The Bricks and Minifigs Scandal Just Got Crazier. Reckless Ben Breaks Silence on LEGO Fraud
PDS Published 07/08/2026
-
Reckless Ben is now finally free to talk about the Bricks & Minifigs case, and he's laying it all out in a wild new update.
Part of this is now investigating alleged racial abuse against IShowSpeed, one of the biggest streamers in the world. Trump's now attacking NATO allies and says that the ceasefire with Iran is over, and you already have both sides launching dozens of attacks. You now have new footage that allegedly shows Tyler Robinson on campus the day Charlie Kirk was killed. We're talking about breaking down and diving into all of that and even more on today's brand new Philip DeFranco Show.
Your daily dive into the news, starting with this all-out war between Bricks & Minifigs and Reckless Ben. And just kind of the internet at large. It just keeps getting crazier and crazier, and we now have even more updates.
The reason you've got so much more to talk about now is that Ben is no longer silenced by a gag order, and so he's got a lot to say.
"Right now, their strategy is to get me arrested before I get them arrested. So now I'm going to, you know, reverse this and get Ayman, the CEO, arrested before he gets me arrested."
To back up a little bit for all my beautiful normies out there who have lives that are not addicted to the internet:
Ben is accusing LEGO reseller Bricks & Minifigs of stealing a collection of Star Wars LEGOs from a man by the name of Brian Mansell that's worth around maybe $200,000, though that number has been contested, with the company claiming it's really more like $100,000.
The main thing is, if you're talking about five to six figures of LEGOs, that's still a lot of money, right?
Mansell had entered into a consignment deal with a Bricks & Minifigs franchise in Oregon, but corporate then seized that store and gave it to new owners. Ben claims that that is when the LEGOs were stolen.
So you then had Ben going on this crusade to get the LEGOs back, tracking down the CEO of Bricks & Minifigs and the new owners of the franchise that initially entered into a consignment agreement to sell Brian's LEGOs.
To make a very long and involved story short, everything spirals out of control. Bricks & Minifigs brings a RICO and defamation suit against Ben, his team, and Brian.
They also then hit Ben with a gag order that prevented him from talking or posting content about Bricks & Minifigs.
"For the last couple of months, this company has been doing whatever they can to get me arrested so they can keep all the LEGOs for themselves."
When we last talked about all this insanity, Ben had posted a video claiming that Bricks & Minifigs had agreed to lift the gag order while the rest of the case played out.
But the judge overseeing the case refused to sign off on the paperwork lifting the gag order.
Then you had him saying that he took the matter to federal court, and eventually the federal judge agreed to lift the gag order yesterday, saying in a court filing that Ben can resume talking about the case online, publishing court filings, and generally continue his investigative journalism.
Though I will say, among other things, it does prevent Ben from going within 100 yards of the plaintiffs or any Bricks & Minifigs property, and he's not allowed to solicit store employees for certain information.
Then, very notably here, you have the court filing also saying that both sides agreed to move forward with mediation, indicating that they want to try and reach a settlement instead of going to trial.
But also, the outcome is still up in the air.
Regardless, Ben's now able to talk about this whole situation again.
So yesterday he finally shared Part 3 of his documentary series on Patreon, and he posted it unlisted on his YouTube channel.
What you have is this video. It goes beyond just the civil suit, right?
You've got Ben saying there are two criminal cases against him.
The first is in American Fork, Utah, and that's related to his efforts to track down and serve legal papers to the new owners who took over the Oregon franchise.
In that case, you've got Ben claiming that he doesn't know exactly what he's being charged with because police bodycam footage has been redacted.
But you've also got prosecutors telling a judge that they need a protective order for the new franchise owners that would prevent Ben from accessing that footage.
"If this defendant were to represent himself and we were to provide bodycams in discovery, we would now be providing additional information and fodder for this defendant to create videos from which he could profit by placing them on YouTube at the expense of our victim."
You've got Ben saying that the judge agreed to sign the protective order, claiming that he didn't care about the evidence Ben says he presented.
