While on the one hand, it’s amazing to see RFK speak so boldly, on the other hand, should he be elected, I would fully expect some significant event to derail his administration. While getting shot seems too brazen, it definitely sends a message to any future hopefuls that such behavior is still not tolerated.
Ima stop you right there. The only thing you need to give weight here are the indictments that were brought as a result of the investigation, because that's what was promised. I've read the report from front to back, and it's filled with BS, omissions, and it even attempts to relitigate cases Durham lost in court on the merits. It's a pathetic way for a prosecutor to capstone his career.
Read the Mueller report and the Durham report side by side. They are night and day in terms of quality of evidence, completeness, and clarity of reasoning. In fact, doing so reveals just how the Durham "investigation" was really an exercise in motivated reasoning, whereas the Mueller investigation was a serious, sober investigation of where the facts pointed.
> None of those five convictions "involved a conspiracy between the campaign and Russians"[162] and "Mueller did not charge or suggest charges for [...] whether the Trump campaign worked with the Russians to influence the election".[163]
The investigation led to other crimes, like being pulled over for a broken taillight and then getting busted for possession.
It's really not, because the investigation was still properly predicated. Durham finds this and the IG finds this. It doesn't matter what the Clinton campaign did or didn't do, because the investigation wasn't based on their actions. That it was is the lie of the predication of the Durham investigation, and that he didn't find it and prosecute it is his "failure" in the eyes of right wing media. Why was Durham needed when we have an IG?
> None of those five convictions "involved a conspiracy between the campaign and Russians"[162]
Note that "conspiracy" was never seriously alleged by detractors (collusion was the accusation), and to the extend it was, it was never allowed to be investigated (by Rosenstein and then Barr, both appointed by Trump). They very carefully boxed Mueller into investigating a conspiracy without being able to prove it (by investigating finances, which were considered a "red line" and off limits for investigation).
Second, you omit the fact that the Mueller report notes that it faced lies to investigators, witness tampering, destruction of evidence, and obstruction of justice at the hands of POTUS. Their main catch, Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort, was in the process of being flipped when Trump dangled and ultimately granted a pardon, in a blatant act of obstruction of justice and witness tampering.
It was later found by the Republican-chaired Senate Intel Committee that Paul Manafort was literally exchanging internal campaign data with a Russian intelligence officer during the 2016 campaign, as the Russians were in the process of targeting Americans through Facebook psyops (which the Mueller report proved). So there's your collusion.
There's also the matter of how the report was released, causing a federal judge to call into question the truthfulness of the AG Barr (calling his handling of the report and redactions issued "misleading"). Barr notably shut down the investigation as soon as he was confirmed by the Senate. Many people's opinion of the investigation was set due to those lies and omissions, maybe your own.
SC Mueller was appointed due to the fact that the AG Sessions was compromised (having lied to the Senate about his Russia contacts as part of the Trump campaign), and Trump was obstructing justice into the already ongoing investigation (by firing the head of the FBI, and citing the fact he was under investigation as the reason for doing so). So really, the biggest problem with the Mueller investigation was that it was investigating a person who ultimately had control over the investigation, who was also the only person who the investigation couldn't hold accountable (due to DOJ policy of not indicting a sitting POTUS).
His organization misrepresented the findings of a Lancet study to claim that vaccine-derived COVID-19 immunity “becomes negative”. [0]
His organization has circulated false claims about tetanus vaccines being part of a conspiracy to render women infertile. [1]
His organization spread debunked claims about MMR vaccines and autism in the black community as part of an effort to discourage COVID-19 vaccine use in the black community. [2]
His organization misrepresented a government study to spread the false claims that the flu vaccine made COVID-19 infection more likely, as propaganda against the flu vaccine. [3]
[0] https://www.factcheck.org/2023/03/scicheck-posts-make-false-...
[1] https://www.factcheck.org/2022/07/video-revives-old-debunked...
[2] https://www.factcheck.org/2021/03/scicheck-rfk-jr-video-push...
[3] https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/no-evidence-that-flu-shot-...
[0]: https://apnews.com/article/robert-kennedy-jr-presidential-ca...
Vaccines aren’t things to be “believed” in like unicorns. They are medical treatments with risk profiles and side effects and billions of dollars of profits on the line. Some of them are pretty great overall!
He isn't anti-vaccine. He has a problem with a specific vaccine and how it was rolled out (sometimes with limited but relevant force).
I would call that view the only reasonable view. The sheer number of people who will now forever be vaccine sceptics that would never have been before is proof of that. The Pfizer vaccine was presented as being ~95% effective. I am the only person I know personally that has not had COVID. My 100 or so acquaintances are all vaccinated with an extra dose of natural immunity. No wonder people are sceptical, even an idiot can see that it wasn't doing much of anything to stop you from getting covid.
Did it decrease severity? Hard to tell given that almost everyone was vaccinated in my area.
I normally don't comment on vaccines since it is so toxic, hearing the solution from his mouth that made sense however has made it a priority, even as a Canadian.
Which one specific vaccine would that be?
The way things were handled created -many- new vaccine sceptics and that will have a lasting impact for many years to come.
When you tell people their concerns of a specific vaccine are invalid and then claim they are anti-vaccine, you are lying. Why would anyone paying attention then trust you?
Also, some high ranking politicians are on record stating they wouldn't take a vaccine if it was created while Trump was president. Nobody ia dismissing their entire campaign based on these statements.
Thanks for picking one point of my long post and ignoring the other points btw.
Because its not true.
Pretty much everything he’s ever said about any vaccine, but in another branch of this thread I’ve done a short list of some of his more recent lies about COVID-19 vaccines, MMR vaccines, tetanus vaccines, and flu vaccines. (Perhaps the star of that list being the lie about MMR vaccines used to discourage black people from taking COVID-19 vaccines.)
Which all also underlines that the claim that he is against “a specific vaccine” is…not accurate.
Vote for a candidate who's running on a platform of holding the spy agencies accountable to the people, like Robert Kennedy Jr. Then watch as he suddenly gets shot like his father and uncle, who also ran on platforms of holding the CIA accountable.