Cormier said he was hacked. Is that to say he was hacked at the text level, or the X post level? Did he in fact make the post, and delete it? If he made the post, did he do it as a joke to illustrate how absurd the text hack was, but realized how the post could be misinterpreted as real? Or did someone make the post from his X account he subsequently deleted it. I know there are some who are going to say he made the post in earnest, thinking the text messages were real, intending to call out the “corruption”, and he has since been threatened, deleted the post, and claimed “hack”, etc. I can tell you exactly why I do not believe, even if he made the post, he did it believing the text message was real, intending to call out the “corruption”. If Cormier seriously thought the text messages were real, he would understand that by posting it publicly, it would literally destroy the UFC, his livelihood and his legacy - in addition to the legacy of everyone who has ever competed in the UFC. There is no realm of the universe in which even if it were in fact a real text that he actually received from Eric Trump, he would post it publicly. Because it would mean the end of the UFC. I just want to know if he actually made the post from his X account, or if the entire post was the result of a hack (hence the subsequent deleting of the post). Serious and sincere questions for clarity that would benefit everyone Eric Trump

Regarding the Eric Trump / Daniel Cormier “text scandal”, I am open to being convinced otherwise, but I do not believe for one second that Eric Trump would text something so stupid to Daniel Cormier. It’s laughably stupid on its face to think that Eric Trump would ask a UFC commentator if any of the fights are “rigged”. That he would ask it in writing. And that he would not, for example, just pick up the phone and call Dana White or Joe Rogan himself. That said, I just want to understand what happened. Daniel Cormier said he was hacked. Is that to say he was hacked at the text level, or the X post level? Did he in fact make the post, and delete it? If he made the post, did he do it as a joke to illustrate how absurd the text hack was, but realized how the post could be misinterpreted as real? Or did someone make the post from his X account he subsequently deleted it. I know there are some who are going to say he made the post in earnest, thinking the text messages were real, intending to call out the “corruption”, and he has since been threatened, deleted the post, and claimed “hack”, etc. I can tell you exactly why I do not believe, even if he made the post, he did it believing the text message was real, intending to call out the “corruption”. If Cormier seriously thought the text messages were real, he would understand that by posting it publicly, it would literally destroy the UFC, his livelihood and his legacy - in addition to the legacy of everyone who has ever competed in the UFC. There is no realm of the universe in which even if it were in fact a real text that he actually received from Eric Trump, he would post it publicly. Because it would mean the end of the UFC. I just want to know if he actually made the post from his X account, or if the entire post was the result of a hack (hence the subsequent deleting of the post). Serious and sincere questions for clarity that would benefit everyone Eric Trump

Viva Frei

30,167 views • 2 months ago

Brooks Koepka leaving LIV Golf is an obvious blow to the league. But, it would be a considerably bigger blow if Bryson DeChambeau were to do the same. Bryson is contracted through the end of 2026, but he’s currently in discussions to extend early. Speaking exclusively to Tom Hobbs from Flushing It Golf, he spoke about the current situation: “I mean, look, it's confidential. I’m not going to share too much, but the conversations are in process. We have to get to a place where both parties have a good understanding of one another. It is getting to a place that makes sense for both sides. “And, I think that can happen, but you never know. Life throws curve balls and, obviously, we saw what happened today (Brooks Koepka leaving LIV Golf) and that was quite a shock to a lot of people and something that, you know, it is what it is. “People make decisions for whatever their needs and wants are and, ultimately, you have to respect it and move on and it feels like it was a mutual understanding and that's great. “I think that as a league now we have more opportunity to make some movements and I think that team has an opportunity to do some things differently than the past few seasons. So, we'll see where it all goes and where it all leads. Ultimately, it's quite interesting.” It certainly is interesting. Throughout the season, LIV Golf officials were trying desperately to convince media members that Brooks was happy and committed to the league and his franchise, when perhaps they were actually just trying to convince themselves. So, were the players aware he felt this way and did they expect the news to come so soon, before the end of his current contract? “There was always rumblings, but ultimately, it was a shock when I saw it today. I was like, whoa, all right, well, didn't know it was going to happen today. I didn't have that on my bingo card for the 23rd of December. “There's also, people can look at it as an opportunity. I always look at it as when one door closes another opens, right? And, I'm not going to speak for LIV, but I think that's what we're thinking of, at least from my perspective. If I was running the league, I'd look at it as an opportunity, not in a negative or positive way. It's just, it is what it is, right?” Bryson makes an interesting point. Brooks was never really committed to his captaincy of Smash GC or building a franchise, so perhaps a change of leadership and the opportunity that offers is actually a positive. There’s no point in having a big name player on the league if he’s not even prepared to wear his own team branding. So, now that Brooks has officially left, does Bryson think Brooks should be allowed back onto the PGA Tour? “I don't know, man. I don't know what they should allow or not… If they're going to be doing it by the book, they should do it by the book and not give any special exemption. But if there's a special exemption, it definitely opens the doors for others to do the same, which, you know, it's a slippery slope for sure.” Currently, no official pathway back to the PGA Tour for Brooks Koepka has been announced. So, any decision that is made will definitely be something all players on the LIV Golf League will be paying very close attention to. Follows on in a quote of this post. Bryson DeChambeau Crushers GC LIV Golf

