Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

"We definitely have a defenseless receiver and just as he's turning after catching the ball, he gets hit in the head by the defender. I would not be surprised if this is called targeting from the booth." Despite what Matt Austin said, this was NOT called targeting.

Awful Announcing

420,910 subscribers

265,970 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

10 Yorum

Rob Jackson profil fotoğrafı

Rob Jackson1 yıl önce

Yea, but he was right. It was good announcing and criminal officiating

CJG profil fotoğrafı

CJG1 yıl önce

Unfortunately it wound up being a helmet to helmet hit, but, the defender did not launch himself at the receiver. That wasnt the intent of the defender. Proper no call, imo.

Christopher McQueen🌵👆🦅🦅 profil fotoğrafı

Christopher McQueen🌵👆🦅🦅1 yıl önce

Notice they didn't ask the rules expert for a follow-up, lol. ESPN probably cut his mic.

Stevarino1020 profil fotoğrafı

Stevarino10201 yıl önce

No lowering of the crown of the helmet . Not targeting.

A Word From Dee-Wise profil fotoğrafı

A Word From Dee-Wise1 yıl önce

I think we all know why it wasn't called...

Shane Simmons 🌵 profil fotoğrafı

Shane Simmons 🌵1 yıl önce

If they're not gonna call targeting on the Robinson INT, there is absolutely no way in hell that this can be called a targeting either

David cinquegrana profil fotoğrafı

David cinquegrana1 yıl önce

The amount of people that have been commenting on this hit that don’t know and obviously haven’t looked the rule up, is kind of mind blowing. I mean, Matt Austin lays the rule out for you RIGHT THERE, people!

Scott G. profil fotoğrafı

Scott G.1 yıl önce

Well, if this isn’t targeting, why should that be?

Tommy profil fotoğrafı

Tommy1 yıl önce

Looks like some good old-fashioned football maybe you should start watching bowling instead

Dennis R profil fotoğrafı

Dennis R1 yıl önce

Refs trying to make sure an SEC team moves to the Semifinals

Benzer Videolar

This was not called targeting on Texas. Despite the head to head contact made.

This was not called targeting on Texas. Despite the head to head contact made.

Rate the Refs

1,685,810 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

LaNorris Sellers had to be helped off the field after this hit. The defender was called for targeting and ejected from the game.

LaNorris Sellers had to be helped off the field after this hit. The defender was called for targeting and ejected from the game.

ESPN

1,393,993 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

WOW… MIAMI APPEARS TO GET BAILED OUT BY THE REFS. This was not called targeting. 😳 Despite this being a textbook definition of targeting.

WOW… MIAMI APPEARS TO GET BAILED OUT BY THE REFS. This was not called targeting. 😳 Despite this being a textbook definition of targeting.

MLFootball

234,694 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Look at this ALL in a 30 second span. A targeting was not called on hitting defenseless Bond forcibly in head (can't gripe about Taaffe non-call), Skattebo elbow for Offensive PI but PI called on Texas, then uncatchable ball got PI. All kept ASU in game. WHO gets the calls again?

Look at this ALL in a 30 second span. A targeting was not called on hitting defenseless Bond forcibly in head (can't gripe about Taaffe non-call), Skattebo elbow for Offensive PI but PI called on Texas, then uncatchable ball got PI. All kept ASU in game. WHO gets the calls again?