Then the bulk of the video is really focused on the second criminal case against Ben, which is in Provo, Utah.
It centers around his confrontation with the CEO of Bricks & Minifigs, Ayman McNiff, at Bricks & Minifigs headquarters.
In that case, you've got Ben saying that McNiff told police that he wanted to charge him with extortion.
"They themselves say, 'Hey, you guys stole this. Talk to this person. If you don't give it back, we're working to bring the place down or I'll kill you.'"
But Ben claims that no one ever made those threats, and the video he filmed from the interaction proves it.
Now, notably here, we've already seen big parts of that confrontation in Ben's earlier videos, with Ben repeatedly claiming that they show McNiff lying when he says that the company doesn't have Brian's LEGOs.
You have him repeating those claims again in Part 3 while also claiming that making the alleged lies amounts to criminal obstruction of evidence.
"Ayman McNiff actually committed a crime. I have tons of crimes on camera that Ayman McNiff has committed."
It's Ben then going to the Provo Police Department to report the alleged obstruction crime, and he says that they agreed to open an investigation.
But then, ultimately, you've got Ben getting a letter informing him that the police have actually taken up McNiff's case.
"Yes, the case that had an overwhelming amount of evidence. They thought that case was garbage, and they took on the case that has zero evidence at all."
In the police bodycam footage, after the police watched Ben's full conversation proving that he didn't threaten to burn the place down or literally anything, they even admitted to Ayman that there was no credibility to his entire case against Ben.
"We agreed that there really was no extortion code that would fit your situation. However, at the end of the day, we do want to help you guys having to deal with this form, all of his issues. We did find that there was another code that fit, and it's called aggravated commercial obstruction."
"The tricky thing is that we have to prove that this individual either entered or remained unlawfully on the premises. When he came to the property, did you have to ask him more than once to leave?"
"Yes."
"Okay."
"You know, we're not leaving until we get it."
While Ben again claims that this video proves he never extorted McNiff, he does admit this:
"But we did show back up a second time. And to Ayman's credit, about halfway through the conversation, he did say that if we don't leave, he's gonna call the cops on us."
"You can leave. If you come back here, we will call the cops."
"If you don't leave right now, I will call the cops."
You've got Ben saying that after that, McNiff asked for proof of ownership over the LEGOs, claiming he didn't leave because he wanted to show him that proof.
So you've got Ben claiming that he pulled up some footage to show McNiff, and that's when he asked them to leave the premises for the second time.
"Just because we caught you guys?"
"No, because you are attempting to extort us."
"Okay, we have to leave then."
"Well, thank you for working with us."
"See you later."
So Ben says that they left after that.
But in the police bodycam footage Ben obtained, you can hear McNiff saying that he asked them to leave multiple times and they didn't.
Then later in the video, Ben plays audio from a court hearing where he tries to tell the prosecutor that his footage proves he never threatened McNiff during their interaction at corporate headquarters.
The prosecutor replies that's because the footage only starts when Ben is going up the elevator and stops when he's coming back down.
Rather than showing him entering and exiting the building itself, strictly speaking, it doesn't show everything.
Obviously, a video doesn't necessarily show everything that possibly happened.
But notably here, you had a local outlet in Utah reporting that prosecutors didn't actually charge Ben with extortion or aggravated commercial obstruction in the Provo case.
Instead, they charged him with disorderly conduct and trespassing.
But then also beyond that, you had Ben tackling this whole dispute over who's got the correct store inventory list.
Because according to Brian and the former store owner, they have an inventory from the day the store was seized that showed which sets were still in their possession.
But corporate has said that the inventory is wrong and that they conducted their own correct inventory when they took over the store.
On top of that, Ayman McNiff claims that Bricks & Minifigs repeatedly offered to give Brian their version of the inventory, as well as some LEGOs, but Brian always refused.
But then the thing is, you've got Brian, Ben, and the former store owner all saying the opposite.
They say they've been requesting the inventory for over a year and have just gotten stonewalled.