Brooks Koepka leaving LIV Golf is an obvious blow to the league. But, it would be a considerably bigger blow if Bryson DeChambeau were to do the same. Bryson is contracted through the end of 2026, but he’s currently in discussions to extend early. Speaking exclusively to Tom Hobbs from Flushing It Golf, he spoke about the current situation: “I mean, look, it's confidential. I’m not going to share too much, but the conversations are in process. We have to get to a place where both parties have a good understanding of one another. It is getting to a place that makes sense for both sides. “And, I think that can happen, but you never know. Life throws curve balls and, obviously, we saw what happened today (Brooks Koepka leaving LIV Golf) and that was quite a shock to a lot of people and something that, you know, it is what it is. “People make decisions for whatever their needs and wants are and, ultimately, you have to respect it and move on and it feels like it was a mutual understanding and that's great. “I think that as a league now we have more opportunity to make some movements and I think that team has an opportunity to do some things differently than the past few seasons. So, we'll see where it all goes and where it all leads. Ultimately, it's quite interesting.” It certainly is interesting. Throughout the season, LIV Golf officials were trying desperately to convince media members that Brooks was happy and committed to the league and his franchise, when perhaps they were actually just trying to convince themselves. So, were the players aware he felt this way and did they expect the news to come so soon, before the end of his current contract? “There was always rumblings, but ultimately, it was a shock when I saw it today. I was like, whoa, all right, well, didn't know it was going to happen today. I didn't have that on my bingo card for the 23rd of December. “There's also, people can look at it as an opportunity. I always look at it as when one door closes another opens, right? And, I'm not going to speak for LIV, but I think that's what we're thinking of, at least from my perspective. If I was running the league, I'd look at it as an opportunity, not in a negative or positive way. It's just, it is what it is, right?” Bryson makes an interesting point. Brooks was never really committed to his captaincy of Smash GC or building a franchise, so perhaps a change of leadership and the opportunity that offers is actually a positive. There’s no point in having a big name player on the league if he’s not even prepared to wear his own team branding. So, now that Brooks has officially left, does Bryson think Brooks should be allowed back onto the PGA Tour? “I don't know, man. I don't know what they should allow or not… If they're going to be doing it by the book, they should do it by the book and not give any special exemption. But if there's a special exemption, it definitely opens the doors for others to do the same, which, you know, it's a slippery slope for sure.” Currently, no official pathway back to the PGA Tour for Brooks Koepka has been announced. So, any decision that is made will definitely be something all players on the LIV Golf League will be paying very close attention to. Follows on in a quote of this post. Bryson DeChambeau Crushers GC LIV Golf

Flushing It

1,206,807 views • 8 months ago

UPDATE: Charlie Kirk Blood Spatter, Earpiece, or Necklace? This video is going viral from someone named RangeDayBro on YouTube, saying this is 100% evidence Charlie was shot in the head, BUT… it’s kinda wrong. I was the original person to point out that something looked like it hit Charlies right side of his head when it happened… when I first started looking, I thought the exact same thing he did about the “Blood Splatter”. But I kept slowing down the video, and discovered what appears to be an earpiece or necklace. He also gets the “FLASH” wrong, 100% wrong. Stating that’s where the shooter was.. then said he was hiding in the bush. After combing through video footage, I found what I believe to be 100% the muzzle flash. The shot did not and could not have come from that location because it’s merely the top window panel of the interior hall of flags (I think that’s what it’s called.) The muzzle flash was 100% a reflection off that glass panel from a far off distance, notably in the same general direction they said the shooter was. (See post below) Conclusion: Now, I’m not saying he couldn’t have been shot from anywhere else.. nor in any direction. In fact, I don’t buy the story at all that his neck bones stopped that bullet. As we saw that day, there were several distractions, which I feel played a significant role to allow the real people to get away. I’m only saying his suggestion about the “blood spatter” is just his earpiece or most likely a necklace... It’s important to be accurate and process eliminate these things. Maybe Turning Point USA can confirm if in fact his necklace did pop off, it could settle some of these “theories”. All we want is the truth.