Snarkisian

410,808 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

The targeting foul against Zack Orr of NCC Football has been overturned, and he will be eligible to start in Saturday's #d3fb National Semifinal vs. Susquehanna Football at 3:30pm EST / 2:30pm CST. I spoke with Steve Shaw, the NCAA's National Coordinator of Officials, about the overturn this morning. Note that the provision in question is whether or not Springfield Football QB Drew Heenan qualified under the rules as a "defenseless player," as the following is one such definition in the NCAA Football Rulebook: "A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped." If a defenseless player is hit in the neck or head region by an opponent, then targeting is a proper call under the rules. Steve said: “We’re very clear that he's not defenseless until he is down. And if you go back and look at the video on the play…he's wrapped up and he's going down. And the contact is with [the] runner just as he's going to the ground. So he really has not transitioned to a defenseless player yet. You know, you can make the argument that, well, if he's wrapped up, he's defenseless and he can't really defend himself. But from a replay perspective, we needed a bright line that that was not a judgment, but a bright line. And that is, [he] has to be down, considered down before he's defenseless….He's just beginning to go down and be down. And so we wouldn't consider him down at the time that he's hit. And there's no crown of the helmet involved. The helmet is clearly to the side. And so, from a replay perspective, rules are very clear. You've got to be able to confirm all aspects of targeting for it to be targeting. You couldn't confirm that he was down and then hit. So we didn't give him defenseless status....And that's why the targeting was overturned.” Steve also taught me about something that is important. While regular replay reviews can come out as "confirmed," "overturned," or "stands" (which means that there is not conclusive evidence to overturn, but there isn't a full confirmation of the original call either), targeting calls do not have a "stands" option when they are reviewed. In other words, they are viewed anew and either every element necessary for targeting must be confirmed, or it is overturned. Think of it as being innocent until proven guilty in the review process for targeting. In this case, he was clear to underscore that the elements could have been argued to have existed, but it would have, at best, been a "call stands" decision, which is not sufficient to uphold a targeting call. Steve also expressed the hopes that the instant replay model that has been developed and used in Division 2 will become more utilized in Division 3, related to more-universal instant replay using a coaches' challenge approach (except for targeting), much like we saw in the Centennial Conference this year. He understands the challenges, but he also feels that having two HD camera angles plus the normal web stream (basically at least three cameras) is sufficient to embrace the needs of instant replay. He is not in favor of a D1 type of replay at the lower levels because of the desire to not have constant game interruptions and more technological challenges at the lower levels than we see at D1 -- he stressed his support of a coaches' challenge system in our conversation multiple times. In The (D3FB) Huddle and I give thanks to Steve for his transparency, which is always on display in the CFO training videos he releases on YouTube. I always learn something when I watch his videos, and today was no different in our conversation.

The targeting foul against Zack Orr of NCC Football has been overturned, and he will be eligible to start in Saturday's #d3fb National Semifinal vs. Susquehanna Football at 3:30pm EST / 2:30pm CST. I spoke with Steve Shaw, the NCAA's National Coordinator of Officials, about the overturn this morning. Note that the provision in question is whether or not Springfield Football QB Drew Heenan qualified under the rules as a "defenseless player," as the following is one such definition in the NCAA Football Rulebook: "A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped." If a defenseless player is hit in the neck or head region by an opponent, then targeting is a proper call under the rules. Steve said: “We’re very clear that he's not defenseless until he is down. And if you go back and look at the video on the play…he's wrapped up and he's going down. And the contact is with [the] runner just as he's going to the ground. So he really has not transitioned to a defenseless player yet. You know, you can make the argument that, well, if he's wrapped up, he's defenseless and he can't really defend himself. But from a replay perspective, we needed a bright line that that was not a judgment, but a bright line. And that is, [he] has to be down, considered down before he's defenseless….He's just beginning to go down and be down. And so we wouldn't consider him down at the time that he's hit. And there's no crown of the helmet involved. The helmet is clearly to the side. And so, from a replay perspective, rules are very clear. You've got to be able to confirm all aspects of targeting for it to be targeting. You couldn't confirm that he was down and then hit. So we didn't give him defenseless status....And that's why the targeting was overturned.” Steve also taught me about something that is important. While regular replay reviews can come out as "confirmed," "overturned," or "stands" (which means that there is not conclusive evidence to overturn, but there isn't a full confirmation of the original call either), targeting calls do not have a "stands" option when they are reviewed. In other words, they are viewed anew and either every element necessary for targeting must be confirmed, or it is overturned. Think of it as being innocent until proven guilty in the review process for targeting. In this case, he was clear to underscore that the elements could have been argued to have existed, but it would have, at best, been a "call stands" decision, which is not sufficient to uphold a targeting call. Steve also expressed the hopes that the instant replay model that has been developed and used in Division 2 will become more utilized in Division 3, related to more-universal instant replay using a coaches' challenge approach (except for targeting), much like we saw in the Centennial Conference this year. He understands the challenges, but he also feels that having two HD camera angles plus the normal web stream (basically at least three cameras) is sufficient to embrace the needs of instant replay. He is not in favor of a D1 type of replay at the lower levels because of the desire to not have constant game interruptions and more technological challenges at the lower levels than we see at D1 -- he stressed his support of a coaches' challenge system in our conversation multiple times. In The (D3FB) Huddle and I give thanks to Steve for his transparency, which is always on display in the CFO training videos he releases on YouTube. I always learn something when I watch his videos, and today was no different in our conversation.