You have Ben publishing an email thread that he claims shows Bricks & Minifigs ghosting Brian's lawyers and then eventually responding that the new store owners have no legal obligation to return any LEGOs to Brian.
Meanwhile, during Ben's confrontation with McNiff at corporate headquarters, the CEO apparently promised to send him the inventory if he just requested it through one specific email.
You've got Ben saying that when he did that, the response he got was:
"Mr. Snyder, Bricks & Minifigs franchisee and corporation will not participate in any form of communication that appears designed for public provocation, manipulation of facts for the purpose of media content, or attempts to obtain privileged or confidential information through misrepresentation or the creation of fraudulent documents."
So you have him speculating that the whole thing was really just a trap.
That McNiff only told him to email for the inventory so that corporate could get Ben's email address.
Then they subpoenaed Google, asking for all private information tied to this email address.
"Google sent them hundreds of hours of all the raw footage from everything I filmed for the LEGO video so far, all my emails, all my search history, all the metadata that shows everywhere I've been."
After that, you have Ben claiming again that the police are colluding with Bricks & Minifigs to pin him with trumped-up charges, playing some clips from the bodycam footage where the officers seem dismissive of his allegations after he posted his first video.
"But at least now I can see why the police aren't listening to me. They're basically just saying that all of the evidence I submit to them is not credible, and therefore case closed. Ben is wrong and we're right because we said that the evidence is not credible."
"At this point, Bricks & Minifigs is working with the police to just come up with whatever story they can to make any evidence I give them seem as uncredible as possible."
So yeah, as far as the meat of the story, that's where things stand right now, with what appears to be two criminal cases and at least one civil suit hanging over Ben's head.
Again, I say "appears" because, just as a caveat to all this, right now we're really just getting Ben's perspective through the whole video.
And I'll be honest, the whole situation is just a fucking mess.
A lot of the details are still very unclear.
It's also going to be very helpful for us to hear from the other side, the judges in this case, and it's just really hard to tell how much context is or is not missing.
But for now, things are moving forward.
Ben has got his mic back, and it is just, again, a continuation of an absolute PR nightmare for Bricks & Minifigs.
With all this, I will say, even despite the potential prison time that's hanging over his head, he seems to be having fun with all this.
"If they want to apologize, they can say they're sorry by doing the chicken dance. And I will take that as a sincere form of apology. And once they do the chicken dance, then I will know that Bricks & Minifigs are sorry and we can finally move on to the next video series."
Though I'll technically say it is not clear how serious that offer is.
He has also, I will say, promised that Episode 4 is coming soon.
"They also subscribed to Part 5, Scott, Part 6, Part 7, all the way to Part 100. We're doing 100 parts."
Hey, with this one just being a wild one to dive through and watch, I then got to pass the question off to you.
What are your thoughts, opinions, and reactions here?
-
And then there's more we're going to dive into in just a minute.
But first, let me thank a sponsor and say, you know, there's a huge difference between not having the time to cook and not having time to eat well.
For me, some days I've got time to make dinner, some days I'll heat something up, and some days lunch is just kind of whatever.
That's exactly where today's sponsor, Huel, fits into my life because it's a complete meal, not something that you drink on top of what I eat. It's what I reach for when the alternative is eating whatever I happen to find.
Personally, I've been using Huel Black Edition. It has over 40 grams of protein, 27 essential vitamins and minerals, no artificial sweeteners, colors, or flavors, and it mixes with water or milk in about 30 seconds.
So, like, if I'm running out the door, I'll grab the Ready-to-Drink bottle. That's 35 grams of protein, 7 grams of fiber, and costs under five bucks.
Also, the biggest thing for me is that it removes the decision.
I don't have to figure out what to eat. It just replaces those more random meals where I somehow convinced myself snacks counted as lunch.
And hey, if that sounds familiar, just scan the QR code or head to US.Huel.com/DeFranco15 and use code DEFRANCO15 for 15% off your first online order.
That's for new customers only.
Again, DeFranco15, code DEFRANCO15.
And thank you to Huel for partnering with and supporting the show.
But then, diving right back into the news, we've got to talk about Charlie Kirk.
