believe the next thing a scientist or doctor working for the government says. that s dangerous. bill: what do you think of that? look, i think it s true. right now we have a massive distrust in public health as public health officials closed schools, they pushed to mask toddlers, they down played myo carditeis after the the vaccines. you saw the big study on natural immunity. when you say the wrong thing for so long after the evidence is apparent you lose credibility. i worry that vaccination rates in children will go down, public health trust will go down. why don t we hear all of our public health officials call for a once and for all international ban of all gain-of-function research? it s a bad idea. it s obvious. bill: you made your mind up is what i hear. you think it came from wuhan the lab. i think it is obvious it came
rest of the context to figure out what exactly it might mean. when you have four people that receive stab wounds they will have different injuries. if a killer comes in that side door and starts attacking one person and maybe that first person doesn t fight back, but it awakens the second person and the second person does fight back, you will have very different injuries. so the fact the points of damage, to use his words don t match up, it s interesting and heartbreaking how he must come across that information but i don t think it tells us much about what the police might know here, john. john: i can t wrap my head around the idea you can fill four people with a knife in a house in such a brutal fashion and two other people in the house at the time don t somehow get alerted to it. as an investigator, as a former prosecutor, are you surprised that the police have not identified a suspect yet? well, i don t know that they
twitter are saying look, it s a private company, doesn t matter, the first amendment doesn t apply to a private company. john: when the fbi and the white house are look i want emails, you see ro khanna says it kind of goes against the spirit of the first amendment here and if you are dedicated to free speech you done go around doing stuff like this. john: so we have seen matt s reporting, barry weiss has what elon musk claims is a treasure trove of documents. my sense after reading the tweets was i wish i knew more. you have to think these are very verbal people, they email each other a lot, there should be a lot of records. john: certainly don t talk to each other in person. who does that anymore. john: all done over text message and email. byron, see what the future holds.
heart attack, stroke, and tears in the stomach or intestines occurred. people 50 and older with at least one heart disease risk factor have higher risks. don t take if allergic to rinvoq, as serious reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. disrupt the itch and rash of eczema. talk to your doctor about rinvoq. learn how abbvie can help you save.
clear up a couple things first. in no way do i question merrick garland s integrity, certainly don t question the competence of ability of jack smith. what i question is why after all this time does garland now decide to appoint a special counsel. and the answer, of course, is it s because trump declared his candidacy. and that s the problem. it really does the opposite of what attorney general garland wants to do, which is to insulate the department from politics and partisanship. look at the reaction to his announcement. all heck has broken loose. trump is going on the air waves calling this a witch-hunt. republicans are calling for a special counsel for hunter biden. other people who are very anti-trump are angry at garland, feeling that he has punted the football. and that s what s happened. he s turned the special counsel into a political football at this point. interesting. as opposed to merrick garland