Frank Rossi

29,476 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

This play at the end of the 4th quarter was reviewed and the play was not called for targeting.

This play at the end of the 4th quarter was reviewed and the play was not called for targeting.

ESPN College Football

1,491,283 görüntüleme • 3 yıl önce

Scott Van Pelt: “I don’t care who it is. That’s targeting 100 times out of 100. It wasn’t [called] in this case.” Dusty Dvoracek: “I thought it was targeting in the moment. I picked up the phone, made a few phone calls. I talked to Bill Lemonnier, who I think is one of the absolute best, works for us at ESPN/ABC as a rules expert, and he said verbatim: ‘It’s a defenseless player, there was an upwards thrust indicator, forceable contact to the head or neck area. It’s targeting.’”

Scott Van Pelt: “I don’t care who it is. That’s targeting 100 times out of 100. It wasn’t [called] in this case.” Dusty Dvoracek: “I thought it was targeting in the moment. I picked up the phone, made a few phone calls. I talked to Bill Lemonnier, who I think is one of the absolute best, works for us at ESPN/ABC as a rules expert, and he said verbatim: ‘It’s a defenseless player, there was an upwards thrust indicator, forceable contact to the head or neck area. It’s targeting.’”

CFB Kings

3,929,451 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

ESPN rules analyst Bill Lemonnier, supporting a targeting call: "Definitely defenseless player. Strong hit to the head/neck area. This shouldn't take long." After review, there was no targeting. Lemonnier then explained why the refs reached that conclusion. 🏈🦓🎙️ #CFP

ESPN rules analyst Bill Lemonnier, supporting a targeting call: "Definitely defenseless player. Strong hit to the head/neck area. This shouldn't take long." After review, there was no targeting. Lemonnier then explained why the refs reached that conclusion. 🏈🦓🎙️ #CFP

Awful Announcing

850,064 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

This is a freaking disgrace and needs to be called out! After reading Rule 5.09(a)(1), I do not believe TJ Friedl caught this ball. If a player drops the ball upon falling, it is not a catch. What's worse, he would have known he dropped it, yet chose not to make that clear...

This is a freaking disgrace and needs to be called out! After reading Rule 5.09(a)(1), I do not believe TJ Friedl caught this ball. If a player drops the ball upon falling, it is not a catch. What's worse, he would have known he dropped it, yet chose not to make that clear...

Dan Clark

1,741,047 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

Adityanath - Even I am not above the law, if I commit a crime I would be judged by the same law as would be a common man (said while targeting Shankaracharya Avimukteshwaranand). Reality - As he became CM, he withdrew cases against himself. A CM & a sanyasi should not lie.

Adityanath - Even I am not above the law, if I commit a crime I would be judged by the same law as would be a common man (said while targeting Shankaracharya Avimukteshwaranand). Reality - As he became CM, he withdrew cases against himself. A CM & a sanyasi should not lie.