HUEL
New Customers can get 15% OFF at Huel using code DEFRANCO15 at https://www.huel.com/defranco15 Thank you to Huel for partnering and supporting our show!
-
Because you've got new video footage that allegedly shows Tyler Robinson walking around Utah Valley University's campus before and after the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
It ended up being one of the biggest reveals in court yesterday, along with the fact that Robinson allegedly interacted with Turning Point USA representatives prior to the shooting.
Prosecutor: "Do you believe you recognize who that person is?"
Investigator: "Yes."
Prosecutor: "Who is that?"
Investigator: "I believe that's Tyler Robinson."
Prosecutor: "Where does he go from there?"
Investigator: "He heads out of the parking garage on foot into the campus and actually goes to the quad area of the campus."
Prosecutor: "At that time?"
Investigator: "At that time, he makes contact with some representatives from TPUSA."
Prosecutor: "You believe this is Mr. Robinson returning to campus?"
Investigator: "I do, yes."
Prosecutor: "Okay. And what makes you believe it's Mr. Robinson?"
Investigator: "The shoes are the same. He's noticeably wearing different clothing."
Prosecutor: "He is wearing different clothing."
Investigator: "And he also is walking with a gait, or a limp, in this video."
Prosecutor: "Again, in the top left corner, the individual is now seen running across the rooftop of the building. You believe this to be Mr. Robinson?"
Investigator: "I do, yes."
Prosecutor: "And how long is he out there on the edge of the building?"
Investigator: "Just until the reported shot was fired at 12:23 and 28 seconds."
That was a Utah prosecutor questioning Utah State Bureau of Investigation Agent David Stubbs.
You have them saying that these videos trace Robinson's alleged movements the day that Charlie Kirk was killed, and even in the hours afterward.
With that investigator revealing that while the manhunt was taking place overnight, it appears that Robinson's car was about to make a turn onto the campus, but he was stopped by an officer who spoke to him.
While we don't know what was said, it resulted in that officer flagging the license plate.
"I guess cop intuition, but there was something about the interaction that made him make a note of the license plate of the vehicle. And then subsequently, when information was available that that vehicle, or a vehicle matching the description of that, was involved in the incident, he ran the information that he had obtained from the stop and was able to identify that it was registered to Mr. Robinson, and he had, in fact, had contact with Mr. Robinson on the morning of September 11th, 2025."
All of this questioning is part of a week-long preliminary hearing where prosecutors are trying to prove that they have enough evidence to take Tyler Robinson to trial for the murder of Charlie Kirk.
While this hearing is not a trial itself, you've got outlets saying it kind of resembles a mini-trial, as prosecutors present their evidence and officers provide testimony.
So then, with that, it also gives us insight into the defense strategy here, especially since Robinson has yet to enter a plea.
Also, you're seeing that Erika Kirk has been attending the hearing, as have Charlie's parents and other guests like Donald Trump Jr., putting them all in the same room with the alleged shooter.
As for what his family has to say, before the hearing kicked off, Erika released a joint statement from herself, Charlie's parents, and his sister, saying:
"Every court proceeding has been incredibly painful, and out of respect for the judicial process, we will not be commenting further at this time. We ask for continued privacy as we navigate this process."
Amidst all this, there's been a ton of tension in these hearings over a number of matters, including that footage you just saw.
Because on Monday, when other videos were presented to the court, the public didn't get to see them.
They were only viewable to those inside the courtroom.
So you had that prompting just a ton of outrage among people who have been closely following this case, and they wanted to get the same insight provided by those videos.
Robinson's lawyer wanted to prevent surveillance footage of him from going public to protect his right to a fair trial.
Yesterday, however, the judge allowed the public to get a peek at some of that footage.
Also, there's been a ton of back and forth about DNA that's being presented.
That's because investigators say they found the alleged murder weapon wrapped in a towel in a wooded area near where the assassination took place.
The towel appears to have the DNA of two people:
Robinson's roommate, who has cooperated with the prosecution.
A second person who is likely Robinson.