UPDATE: Charlie Kirk Blood Spatter, Earpiece, or Necklace? This video is going viral from someone named RangeDayBro on YouTube, saying this is 100% evidence Charlie was shot in the head, BUT… it’s kinda wrong. I was the original person to point out that something looked like it hit Charlies right side of his head when it happened… when I first started looking, I thought the exact same thing he did about the “Blood Splatter”. But I kept slowing down the video, and discovered what appears to be an earpiece or necklace. He also gets the “FLASH” wrong, 100% wrong. Stating that’s where the shooter was.. then said he was hiding in the bush. After combing through video footage, I found what I believe to be 100% the muzzle flash. The shot did not and could not have come from that location because it’s merely the top window panel of the interior hall of flags (I think that’s what it’s called.) The muzzle flash was 100% a reflection off that glass panel from a far off distance, notably in the same general direction they said the shooter was. (See post below) Conclusion: Now, I’m not saying he couldn’t have been shot from anywhere else.. nor in any direction. In fact, I don’t buy the story at all that his neck bones stopped that bullet. As we saw that day, there were several distractions, which I feel played a significant role to allow the real people to get away. I’m only saying his suggestion about the “blood spatter” is just his earpiece or most likely a necklace... It’s important to be accurate and process eliminate these things. Maybe Turning Point USA can confirm if in fact his necklace did pop off, it could settle some of these “theories”. All we want is the truth.

MJTruthUltra

237,534 views • 11 months ago

I haven’t followed the Epstein story closely and don’t have strong, settled views on it. But even from a distance, a few things are obvious. There’s literally a video of Alan Dershowitz admitting he got a massage at Epstein’s mansion. That alone—just the basic fact that Epstein had “masseuses” hanging around ready to give “massages” to his guests—makes it all but certain that a lot of people got those massages, and very likely that at least some of those encounters went beyond massages. That much, I take as a given. The real question, then, is what Epstein was actually doing? Was he simply offering his friends a good time? Was it transactional, i.e. exchanging favors or deals for access to these “services”? Or was he collecting blackmail material? Any of those are plausible, and others may be too. But calling the whole thing a hoax falls apart the second you watch that clip. Dershowitz’s own admission proves there’s a there there. Now, it may not have been as widespread or depraved as some have claimed. Some of the women involved gave contradictory testimony. That doesn’t erase what happened, but it might mean the scope was narrower than assumed. Still, people have a right to ask how far it all went. What the government should be saying is simple: Yes, the rollout was a disaster, especially the ridiculous “binder” stunt. Yes, Epstein was a predator. Yes, Alex Acosta never should have let him off. Yes, it is probably too late to piece everything together. And yes, we cannot reliably determine how old some of the girls were or exactly who did what and that is also why names cannot simply be released, because, as Dershowitz claims of himself, some guests may have engaged in conduct that was technically legal and consensual. And at the very least, one basic question should be easy to answer: did Epstein work for U.S. intelligence? He’s dead. They can say yes or no.