Jaswinder kaur

48,158 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

Sunday Igboho blasted Aregbesola in this video. He even called him a betrayer. He said that if not for Asiwaju, Aregbesola would never have had the money he's now spending in the ADC. Lol.

Sunday Igboho blasted Aregbesola in this video. He even called him a betrayer. He said that if not for Asiwaju, Aregbesola would never have had the money he's now spending in the ADC. Lol.

Gbotemi

38,420 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

This was the part quoted by the ICJ today: "If you fail to call this a genocide. It is on you. It is a sin and a darkness you willingly embrace. Some have not called for a ceasefire… I feel sorry for you. We will be ok. Despite the immense blow we have endured, we will recover. We will rise and stand up again from the midst of destruction, as we have always done as Palestinians, although this is by far the biggest blow we have received in a long time. But again, for those who are complicit, I feel sorry for you. Will you ever recover from this? Your charity, your words of shock AFTER the genocide, won’t make a difference. Words of regret will not suffice for you. We will not accept your apology after the genocide. What has been done, has been done. I want you to look at the mirror… and ask: where was I when Gaza was going through a genocide."

This was the part quoted by the ICJ today: "If you fail to call this a genocide. It is on you. It is a sin and a darkness you willingly embrace. Some have not called for a ceasefire… I feel sorry for you. We will be ok. Despite the immense blow we have endured, we will recover. We will rise and stand up again from the midst of destruction, as we have always done as Palestinians, although this is by far the biggest blow we have received in a long time. But again, for those who are complicit, I feel sorry for you. Will you ever recover from this? Your charity, your words of shock AFTER the genocide, won’t make a difference. Words of regret will not suffice for you. We will not accept your apology after the genocide. What has been done, has been done. I want you to look at the mirror… and ask: where was I when Gaza was going through a genocide."

Munther Isaac منذر اسحق

406,824 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

I've been asked to review and provide thoughts on the question of a potential targeting call in the Hardin-Simmons Cowboy Football / UMHB Football🏈 #d3fb game Saturday. I have synced up two videos -- one from UMHB's broadcast and one posted by In The (D3FB) Huddle contributor Riley Conlee (Riley Conlee) (if he could provide credit to the videographer of it, I'd appreciate it). There is a full-speed view and a 20% speed view of the central action included in the video. To evaluate targeting, we have to review both aspects of the rule to see what, if anything, qualifies. I want to provide the entire set of rules (9-1-3 & 9-1-4): "Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet. The crown of the helmet is the top segment of the helmet; namely, the circular area defined by a 6-inch radius from the apex (top) of the helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I) Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI) Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to: - Launch. A player leaving their feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area. - A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground. - Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area. - Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14). When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to: - A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass. This includes an offensive player in a passing posture with focus downfield. - A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier. - A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return. - A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier. - A player on the ground. - A player obviously out of the play. - A player who receives a blind-side block. - A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped. - A quarterback any time after a change of possession - A ball carrier who has obviously given themselves up and is sliding feet- first. - A player attempting to recover a loose ball." We need to start at Note 2 to see if Kyle Brown qualified here as a "defenseless player." If not, then 9-1-4 would not apply to him here. Kyle was not a receiver or a passer per se here -- he was clearly a runner downfield and was not in the grasp of any player. As a result, he was not "defenseless" by definition. That means that the only way targeting can be called here is if the provisions of Rule 9-1-3 were violated. Rule 9-1-3 is VERY specific about the initial requirement before we can go to the question of a required indicator: "No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet." The crown of the helmet is "the top segment of the helmet, specifically the circular area with a 6-inch radius from the apex (top) of the helmet." In the videos, we see a couple of telling signs. First, Kyle appeared to actually lower HIS helmet as the contact became imminent, which is something coaches advise against for a variety of reasons, including self-preservation. But what is telling is that the UMHB defender attempted to peel off as he saw the angle of the contact he was heading toward with Brown. Specifically, he appeared to end up perpendicular to Brown, perhaps catching Brown's facemask enough to cause the helmet to fly. Yet, that contact was NOT with the defender's crown. As a result, since Brown was not defenseless by rule and because the crown of the helmet was not used for forcible contact to the head/neck area, the picking up of the flag by the officials was appropriate. That said, I spoke with an official who reviewed the videos without commentary and who landed in the same spot as I did concerning the above. They stated that if immediate replay review was available, crews will generally throw the flag and go to review (here, it likely would have been overturned by review, preserving the defender's eligibility). Since the ASC is not providing the on-field replay review yet, the officials' decision would have impacted the game by ejecting a player for the last 6 minutes of the first half until a Halftime review would have been available. For those wondering about how replay is impacting the game, I think this is a good reminder of the nuances it can impact.