But the defense has been questioning the reliability of that DNA, arguing that it is not a conclusive match.
That, of course, is not going to be the only time that Robinson's roommate comes up.
Prosecutors are also likely going to focus on a note that Robinson allegedly wrote for his roommate.
"I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I'm going to take it."
Of course, this hearing has drawn a lot of attention.
According to the Associated Press, some spectators camped outside the courthouse overnight just to get inside.
We've also seen reactions from all over the place.
You had Donald Trump Jr., who, like we said, was present, going on Fox News to say that he thinks a very clear case is being formed against Robinson.
"But having literally been there in the room, seeing the evidence with my own eyes, it's very clear to me that Tyler Robinson will be found guilty."
But also, a big thing here is that, kind of no matter what happens in that courtroom, there are going to be people who simply do not believe what the prosecutors are presenting.
Connected to that, you had The New York Times speaking to some of the people outside the courthouse.
Some think Charlie Kirk isn't even actually dead.
Others think we've barely scratched the surface when it comes to the conspiracy.
Also on that note, you've got people like Candace Owens sounding off about these hearings as well.
Before they began, she posted:
"You will hear the feds' narrative absent any ability for the defense to meaningfully dispute it. What you can expect, aside from Erika's tears, are an orbit of her payroll influencers trying to convince you that the unfettered evidence is overwhelming and undeniable."
She added that the real trial will come later.
"Charlie's army is growing. Ultimately, truth will prevail."
She has since spent the day questioning the evidence being put forward, implying that the videos played do not actually show Robinson, while also arguing with leaders at TPUSA and Ben Shapiro.
But as far as what's next, very likely this is going to be heading to trial.
Prosecutors don't even have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Robinson is responsible for Kirk's death.
They only have to show that there is probable cause for him to be charged.
You've got a lower burden of proof here.
So while, understandably, you're going to have a lot of people focused on this and talking about it, this is really just the stage being set for the full thing to play out.
-
While it may take years for that entire process to play out, Trump's deal with Iran might be shattered into pieces by the end of the day—and that's if it's not already been shattered.
Because you even have Trump himself saying that the ceasefire deal is over. Prices are already spiking again, and ultimately the only successful deal this man has reached with Iran might have been the one that lets it choose which of its citizens are okay to be deported from the U.S. after seeking asylum for fear of being imprisoned, tortured, or executed back home.
But starting with the war, let's do a little recap.
Last month, you had the U.S. and Iran signing this 14-point memorandum of understanding (MOU) that was supposed to end the war, reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and kick off a 60-day negotiating period to reach a final deal addressing various other issues—you know, the small stuff, like the fate of Iran's nuclear program.
The talks to reach this final deal didn't get to start.
After a days-long funeral, now underway for Iran's former supreme leader, who was assassinated by the U.S. and Israel on the first day of the war, in the meantime both sides were trading fire and accusing each other of violations.
Neither side abandoned the ceasefire entirely.
You even saw a decent uptick in traffic through the Strait, although, of course, there have still been far fewer ships passing through than before the war.
That waterway has also continued to be a major source of tension between the two sides.
It's partly because the MOU only says that Iran won't charge ships to transit the Strait for 60 days.
It also says Iran will have a role in future administration and maritime services in the Strait.
So with the middle of the Strait still considered too dangerous to travel because of the risk of mines laid by Iran's military, Iran has been demanding that ships pass through on its side.
But at the same time, you've had the U.S. Navy helping guide ships through the side closer to Oman.
Iran has accused the U.S. of violating the MOU by trying to open new sea lanes without its consent.
Actually connected to that, you had a trio of oil and gas tankers attacked in the Strait.
While Iran never claimed responsibility, it's widely believed to have been behind the attacks.
You then had the U.S. appearing to respond first by revoking a sanctions waiver that allowed Iran to sell oil for 60 days.
Then you had the military launching what it described as a new round of offensive strikes against over 80 targets that Iran reportedly controlled, including:
Iranian air defense systems
Command and control centers
Coastal radar sites
Anti-ship missile capabilities
More than 60 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps small ships in and near the Strait
With U.S. Central Command claiming these strikes aimed to degrade Iran's ability to continue attacking international commerce flowing through the international trade corridor.
