This author, and likely the whole publication, can be dismissed as they repeat the “bullet does not match the gun” lie over and over in the article.
To help clear up the misconception: While not having reviewed the ATF’s report on the bullet fragment examination, Robinson’s attorneys stated “the ATF was unable to identify the bullet recovered at autopsy to the rifle allegedly tied”.
His own lawyers weren’t even saying they didn’t match, just that the investigation didn’t conclusively (enough) prove they do (in their opinion)
“Kirk, who had begun to turn against Israel and refused approaches from Israel lobbyists just before his death”
hell of an opening sentence there i can see what The Canary Dot Co is implying but uh seems a little irresponsible
This was already in cuckoo conspiracy theory land before they invoked the Jewish masterminds behind all evil.
How?
By using the same strategy the Germans used to do the Holocaust. “Jews, who burned down the Reichstag building…”
I hope you are aware that the state of Israel is a different entity than the Jewish people or the Jewish religion?
I didn’t mention Israel, and the Reichstag building was in Germany. Israel didn’t even exist at the time the Reichstag building burned. Germans didn’t exterminate Jews because Israel burned the Reichstag building.
Kirk, who had begun to turn against Israel…
Same strategy used in Holocaust!
Israel ≠ Jewish people.
I didn’t mention Israel.
You don’t see the irony in me criticizing the German fascists Nazis from the 1940s, and right away, people jump in with “!!!??!! Jews are not israel, and Israel are not Jews.” I’m told that comparing what Israel is doing to the Holocaust is very anti-Semitic.
I didn’t mention Israel
I just used an example, where I think(I may be wrong) it came from. Imagine if the most moral army said something like “Yemen-linked, Hezbollah run health ministry” and then went on to comitt a genocide against a semite population.
Except they claimed it was communists, not Jews
this claim originated from some podcast not any actual document that’s even remotely credible
Without a source or citation, your comment might as well be “nuh uhh”
Ironically, your comment is also not remotely credible without a citation.
One should not forget, that which is stated without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence.
Source?
Do you have evidence of that? Seems like they do have some evidence in this article of their claims. Open to seeing some info challenging it.
I’m open to evidence the world is round.
Pretty simple: go to any big lake and close to the water level and then watch ships appear from the mast.
Or take any stick, place it perpendicular to the ground and measure the shadows length at noon. Then drive at least 400 km to the south or to the north and repeat the same measurement at your new location on the next day at noon again. Then compare the two lengths.
Or buy yourself a nice telescope, watch the other planets a and take a guess which form earth has, when all the other planets are round. Also: isn’t the normal crazies’ argument that earth is flat instead of non-round?
Perhaps my comment is misunderstood. There is no evidence in the OP’s article. It links other articles, which also fail to provide evidence.
The Canary incorrectly cited a video with timestamps described in one of the defendant’s filings. In that filing, the defendant’s attorneys don’t even claim what the Canary claims the Prospect claims. How did the defendant’s attorneys miss that the video timestamps of their client’s interrogation happened while their client was supposed to be writing stuff on Discord? They didn’t. It’s a nothingburger.
Anyway. i was mocking the commenter’s statement that they’re open to evidence of the obvious by comparing it to a flat earther’s alleged openness.
In this and other reporting, the Canary shows itself to be a complete nonsense rag. But because this stupid “timing” conspiracy feeds into the political narrative supported by users here, they’re going to think it has legs. They don’t oppose conspiracies based on critical thinking. They oppose them based on what politics they support.