I've been asked to review and provide thoughts on the question of a potential targeting call in the Hardin-Simmons Cowboy Football / UMHB Football🏈 #d3fb game Saturday. I have synced up two videos -- one from UMHB's broadcast and one posted by In The (D3FB) Huddle contributor Riley Conlee (Riley Conlee) (if he could provide credit to the videographer of it, I'd appreciate it). There is a full-speed view and a 20% speed view of the central action included in the video. To evaluate targeting, we have to review both aspects of the rule to see what, if anything, qualifies. I want to provide the entire set of rules (9-1-3 & 9-1-4): "Targeting and Making Forcible Contact With the Crown of the Helmet ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet. The crown of the helmet is the top segment of the helmet; namely, the circular area defined by a 6-inch radius from the apex (top) of the helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6) (A.R. 9-1-3-I) Targeting and Making Forcible Contact to Head or Neck Area of a Defenseless Player ARTICLE 4. No player shall target and make forcible contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent (See Note 2 below) with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulder. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul (Rules 2-27-14 and 9-6). (A.R. 9-1-4-I-VI) Note 1: “Targeting” means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball. Some indicators of targeting include but are not limited to: - Launch. A player leaving their feet to attack an opponent by an upward and forward thrust of the body to make forcible contact in the head or neck area. - A crouch followed by an upward and forward thrust to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area, even though one or both feet are still on the ground. - Leading with helmet, shoulder, forearm, fist, hand or elbow to attack with forcible contact at the head or neck area. - Lowering the head before attacking by initiating forcible contact with the crown of the helmet. Note 2: Defenseless player (Rule 2-27-14). When in question, a player is defenseless. Examples of defenseless players include but are not limited to: - A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass. This includes an offensive player in a passing posture with focus downfield. - A receiver attempting to catch a forward pass or in position to receive a backward pass, or one who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier. - A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball, or during the kick or the return. - A kick returner attempting to catch or recover a kick, or one who has completed a catch or recovery and has not had time to protect themselves or has not clearly become a ball carrier. - A player on the ground. - A player obviously out of the play. - A player who receives a blind-side block. - A ball carrier already in the grasp of an opponent and whose forward progress has been stopped. - A quarterback any time after a change of possession - A ball carrier who has obviously given themselves up and is sliding feet- first. - A player attempting to recover a loose ball." We need to start at Note 2 to see if Kyle Brown qualified here as a "defenseless player." If not, then 9-1-4 would not apply to him here. Kyle was not a receiver or a passer per se here -- he was clearly a runner downfield and was not in the grasp of any player. As a result, he was not "defenseless" by definition. That means that the only way targeting can be called here is if the provisions of Rule 9-1-3 were violated. Rule 9-1-3 is VERY specific about the initial requirement before we can go to the question of a required indicator: "No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown of their helmet." The crown of the helmet is "the top segment of the helmet, specifically the circular area with a 6-inch radius from the apex (top) of the helmet." In the videos, we see a couple of telling signs. First, Kyle appeared to actually lower HIS helmet as the contact became imminent, which is something coaches advise against for a variety of reasons, including self-preservation. But what is telling is that the UMHB defender attempted to peel off as he saw the angle of the contact he was heading toward with Brown. Specifically, he appeared to end up perpendicular to Brown, perhaps catching Brown's facemask enough to cause the helmet to fly. Yet, that contact was NOT with the defender's crown. As a result, since Brown was not defenseless by rule and because the crown of the helmet was not used for forcible contact to the head/neck area, the picking up of the flag by the officials was appropriate. That said, I spoke with an official who reviewed the videos without commentary and who landed in the same spot as I did concerning the above. They stated that if immediate replay review was available, crews will generally throw the flag and go to review (here, it likely would have been overturned by review, preserving the defender's eligibility). Since the ASC is not providing the on-field replay review yet, the officials' decision would have impacted the game by ejecting a player for the last 6 minutes of the first half until a Halftime review would have been available. For those wondering about how replay is impacting the game, I think this is a good reminder of the nuances it can impact.