Then you had Iran's military responding by targeting 85 American military sites in Bahrain.
Within all of this, it led to Trump reacting today by seeming to say that he's giving up on the current ceasefire.
"To me, I think it's over. I don't want to deal with them. They're scum. You know what scum is? They're sick people. They're led by sick people, and they're vicious, violent people. And if they had a nuclear weapon, they'd use it. As far as I'm concerned, it's over."
While you had Trump saying that he'd allow his negotiating team to continue talking with Iran, he also said that it's just a waste of time dealing with them.
He then suggested that he might reinstate his naval blockade near the Strait of Hormuz and said that he was probably going to hit them hard.
He even suggested that he's once again considering taking Kharg Island, the hub of Iran's oil industry, which could require putting boots on the ground.
As well as similarly rehashing his threats to attack Iran's infrastructure and desalination plants, which, again, experts have previously said could be a war crime.
All of that is on one side.
On the other side, the Iranian government is questioning whether the ceasefire is really over.
You had Iran's Foreign Ministry saying in a statement today that the U.S. had made, quote, "important and essential parts" of the MOU signed last month ineffective.
The statement pointed to the latest U.S. attacks on Iran, as well as Israeli strikes on Lebanon, along with the reinstatement of sanctions and the, quote, "violation of Iranian arrangements in the Strait of Hormuz."
Then, as far as reactions, you saw oil prices go to their highest level in months, with Brent crude, the international benchmark, rising 6% to more than $78 a barrel.
You've also got the national price of a gallon of gas in the U.S. hitting $3.80 per gallon.
Though I'll note two things:
That's nowhere near the highs that we saw earlier this year.
It's still more than 27% higher than it was before Trump's deal.
And three, if the war is back on—or whatever the hell happens from here—it could go back to those highs, if not surpass them.
Trump, however, appears really not to be worried by all of this, or at least he's coming off as more baffled by the fact that his deal-making experience in the business world hasn't translated to international relations success.
"I made a lot of money. I had a lot of great success, tremendous success. Everything I did, I was successful. And I dealt with these guys, and I said, 'This is from a different school. They are liars. They're cheats. They're sick people. They've hurt their people.'"
Trump's apparent disdain for the Iranian regime, particularly how it treats its people, stands out for a number of reasons.
Because even though a lot of people have memory-holed it, you've had people pointing to the fact that Trump was sending ICE to cities where American citizens were shot and killed on the streets.
Obviously not at the level of tens of thousands.
But then also during Trump's second term, the U.S. has sent back more than 100 Iranians.
That includes, according to their lawyers, people at risk of being arrested, tortured, or even executed.
The most recent deportation flight is believed to have taken place only weeks after the regime's crackdown on anti-government protests left thousands imprisoned.
Now, you've got a new lawsuit claiming that the Trump administration not only sent people back to Iran, but they actually worked with Iranian officials to give them the people they specifically requested.
The lawsuit even says that immigration officials broke the law by sharing the names and immigration records of Iranian citizens who were seeking asylum in the United States, and then allowed Iran to select specific individuals for deportation.
This included dissidents, members of Christian minorities, and people who had participated in movements advocating for women's rights and LGBTQ+ rights.
You've got the lawsuit alleging that the two sides worked in tandem to pressure these Iranian detainees to forgo their rights and coerce them into agreeing to return to Iran without assurances for their safety upon arrival.
So overall, the situation with Iran is just a nightmare, chaotic mess.
There's so many layers.
It's like a seven-layer Trump fuck-up lasagna, just handcrafted.
No one seems to be able to quite fuck it up like Grandpa.
And then we got even more.
-
We got more to dive into in just another minute.
But first, let me thank a sponsor and say, you know, at this point, hearing about another massive data leak almost feels like checking the weather.
I mean, one recent exposure included 149 million usernames and passwords from major online platforms.