I haven’t followed the Epstein story closely and don’t have strong, settled views on it. But even from a distance, a few things are obvious. There’s literally a video of Alan Dershowitz admitting he got a massage at Epstein’s mansion. That alone—just the basic fact that Epstein had “masseuses” hanging around ready to give “massages” to his guests—makes it all but certain that a lot of people got those massages, and very likely that at least some of those encounters went beyond massages. That much, I take as a given. The real question, then, is what Epstein was actually doing? Was he simply offering his friends a good time? Was it transactional, i.e. exchanging favors or deals for access to these “services”? Or was he collecting blackmail material? Any of those are plausible, and others may be too. But calling the whole thing a hoax falls apart the second you watch that clip. Dershowitz’s own admission proves there’s a there there. Now, it may not have been as widespread or depraved as some have claimed. Some of the women involved gave contradictory testimony. That doesn’t erase what happened, but it might mean the scope was narrower than assumed. Still, people have a right to ask how far it all went. What the government should be saying is simple: Yes, the rollout was a disaster, especially the ridiculous “binder” stunt. Yes, Epstein was a predator. Yes, Alex Acosta never should have let him off. Yes, it is probably too late to piece everything together. And yes, we cannot reliably determine how old some of the girls were or exactly who did what and that is also why names cannot simply be released, because, as Dershowitz claims of himself, some guests may have engaged in conduct that was technically legal and consensual. And at the very least, one basic question should be easy to answer: did Epstein work for U.S. intelligence? He’s dead. They can say yes or no.

Hans Mahncke

16,791 views • 1 year ago

A point of utter embarrassment and shame for many Iranians is the manner in which elements of the diaspora danced on the streets in Western capitals as bombs rained on Tehran. It is also a source for a lot of anger among Iranians in Iran who oppose the theocracy but nevertheless did not favor war and who are stunned to see some in the Diaspora being so indifferent to the suffering caused by the war. But there is another aspect that deserves closer scrutiny. These, almost exclusively pro-Shah elements of the Diaspora, did not dance to celebrate the downfall of the regime. They didn't dance because they had won. They simply danced because the war had started, nothing more. As if their goal was neither freedom nor democracy, but simply revenge and the pleasure they took from seeing Iran bombed. Had they danced after the theocracy had fallen (which it hasn't), it would be a bit different. It would be a moment where they could argue that the price was very high, but because the regime is defeated, it was worth it, and, as a result, a cause for celebration. But they didn't wait for the regime to fall. They danced right away. Signalling that the cost was worth it, EVEN IF the regime didn't fall. Because it was always about selfish revenge, not freedom.

A point of utter embarrassment and shame for many Iranians is the manner in which elements of the diaspora danced on the streets in Western capitals as bombs rained on Tehran. It is also a source for a lot of anger among Iranians in Iran who oppose the theocracy but nevertheless did not favor war and who are stunned to see some in the Diaspora being so indifferent to the suffering caused by the war. But there is another aspect that deserves closer scrutiny. These, almost exclusively pro-Shah elements of the Diaspora, did not dance to celebrate the downfall of the regime. They didn't dance because they had won. They simply danced because the war had started, nothing more. As if their goal was neither freedom nor democracy, but simply revenge and the pleasure they took from seeing Iran bombed. Had they danced after the theocracy had fallen (which it hasn't), it would be a bit different. It would be a moment where they could argue that the price was very high, but because the regime is defeated, it was worth it, and, as a result, a cause for celebration. But they didn't wait for the regime to fall. They danced right away. Signalling that the cost was worth it, EVEN IF the regime didn't fall. Because it was always about selfish revenge, not freedom.

Trita Parsi

129,086 views • 3 months ago

Egyptian superstar Mohamed Salah in a recent interview about the 2026 World Cup match against Lionel Messi. “Messi is my idol,” Salah began, his voice steady but laced with disappointment. “But I saw how we, the Egypt team, were cheated in that match. It was so unfair. They fouled me — that could have been a penalty, but the referee and VAR didn’t award it. The match was frustrating. Seeing a legend like Messi cheat to win matches is heartbreaking.” “I’ve looked up to him my whole life. But football should be fair. That day… it wasn’t.”

Egyptian superstar Mohamed Salah in a recent interview about the 2026 World Cup match against Lionel Messi. “Messi is my idol,” Salah began, his voice steady but laced with disappointment. “But I saw how we, the Egypt team, were cheated in that match. It was so unfair. They fouled me — that could have been a penalty, but the referee and VAR didn’t award it. The match was frustrating. Seeing a legend like Messi cheat to win matches is heartbreaking.” “I’ve looked up to him my whole life. But football should be fair. That day… it wasn’t.”

MR M ONEY

421,227 views • 1 month ago

Rodrigo De Paul on Jude Bellingham putting his hands on Valentín Barco after the game: “I wasn’t aware of what happened at that moment, but immediately afterward Barco told me about it. When the footage was shown to me, I went straight to Bellingham and said, ‘Hey Jude, the game is over, right? Let’s have a little conversation in the tunnel.’ He replied, ‘Yes, of course, why not.’ “But as soon as we left the pitch, he was nowhere to be found. He was actually lucky I didn’t get hold of him because what he did was completely unprofessional. Putting your hands on someone during a match is not something that should be accepted.”

Rodrigo De Paul on Jude Bellingham putting his hands on Valentín Barco after the game: “I wasn’t aware of what happened at that moment, but immediately afterward Barco told me about it. When the footage was shown to me, I went straight to Bellingham and said, ‘Hey Jude, the game is over, right? Let’s have a little conversation in the tunnel.’ He replied, ‘Yes, of course, why not.’ “But as soon as we left the pitch, he was nowhere to be found. He was actually lucky I didn’t get hold of him because what he did was completely unprofessional. Putting your hands on someone during a match is not something that should be accepted.”

$AM$ON👑🐐

412,585 views • 28 days ago

Messi fighting against Ronaldo for Pichichi Trophy and was on for a Hat Trick that game but gave it to Neymar after he asked for the penalty. This is the type of players I love not ones that only think about themselves

Messi fighting against Ronaldo for Pichichi Trophy and was on for a Hat Trick that game but gave it to Neymar after he asked for the penalty. This is the type of players I love not ones that only think about themselves

𝐄𝐑

1,480,469 views • 2 years ago

Two posts in one day calling for the end of John Cleese. One says he has allied himself with the darkest forces in Britain and has become the caricature he once mocked. The other, from a Muslim outlet, argues plainly that he should be de-platformed by respectable institutions. De-platformed. Respectable institutions. Say those words slowly and try to hear how they would have landed in 1972. The man co-wrote a film so blasphemous the BBC would not touch it, that was banned outright in Norway and by councils across England, and that two bishops went on television to denounce while he sat there and let them. Life of Brian survived the actual Church of England. It is now being reviewed by a newsletter. And the accusation is that he has become the caricature he once mocked, which is a remarkable sentence to write about a man whose entire body of work was aimed at exactly this. The Ministry of Silly Walks was a joke about a government department funding nonsense with a straight face. Now we have men in offices deciding which comedians remain permissible, and doing it with no jokes at all. At least the Ministry had the decency to be funny. Let me be fair, because I am always fair, and because being fair is what makes the rest of this land. Criticism is not censorship. Both of those men have every right to say Cleese is wrong, tasteless, or past it. That is speech. Nobody owes an 86 year old comedian applause. But there is a hard line between you are wrong and you should not be permitted to speak, and one of those posts crossed it in the headline. The first is an argument. The second is an eviction notice. And notice what the eviction is actually for. He said things about a religion. Not about a person. A religion, which is a set of ideas, and ideas do not have rights. People do. In England you can still say anything you like about the Church of England, and Cleese made a career of it, and nobody drafted a newsletter about respectable institutions. Here is what is wrong with Britain, and I say it with real affection because I am going there next month. A country that gave the world Magna Carta, the common law, and the funniest people who have ever lived has developed the habit of asking whether a joke is allowed. That question has an answer over here. John, if it gets any worse, come to America. Say every single thing you think. Say the wrong ones. Say the ones that would end you at home. Nobody will de-platform you and nobody will send a constable. Bring the silly walk. We have room. 🦋

Two posts in one day calling for the end of John Cleese. One says he has allied himself with the darkest forces in Britain and has become the caricature he once mocked. The other, from a Muslim outlet, argues plainly that he should be de-platformed by respectable institutions. De-platformed. Respectable institutions. Say those words slowly and try to hear how they would have landed in 1972. The man co-wrote a film so blasphemous the BBC would not touch it, that was banned outright in Norway and by councils across England, and that two bishops went on television to denounce while he sat there and let them. Life of Brian survived the actual Church of England. It is now being reviewed by a newsletter. And the accusation is that he has become the caricature he once mocked, which is a remarkable sentence to write about a man whose entire body of work was aimed at exactly this. The Ministry of Silly Walks was a joke about a government department funding nonsense with a straight face. Now we have men in offices deciding which comedians remain permissible, and doing it with no jokes at all. At least the Ministry had the decency to be funny. Let me be fair, because I am always fair, and because being fair is what makes the rest of this land. Criticism is not censorship. Both of those men have every right to say Cleese is wrong, tasteless, or past it. That is speech. Nobody owes an 86 year old comedian applause. But there is a hard line between you are wrong and you should not be permitted to speak, and one of those posts crossed it in the headline. The first is an argument. The second is an eviction notice. And notice what the eviction is actually for. He said things about a religion. Not about a person. A religion, which is a set of ideas, and ideas do not have rights. People do. In England you can still say anything you like about the Church of England, and Cleese made a career of it, and nobody drafted a newsletter about respectable institutions. Here is what is wrong with Britain, and I say it with real affection because I am going there next month. A country that gave the world Magna Carta, the common law, and the funniest people who have ever lived has developed the habit of asking whether a joke is allowed. That question has an answer over here. John, if it gets any worse, come to America. Say every single thing you think. Say the wrong ones. Say the ones that would end you at home. Nobody will de-platform you and nobody will send a constable. Bring the silly walk. We have room. 🦋

Selene Mariposa

269,739 views • 13 days ago

🚨🟡🔴 I asked top agent George #Gardi about the rumours surrounding Lionel #Messi and Galatasaray SK, and about the president’s recent statement that the club’s success “is now at a level where it’s understandable people ask about Messi.” Gardi: “The president has already replied to this question, I would leave this up to him. What I can say is, this is a world football legend. If there would be an opportunity, I think it could be beneficial for the club.” Sky Sport 🇦🇷

🚨🟡🔴 I asked top agent George #Gardi about the rumours surrounding Lionel #Messi and Galatasaray SK, and about the president’s recent statement that the club’s success “is now at a level where it’s understandable people ask about Messi.” Gardi: “The president has already replied to this question, I would leave this up to him. What I can say is, this is a world football legend. If there would be an opportunity, I think it could be beneficial for the club.” Sky Sport 🇦🇷

Florian Plettenberg

92,153 views • 9 months ago

This was the play that got Lu Dort ejected. The contact with Nikola Jokić appeared to be targeting his previously injured left knee. Some OKC fans are arguing it was just incidental contact and that Jokić sold it. But when asked, lead referee James Williams was clear that the action met the criteria for a flagrant foul due to the nature of the contact: “Lu Dort was assessed a flagrant foul penalty 2 because we deemed his contact on Jokić to be unnecessary and excessive with a high potential for injury, and also because the contact led to an altercation that did not dissolve. So, by rule, a flagrant foul penalty 2 carries an automatic ejection.”

This was the play that got Lu Dort ejected. The contact with Nikola Jokić appeared to be targeting his previously injured left knee. Some OKC fans are arguing it was just incidental contact and that Jokić sold it. But when asked, lead referee James Williams was clear that the action met the criteria for a flagrant foul due to the nature of the contact: “Lu Dort was assessed a flagrant foul penalty 2 because we deemed his contact on Jokić to be unnecessary and excessive with a high potential for injury, and also because the contact led to an altercation that did not dissolve. So, by rule, a flagrant foul penalty 2 carries an automatic ejection.”

SpursRΞPORTΞR

719,777 views • 5 months ago

🚨Cubarsí on Rodri winning the Golden Ball over Messi “First of all, congratulations to Rodri. He had an incredible tournament and nobody can deny that. But if you ask me who deserved the Golden Ball after this World Cup, my answer is Lionel Messi.” “People cannot underplay what Messi did simply because Argentina didn't win the World Cup final. At 39 years old, he was still the best player in the tournament. Every time he stepped onto the pitch, he carried his nation and produced moments only he can create.” “I honestly think the way the Golden Ball is decided should change. Team results matter, but football is also about individual greatness. Rodri was fantastic, but for me, Messi was the best player of the tournament and deserved the Golden Ball.”

🚨Cubarsí on Rodri winning the Golden Ball over Messi “First of all, congratulations to Rodri. He had an incredible tournament and nobody can deny that. But if you ask me who deserved the Golden Ball after this World Cup, my answer is Lionel Messi.” “People cannot underplay what Messi did simply because Argentina didn't win the World Cup final. At 39 years old, he was still the best player in the tournament. Every time he stepped onto the pitch, he carried his nation and produced moments only he can create.” “I honestly think the way the Golden Ball is decided should change. Team results matter, but football is also about individual greatness. Rodri was fantastic, but for me, Messi was the best player of the tournament and deserved the Golden Ball.”

TOMI$IN🏅

40,399 views • 1 month ago