more protected against ending up in the hospital. first step was getting the vaccines green lit in first place. the second step is having parents get shots in arms for the kids. we have talked about on this show, you know what it s like to have a child under the age of 5. when you look at the numbers, one if five parents of kids say they would go right away to get their kid vaccinated once this eligibility opens up. four in ten parents would prefer to wait an see here. what is your message to some of these parents who now, you know are no longer living, within days away from no longer living in the thoretical moment but this is a practical decision making point. i think all parents need to be clear eyed as to why you get your child vaccinated. it s not to prevent a positive test.
but sanctions take time generally to come into effect. they have a backlog, some supply of semi conductors that they can use for current purposes, but then they are going to begin to need equipment and more semiconductors and not able to get them. you are right, they are continuing to get money by being able to export oil and gas and we need to crimp that ability wherever we possibly can. some of the military analysts that helped us out in the coverage here suggest that president biden is pursuing a strategy of trying to contain putin. he never thought that ukraine was going to mount this sort of defense. so, the president seems to be at a decision-making point, inflection point here. does he move to just contain putin, or does he make the moves necessary to help ukraine win? which do you think he should do? well, i think you put it right. i think he absolutely needs to understand we have to help ukraine win. the ukrainians get to define what winning is, but we need to stand with t
his team decision-making point of strategy from this white house. looks at the defense secretary and the secretary of state. he makes a very valid point. this is basically their engagement to good cop, bad cop approach. he goes on to say. the only problem with that is they have a much harder time coordinating with the president. he go on twitter and say something then they are not prepared for. they spend a lot of time reacting to that. rather than dealing with the actual strategy. anything to this talk of mixed messaging come in the white house? i think there is valid criticism for that, of course. i one point, you ve unpredictability. that may help. on the other side, it may also be a miscalculation by other regimes. that could be very dangerous. i think there is valid criticism on either side there for that. there s no question that when you look at north korea.
was not involved in the drafting of the statement and did not issue the statement. i mean, obviously jay sekulow was either not telling the truth or, i think more likely, had not been told the truth. and i think it s important to note that on some of those occasions, he volunteered that the president wasn t involved in drafting it, which i think reflects how damaging this revelation really is for them. i would suggest that trump was the person who wanted to pull back from full transparency. you know, our reporting basically states that there were other lawyers and advisers involved who knew that more information would come out that would make a less than fullsome statement seem invasive and like an effort to cover something up. so they wanted to put it out there. the president was the one who overruled them. that s the critical decision-making point here. you can call it dictating, you can call it weighing in, you can call it whatever you want. the question is who decided not to sa
joining me now is a former trainer for the maryland state police. neil franklin, your reaction to the grand jury decision? it is troubling. a prosecutor should never do what was done in this case. they should remain neutral at best. but i am a little troubled by his decision to influence the jury the way he did. it s really unprecedented. you know, i m struck by the ability to manipulate video, like the video that we have in this case. and the constant use of it in slow motion. and my problem with that is, you don t live life in slow motion and show it in the real speed, you see just how fast the police action is and when you look at it in real speed, it s virtually impossible to detect a sensible decision-making point where the officer makes a decision to fire that gun as opposed to a purely