One of the huge problems is that once that information gets out there, it doesn't just disappear. It gets copied, sold, and shared.
That's why I like having today's sponsor, Incogni, working in the background.
Because one of the biggest weird parts is that it's usually not the company you gave your information to that's the problem.
It's all the companies you've never heard of that bought it.
Incogni works behind the scenes, contacting those data brokers and requesting that your information be removed, so you're not stuck chasing companies you didn't even know existed.
They've also added Custom Removals.
So if you find your information on a people-search site or another website, their privacy team can request those removals too.
With the Unlimited and Family Unlimited plans, I really like logging into my dashboard and seeing that progress.
It's nice knowing that something's actually happening instead of just hoping my information disappears on its own.
And while you can't stop every data breach, you can make it a whole lot harder for your personal information to keep spreading.
So scan the QR code or go to Incogni.com/DeFranco and use code DEFRANCO for 60% off.
That's Incogni.com/DeFranco, code DEFRANCO, to get your personal data off the internet.
And then for your final block today, we have more news you need to know, starting with FIFA.
INCOGNI
Use code DEFRANCO at https://incogni.com/defranco to get an exclusive 60% off.
-
They just launched a major racism investigation.
And you have IShowSpeed at the center of the whole thing.
Speed, if you don't know, is one of the biggest live streamers in the world.
He's been live-streaming this year's matches to his tens of millions of followers.
But that also apparently went sideways at the Argentina vs. Cape Verde game in Miami.
"What are you even saying? What are you saying? All right. What are you even saying, bro?"
You have some reports saying that at some point, while the fan was yelling at Speed, he said, "Go cry to the..."
Then you had other reports claiming he also said the N-word.
That's also in addition to another situation that's now blown up where it appears that a fan seems to be making monkey gestures at him.
Meanwhile, the online comments have also been pretty bad.
Some saying:
"He acts like a stupid ass."
And others saying he:
"Deserved a lot of what Argentina's fans said about him."
With all of this playing out, you have FIFA responding, saying:
"They strongly condemn racism, hate, and discrimination in all forms."
Adding:
"The FIFA World Cup is a celebration of unity, diversity, and respect."
And saying:
"Anyone who acts in a manner that undermines those values is not welcome in our stadiums."
You also have this coming just a few days after a senator from Paraguay had an absolute Karen meltdown against Kylian Mbappé, posting things like:
"That brute never even learned to drink breast milk. Instead of breast milk, he sucked on coconuts, and the most educated creatures he ever listened to were chimpanzees."
Then, even before that, you had Belgium coach Rudi Garcia saying that Senegal was one of those teams that tends to lose its tactical structure toward the end of matches.
Critics claimed that his comments relied on racial stereotypes of African teams as being powerful and instinctive, yet tactically naive, emotionally fragile, or unable to withstand pressure.
You then had him trying to clear that up, saying he was referring to teams unaccustomed to managing a lead in high-level World Cup matches, not just African teams.
A lot of people just weren't buying it.
At the same time, you've got a lot of people pointing out that these racial issues are not new.
For years, you've had people calling for some type of protection to make the World Cup a comfortable experience for everyone.
While FIFA has made some steps in the right direction by calling these situations out and making its stance clear, there's still a long way to go.
Which is why you've got people saying things like:
"We need to have constant forms of anti-racism education and campaigns to make sure the beautiful game really is beautiful—not just a slogan that FIFA likes to use for marketing purposes, but a beautiful game in which diverse populations from different countries come together to celebrate sport and football."
-
Also in the news, we have even more Graham Plattner news—or rather, updates.
That's because his ex, Lindsey Fifield, has just accused him of repeatedly removing condoms without her consent during sex.
Fifield dated Plattner from 2013 to 2015.
Last month, she told The New York Times that he was physically abusive, also saying she made journal entries after their breakup calling him:
"The most toxic, literally abusive man on Earth who destroyed her."
She also said she only ever mentioned him removing condoms in off-the-record interviews because she was too embarrassed to say anything about it publicly.
With that, she claimed it happened six times while they were together.
She claims that:
"She confronted him both during and after sex because he knew that she wasn't on birth control and how dangerous that was."
Then with that, you had her claiming that he would just:
"Act cute about it."
Now you have her saying that she's going public to show that Jenny Racicot, who we talked about yesterday, was not alone in her allegations.
On top of that, she felt like she needed to say something for the sake of the voters.
"They needed to know the truth. They needed to know because these things translate. It's not like the things that he does in private and his relationships with women—the things that he has done to women, coercive control, lying, deception, abuse—you can't be that way in private and not have it translate into how you would govern or how you would, you know, when you're put in a position of power."
Well, as of recording, Plattner hasn't responded to this most recent allegation.
He did post a video earlier this week in response to kind of everything else, saying:
"Any accusation of non-consensual behavior is categorically false."
All the while, you've also got Maine Democrats still scrambling to figure out what the hell they're going to do if he ends up dropping out of the race, as is expected.
With that, you're seeing some reports even claiming that his team is trying to influence the process to replace him, with the party apparently pushing back.
Then, for our final bit of news today, we jump from Maine all the way over to Texas, where you have Ken Paxton..
-
Self-described anti-voter fraud crusader Ken Paxton is now being accused of doing that exact crime six times, because apparently over the last two years he's been using an old address on his voter registration.
That includes the address he used to vote in the May runoff that made him the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in Texas.
This all came out after he split from his wife in 2025.
His wife said in a divorce filing that Paxton had moved out of their Collin County home the year before.
You then had reporting from ProPublica and The Texas Tribune linking him to a home in Denton County since then.
But, interestingly enough, his voting records say otherwise.
With this, reporters apparently reached out to him multiple times last month asking about the situation.
I'm talking phone calls, voicemails, emails.
But up until this week, they were ignored.
That is, until a spokesperson from his team issued a statement saying:
"Paxton has been a national leader on election integrity with a long record of defending Texas elections, and attempting to insinuate otherwise and tear him down with a baseless, lie-filled tabloid story is not real reporting."
Also, to put all this into perspective:
Earlier this year, you had Paxton launching a tip line specifically for people to report suspected cases of voter fraud.
Saying:
"Free and fair elections are a cornerstone of a thriving republic. We will stop at nothing to uncover and stop any illegal voting activity."
Even adding information about election laws in Texas, which specifically states:
"You must register to vote using the address of where you reside."
Really, the only major exception to that law is if you're someone like a college student living in a dorm but still intending to return home.
There, you've got election experts saying things like:
"When you start doing things that suggest, 'Oh, I've fully moved. I'm just wink, wink saying I intend to return,' that's when you get into questionable territory."
I don't know.
I guess to me, nothing says "I fully moved" like a divorce after your wife accuses you of cheating.
So I think things could get rough for Paxton here—if laws matter.
And I say it like that because I feel like a number of Republicans, especially over the last two years, have made it so that we should feel like laws don't matter.
But we should remember: they should still matter.
Usually, in a situation like this, if true, it can be hard to prosecute because you have to prove that someone intentionally broke the law.
As others have pointed out, though, Paxton is the chief law enforcement officer of the state of Texas.
Someone who has made election integrity a priority of his office should be charged with knowing the laws.
Others adding:
"When our elected officials who are tasked with passing and enforcing these laws exhibit troubles in engaging with the voting process themselves, that raises serious questions."
We'll have to wait to see what Paxton has to say here, if he says anything, and whether there is a real chance that this causes problems for him in the future.
But that, my friend, you beautiful bastard, is the end of your Wednesday's show.
Also, do I have a wild ride ahead for you.
If you haven't already, go watch today's new Crashing Out episode.
Think of it as the Wednesday after-show.
If this show is 90% news and 10% opinion, that is the polar opposite.
I'm actually going to leave you with a two-minute preview of today's episode because it really embodies what the show is, which is me poking and prodding Alex to go on rants.
Some of it happens on camera, some of it happens off.
But, man, what a ride.
So enjoy, and I'll see you tomorrow.