Frank Rossi

10,688 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

Suns fans should be livid. In order for a time out to be called,the Lakers needed to have possession of the ball. It is clearly not controlled by Reaves as the ball is already free by the time LeBron is turning to the ref with the time out signal. This would’ve tied the game

Suns fans should be livid. In order for a time out to be called,the Lakers needed to have possession of the ball. It is clearly not controlled by Reaves as the ball is already free by the time LeBron is turning to the ref with the time out signal. This would’ve tied the game

BBALLBREAKDOWN

2,362,413 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

"If I wasn't elected, Israel would, in my opinion, not be around anymore. They would have been hit by a nuclear weapon," President Trump said from the Oval Office on Friday. "If [Iran] had a nuclear weapon, they would have used that," Trump said. "There might not be a Middle East as we know it today, but there definitely, in my opinion, there would not have been an Israel."

"If I wasn't elected, Israel would, in my opinion, not be around anymore. They would have been hit by a nuclear weapon," President Trump said from the Oval Office on Friday. "If [Iran] had a nuclear weapon, they would have used that," Trump said. "There might not be a Middle East as we know it today, but there definitely, in my opinion, there would not have been an Israel."

CBS News

157,442 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

🚨 NOW: President Trump CALLS OUT Jon Karl for saying 47 called him "early in the morning" to ask if "HE was OK" after the assassination attempt "Jonathan Karl, of ABC Fake News, made a statement that I called him early in the morning, the day after the assassination attempt, to ask whether or not HE was OK. No, this was a hit on ME, not HIM, and I didn’t make such a call, why would I do that?" "He called me, but I didn’t take his call — He just confirmed that to me when he called again. I would say that’s very dishonest reporting." "He’s trying to make himself look important but, I’m not surprised, because it comes from ABC Fake News! President DONALD J. TRUMP"

🚨 NOW: President Trump CALLS OUT Jon Karl for saying 47 called him "early in the morning" to ask if "HE was OK" after the assassination attempt "Jonathan Karl, of ABC Fake News, made a statement that I called him early in the morning, the day after the assassination attempt, to ask whether or not HE was OK. No, this was a hit on ME, not HIM, and I didn’t make such a call, why would I do that?" "He called me, but I didn’t take his call — He just confirmed that to me when he called again. I would say that’s very dishonest reporting." "He’s trying to make himself look important but, I’m not surprised, because it comes from ABC Fake News! President DONALD J. TRUMP"

Eric Daugherty

480,016 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

CROW: Trump said Machado is not gonna be put in charge MacCALLUM: He says there's a process. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what he hopes the end game is, but I think he's doing this methodically

CROW: Trump said Machado is not gonna be put in charge MacCALLUM: He says there's a process. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what he hopes the end game is, but I think he's doing this methodically

Aaron Rupar

139,961 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce