Hersh Strikes Back! CIA Planted Bogus Nord Stream Sabotage Story
Legendary investigative journalist Seymour Hersh is back with another blockbuster claim: The strange visit of the German chancellor to DC was to brief him on a CIA cover story meant to distract from Hersh's claims that Biden green-lighted the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines! Also today: Why is Washington so uninterested in China's plan for peace in Ukraine? Finally - 20 years later some Republicans still cannot let go of the use of force authorization.
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you today.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
How are you this morning?
Doing well.
Thank you.
Thank you.
You know, we're going to talk about Seymour Hirsch.
We sort of like him, even though he didn't come on my program.
But he has better things to do.
But anyway, we believe he's a good journalist, and he's still in the news.
And of course, he was most recently in the news, I think just as recent as February.
And he came up with this explanation on who bombed the pipelines.
And of course, that caught our attention because Seymour Hirsch's reputation is pretty good.
And he's self-confident because I think he's developed habits over many, many decades.
And he feels comfortable, and therefore he can go ahead.
And they would like to stop him.
And they're pestering him right now because I guess the CIA had wind of the fact that he was doing some investigating, and he'll come up with the truth.
So they were already thinking about and preparing.
What will the CIA say when Seymour Hirsch comes up with the whole thing?
This was all done by the United States government with the CIA involved and all these things.
So they had to have the alternative.
The alternative just came out.
And guess what?
They disagreed with Hirsch's analysis.
They said, no way.
So that came out and that made the news again.
But I think it's, you know, one thing is we're looking for people that we can depend on.
And in this case, I think we're getting the real information on exactly how that occurred.
He had a lot of details.
So when he gets somebody talking to him, he so far has done pretty good in double checking, even though he doesn't say he's not anonymous.
We know who he is, and here he is.
Here's his telephone number.
He does the other way.
So his reputation is that if somebody wants to tell the truth about what's going on without getting put in prison for talking, they're going to help him out.
And he's gotten the reputation, well, he's believable.
And so right now, the story, it has turned out to be a joke, you know, about, oh, the Americans, the, I say, saw the Ukrainians did it with a pipe bomb or something.
Yeah, so he's come back.
We can put this first clip on.
Dave DeCamp wrote about it today in anti-war.com.
It's worth a look.
Seymour Hirsch, the CIA planted Nord Stream cover-up story in the media.
And it's kind of funny because the mainstream media relies almost exclusively on anonymous sources when it writes about the government.
Yet somehow Hirsch is wrong because he also uses anonymous sources.
But if we can do that next clip, here is the Seymour Hirsch article that has just come out, I think a day or two ago.
Yeah, 22nd.
And he said, the cover-up, the Biden administration continues to conceal its responsibility for the destruction of the Nord Street pipelines.
And in this follow-up piece to his, as you say, February article that was a blockbuster, finding that Biden used the CIA to blow up the pipelines, the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines.
What Hirsch does in this piece is very interesting because he takes apart the very strange trip of the German chancellor, Olaf Schultz, to Washington.
And here are just a couple of things that he points out.
And the timeline, I think, is important because Schultz hasn't been to the U.S. since the very, very beginning of the Russian military operation in Ukraine.
So all of a sudden he comes over.
He visits the U.S. in a very strange trip early this month.
There were only two media events.
This is, as Hirsch points out in his piece.
A very short appearance before the White House Press Corps of the two of them where no questions were allowed, no questions.
Then Schultz is interviewed by Farid Zakaria, who's a reliable regime journalist, right?
Who was told no questions about the pipeline.
So can you imagine you have Olaf Schultz here?
Their pipeline had been blown up.
A huge story comes out and Zakaria doesn't say a word about it.
So there's that.
There's no proper press conference of foreign leaders in town.
The media is not allowed to have a press conference.
They had an 80-minute, we're told, an 80-minute one-on-one meeting with no aides present.
That itself is very weird, especially with Biden.
No statements have been made since the meeting by either side about the meeting.
Literally nothing has come out about this strange one-on-one meeting.
And right after the strange meeting, here comes the New York Times and Tessait, the German newspaper.
They both come out with cover stories explaining, no, Hirsch is wrong.
Here's what really happened.
They chartered a Polish yacht with a couple of people on board, you know, and some flippers, you know, and the New York Times.
So what Hirsch is saying here, Dr. Paul, is that this meeting, the purpose of this meeting was for Biden to tell Schultz, look, I'm in some hot water here.
I need a cover story.
I'm going to have our guys get in touch with the media and plant a story in the New York Times and in Teseit about what really happened to try to throw people off the scent of what Hirsch has uncovered.
Well, you know, this shouldn't have surprised too many people because Putin was a man of his word.
He warned them, don't do it or we'll blow up the line.
He actually said that they had intention of doing it, and they did.
And then everybody seems to shock.
Well, we have to have a cover and make sure that the United States doesn't indict themselves.
So, of course, it's not going to work.
This one broke down more thoroughly, thank goodness, you know, for Hirsch.
I mean, sometimes this goes on and on.
This was a month or so, you know, and he was able to dig up the information.
But that was because he knew how to get the information.
He was trustworthy.
The people who gave him the information trusted him.
And they had a goal on trying to get the truth out as well.
And that, of course, is a good method.
That's the best you can do.
The only thing better would be just staying out of those kind of messes and the controversies and building pipelines.
And if a private company builds a pipeline or another country builds it, it should be up to them to decide what to do.
But for us to go 8,000 miles away and enter into these threats and innuendos and bombs and expansion of the war, so that didn't calm the war effort down at all.
There's as much pro-war sentiment as ever.
Yeah.
I mean, this is the actions of a rogue state.
You know, for you to go over and bomb someone else's pipeline, that's the actions of a rogue state.
If anyone else had done it, we would have declared war.
But the interesting thing is to see the New York Times being allowed, allowing itself to be used as a conduit of fake news, CIA propaganda.
You'd say, well, maybe the New York Times, maybe they're just naive.
They don't know anything about how the CIA uses the media.
They don't know anything about Operation Mockingbird, about how the CIA infiltrates the media.
Well, I found this article from 1977.
If you can put up the next article.
No, the Times is not naive, is not unaware, because this is from December 1977.
Worldwide propaganda network built by the CIA.
How ironic that this is the same New York Times that earlier this month, according to Hirsch, allowed itself to be used and abused by that very same network it had uncovered all those years ago.
You know, of course, the Russians threaten, or the Americans threaten, but even when it happened, nothing was done about it.
And, you know, in Russia, in many ways, the way they get pushed around, there are times when I've even indicated to you that maybe they could be a little more restrained, you know, because I'm always wanting to push in that direction.
But when I see something like this, I think the Russians, you know, at times are restrained and others would, but it's probably the very pragmatic thing that why go looking to expand it.
They're doing pretty well.
I think it's amazing that there's the New World Order still around, but there are different players, different people in the New World Order, and it happens to be China and Russia.
And we're standbys.
Yeah, it certainly seems that way.
Well, one thing that struck me, Dr. Paul, in Hirsch's story, and I remember reading it, and I just kept bouncing around in my hollow brain because it was so obvious.
And this is what's interesting.
I think this is really the most damning bit of evidence about Biden's involvement in blowing up this pipeline.
If you can put this next one on, and I apologize, it's a little bit long, but I think it needs to be read.
And here's Hirsch.
He said, there is no evidence that any reporter assigned there to the White House has yet to ask the White House press secretary whether Biden had done what any serious leader would do, formally task the American intelligence community to conduct a deep investigation with all of its assets and find out just who had done the deed in the Baltic Sea.
According to a source within the intelligence community, the president has not done so, nor will he.
Why not?
Because he knows the answer.
And that's a very good point.
We have the most massive intelligence community in the world, probably, with unbelievable capabilities.
Why hasn't Biden tasked them formally?
We need you to use all resources.
We need to find out who did this.
We must get to the bottom of it.
All kinds of signals intelligence, human intelligence, everyone, all hands on deck.
Why has he just ignored this?
I think you know why.
And my answer is, you know, he was not interested in a can of worms for lunch.
Yeah, yeah.
That was just opening up a can of worms.
They knew the answer.
The amazing thing is how long these lies go.
And you don't even know the average American citizen is probably not following this very closely, but you would think the Europeans would.
But the Europeans don't have much of a backbone or whatever, because they should have been more cautious about allying themselves with NATO.
NATO's the real problem, which is the United States and the West and our military industrial complex.
And it's always, you know, it's not a war between NATO, NATO and Ukraine or NATO and Russia.
It's always NATO and they skip NATO.
It's always a war between Ukraine and Russia and Russia invaded them.
And that kept being told over and over.
No matter how many more articles that Hirsch writes, people will still be doubtful because they don't need a can of worms for lunch.
Yeah, no kidding.
That's what they deserve.
Yeah, they do.
Well, you make a good point.
Why is there not more of an outcry in Germany, for example, among the population?
Well, I actually reprinted a fascinating story by Diana Johnstone, someone I've known for decades, brilliant, brilliant American journalist, on the Ron Paul Institute website.
And if you go there, ronpaulinstitute.org, you will see Diana's piece about, it's very chilling, Dr. Paul, because it's about how Germany has essentially outlawed political dissent.
So nobody's allowed to move away from this.
So it's very, very concerning.
Peace Plan Revealed00:04:42
Now, you mentioned the new world order by China and Russia.
And I think this is a perfect example of that if we go to the next shot.
Now, China came out with a, they call it a peace plan.
Essentially, what it was, is kind of a very rough position paper on how we can move in the right direction between Russia and Ukraine.
And as we know, we talked about it earlier this week.
She was over in Moscow meeting with Putin.
And at that meeting, President Putin endorsed the plan and said it's a good place to start.
Now, what's interesting, we've talked about it over and over, is the role that China is now playing in the world to mediate these long-standing differences.
The Saudi-Iran rapprochement is astonishing, and it takes the U.S. basically out of the Middle East.
So here is the peace plan, and we can actually put it up.
Here are the 12 basically points of the plan.
And they're basically a way to start.
Respecting sovereignty of all countries, abandoning Cold War mentality, ceasing hostilities, resuming peace talks, resolving humanitarian crisis, protecting civilians and POWs, keeping nuclear power plants safe, reducing strategic risks, facilitating grain exports, stopping unilateral sanctions, keeping industrial and supply chains stable, promoting post-conflict reconstruction.
So this is not an exercise in the blame game.
This is not an exercise of wagging fingers.
This is basically putting something on the table.
Maybe we can start from here.
And of course, I think we put on Kirby, the spokesman for the National Security Council, his reaction was, nah, I came from China.
We're not even going to think about it.
You know, I was complaining about the fact that the average person doesn't want to keep up with Seymour Hirsch telling us the truth about things.
But in a way, this is one that the truth is out.
It seems to be out early because the real, the really indicting news is the significance of what they're doing.
And it is and is related to the image of America around the world because more people are writing about it.
And there's a lot of people who are enjoying that.
And in many ways, of course, from our viewpoint, some of the foolishness that we do in foreign policy is sort of as a predictable event that we won't be able to continue to do this.
You can't keep using throwing your waiter on and bullying people and putting on sanctions and dropping bombs and saying you own the world.
So there's going to be, in this case, even the fact that they're dealing, oh, we're dealing with these communists.
How come our biggest complaint with the Chinese is they're outselling us because we've been buying their stuff and there's still a lot of trade going on with them that they don't even talk about.
So that's, I think in this case, it looks like the information coming out was helpful in indicating to people, and I think Americans are sort of talking more about that, is that we're messing up around the world.
And especially, you know, we've talked so much about even the Republicans are saying, well, maybe our foreign policy in Ukraine, maybe it's short-sighted.
After the 20 years of anniversary in Afghanistan, 20 years in Iraq, maybe we ought to question these things, but not the diehards.
The diehards will accuse you of being a Nazi or a communist or something if you don't go along with their viewpoint.
And that's the irony is that the U.S. bluster and belligerence around the world has actually made us less relevant today.
People coming in like the Chinese are running circles around us.
Here's a peace plan.
Here's how we stop this problem.
And here we are blustering.
No, we're not going to do it.
I wanted to put up one thing because Medea Benjamin is someone we both know.
She's, I think, code pink.
She's a peace activist.
And she had a little bit of fun, I think, yesterday.
I hope she had fun doing it.
She disrupted a hearing with Secretary of State Tony Blinken.
We can put up that next clip.
And yeah, I'm not a huge fan of interrupting these hearings, but nevertheless, it is civil disobedience.
And so what she did is she got up and she held up a sign and she said, you're the top diplomat.
Why don't you start negotiating?
And so here's what she just said.
I just got out of jail for asking Secretary Blinken to do his job to negotiate a peace deal in Ukraine.
Quote, if you don't like the Chinese peace proposal, I asked him, where is your peace plan?
So good for her.
That's good.
Interrupting Hearings00:14:27
And that's what it takes.
And, you know, whether it's the domestic nonsense associated with COVID or the international nonsense that's going on, the principle is always there, overreaction and over-involvement and endorsing a viewpoint which they cling to, and that is government doing things they're not supposed to do.
They don't have proper authority from the Constitution.
And to me, I don't believe they have moral authority for doing a lot of this stuff either.
But time marches on.
But I think that we see so often the cracks in the status quo.
And hopefully we can turn those into positive things and say, well, what is the solution?
And there should be a better solution.
Of course, we start with you have to change policy, which means that that is no easy task.
You can change the attitude of the people quicker than you can change the power structure in Washington.
And that's, I think, where we are right now.
I think people are waking up, but we still have the domination of the COVID people and the woke generation.
They're out there just terrorizing us.
Yeah, no kidding.
Well, on the topic of China, before we move on, our sponsor, 4patriots.com, reminds us that the Chinese government is very concerned about the food supply.
They're importing massive amounts of foods and they're hoarding those amounts of food.
Now, obviously, we can't import as much as the Chinese, but if they're worried about something, there's really a reason for us to be concerned as well.
And one thing to do about that is to secure your own family's food supply.
4Patriots.com makes it extremely easy to secure your family's food supply with a 72-hour food survival kit all the way up to an entire year of food that can be stored safely for decades.
You can go to forpatriots.com, the number 4patriots.com.
Enter run for your 10% discount on your first order of delicious, healthy, nutritious food packed in America.
Put it away.
Be smart like the Chinese.
Get yourself some food forpatriots.com.
Dr. Paul, very good.
Let's move on.
Here's another good news story.
The Republicans are in a great debate, and the Republicans aren't uniformly demanding that we invade another country.
And there's a group now saying maybe we've done too much of that.
Maybe we ought to take a rest and put some money in the bank.
But who knows what will happen?
But Politico had a story, which I have the headline here.
It says, not just Ukraine, the GOP splinters on Iraq war repeal.
You know what?
The war's over and we lost.
Doesn't that mean we should get it behind us?
Get away.
No, they won't give up on it.
And I mentioned to you, I think it's pretty amazing how they will cling to something illegal, inappropriate that doesn't work to be able to hide behind it because the next time they want to start a war, they want to do it with an executive order or call it a police action or do something else, but certainly not go back to the old-fashioned idea that the people have a say along with the Congress and actually say, well, if we're going to war, we have to have a vote on going to war.
No, they're not interested in that.
But the people are stirring up.
I don't think they hear the answer is not that complicated.
What is so bad about doing the vote before you have the war on when you're going to stop the war?
It's much harder to stop the war because then they say, oh, you're just deserting our troops over there.
Well, I'll tell you what, eventually wars and this authoritarianism bankrupts a country.
And we talk a lot about that.
So when they run out of money, they won't be able to do it.
But they're running out of prestige.
They're running out of diplomacy.
But the problem is the whole world is engaged in this.
I mean, the Europeans aren't necessarily libertarians.
And they're not taking care of their own affairs and assuming responsibility on themselves.
They want NATO to come in.
They beg, well, can we have NATO come and take care of us?
So that to me is a crime.
But economics are very, very, the rules of economics are very powerful.
And eventually, and some of this is already there because the people, they haven't gone to the Mises Institute and had economic courts.
But they say, why are we doing this?
Why are we sending all this money and weapons to Ukraine when we have people in the streets starving and we have all these problems we have here?
And they see this stuff.
So economics, I've argued over the years, they said, do you vote from a person's brain or heart?
And I said, you vote from their stomachs.
Yeah, no kidding.
When their stomach's empty, then they're going to go look for an answer.
Well, since George W. Bush, I've been pretty annoyed with the Republicans.
But I have to say, I think both of us are pleasantly surprised at a trend that we're noticing, and other people are noticing as well.
You can put up this next clip because this is from Politico, and this is the article we're talking about.
Not just Ukraine, GOP splinters on Iraq war repeal.
And you can almost guess where the dividing line is, Dr. Paul, between the old guard, who's been there forever.
You know, the problem is the neocons have no reverse gear, as you point out.
It's been 20 years.
We've already lost.
Iran won the Iraq-U.S. war, and we lost it.
20 years, and they still can't let go.
And now here's a piece from the article, if we can do that next clip, that makes a point that we've made.
A GOP that looked uniformly hawkish when George W. Bush first won Congress's approval to go to war in Iraq is now routinely split on major foreign policy matters.
Now I think maybe Politico, which leans left, is probably rubbing its hands together with glee that there's a split in the party.
But I think we both agree that the ascendant faction is the good faction with more energy and more youth.
And if you go to the next clip, one of those, and we saw him on the cover of this, is Josh Hawley.
Now, there's a lot to be concerned about Hawley.
He's a mega hawk on China.
He's got a big blind spot.
Nevertheless, he continuously comes out with pretty good statements.
And here's what he said in the article.
Voters are tired of wars that don't have any justification or basis.
The Iraq thing, that was not justifiable.
And it's hard for my party to admit, because they pushed it, they carried the water for it.
And that's a pretty close to an apology for the Republican complicity in leading the charge against Iraq.
And I really have to salute him for doing that.
That's good.
You know, maybe it's more of a problem of semantics than anything.
Because if you take the word patriotism, how many Americans have you ever run into, including myself, because I want to be patriotic.
But I might have an image of patriotism that somebody else, I mean, the person that challenged me during my campaigns, they were saying I was unpatriotic, you know, because I wasn't supporting the troops.
But the troops weren't begging to meet, come and vote for more war.
That's what I like.
I'm a military person, and I'm looking to go to war.
No, the semantics are that if supporting war is the way they define patriotism, but you know, I have a sneaking suspicion that a better definition of patriotism is the willingness and the legal right to criticize one's own government.
You know, and I think that's what I think that's what the country was founded on, their willingness to criticize the king, you know, and bring about something better.
So I think that it's propaganda, it's a lot of other things, but it's hard to get people to shift.
But I think what you've just mentioned, we talk about, is there is some shifting, and we like to see Republicans actually debating.
But, you know, but we're moving into an era that certainly in the COVID era where discussion was wrong, it was evil, you were unpatriotic, and you're not a doctor anymore.
If you said there's natural immunity and you lose your job, you can't be an investigator.
You can't be a researcher because you won't follow Saab Fauci's rules.
And then they call that patriotism and use nasty words against people who disagree with them.
Yeah.
Well, I think the old guard is on the ropes in the GOP.
And I think there's no better news than that.
That's true.
And indicative of the old guard is Lindsey Graham, the senator who loves everyone else going to war.
If we can put this next one, and this is from that article.
And I would say, though, reading this over, I think even Lindsey Graham sounds a little bit defensive.
We can put this next clip on.
He says, I understand Saddam is gone.
The war is over.
But we do have soldiers stationed in Iraq and close to the Iraqi government.
Well, why is that?
And I want to make sure that if you repeal the 2002 authorization, you replace it with something that's relevant to today.
Replace it with what you would say with nothing.
And that's a good point.
But the last clip I want to put on this is important because I think honestly, and I can say this, it's easier for me to say it.
This next clip shows the incredible importance of Rand Paul in the Senate.
Because while everyone is debating this little thing, Rand Paul comes in with something that explains the whole thing.
And here is from the Politico article.
Some in the chamber, like Senator Rand Paul, are pressing to go further by seeking to modify or even repeal the broad 2001 authorization for military force that Congress passed in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks, which remains in effect.
So Rand Paul, Senator Paul, takes it further and says, not only get rid of the Iraq war authorization, get rid of the whole enchilada.
It's done.
It should have never been there.
And I think that's why it's important because he pushes the debate and he propels the debate where it needs to be.
Isn't there a little risk in that that people would have to look to the Constitution for guidance if we get rid of that stuff?
Exactly.
So do you have anything else to close with?
I do, if you don't.
No, I don't actually.
Just to thank our viewers again.
And please like, subscribe, put some comments in the comments section.
That helps it become lively.
Start a debate just so we can propel the channel.
Thanks for listening, Dr. Williams.
Well, I don't have to inform you or our listeners.
There's an election coming up pretty soon.
It's amazing how quickly they roll along.
Here we are, one year into the year when the big job of electing a new president or an old president.
So, but we have a lot of experts, and I don't volunteer a lot of advice because I don't think advice is worth if somebody's not interested in it.
So if they ask me something, then I jump to it and I say, well, I'll do my best.
But Laura Ingram, she has a different attitude, and she's well known, and she's pretty smart and knows about the politics and all this.
But she was in the news this weekend.
It says, Laura Ingram offers Trump some campaign advice that he definitely won't like.
Now, what could she say that he won't like?
Well, we get a hint here.
It's not long.
She says, now, if I were Trump and running his campaign, I'd strongly urge him to stop talking about 2020.
It's over.
Enough.
Maintaining an old claims of election fraud will not win over a single vote in any state that he needs to win in 2024.
Pragmatism.
But isn't the truth supposed to be pragmatic too?
But if there is some cheating, why does it go on and on?
You know, I think, but my impression of this is that bringing something up, the way you do it is very important.
Because if you're a sore loser and you make up stories and you exaggerate, but if you come across factually and said, look, all we're asking for is a fair count and a fair election, and there's plenty of evidence that deserves real investigation.
And if you want to go on and pretend that he was legitimately elected and all this, go ahead.
But you have to look to it, and you have to know what the truth is.
And there's a lot of unanswered questions from the last campaign.
And I think that approach is a little bit different than saying, well, Trump, you're a jerk.
Why don't you just quit talking about it?
But that happens to be his nature.
And who knows?
Right now, the more they talk about him, the higher his polls go.
So who knows what's going to happen there.
But anyway, I think that I'm going to stick to my rules.
If somebody doesn't come and ask me something, I'm not going to go out of my way to say, you know, you're not running your campaign right.
Every once in a while, I'll have a candidate stop in here and I might talk with them.
And they just want to ask me a question.
And how do you answer this question and that?
And I said, what you know, like, because it's a serious question.
They want a serious answer and they're trying to work out in their own mind.
How do you handle difficult problems in a political sense?
So that's a lot bit different.
But I guess right now there'll be a lot, he's going to receive a lot of advice.
And guess what?
He's not going to worry about the advice he's getting.
Handling Political Hatred00:00:57
He's going to do what he thinks is best.
And he hasn't been a total failure, politically speaking, but the enemies he has stirred up, isn't it amazing how much hatred has been turned against him?
You know, just to say, well, you're wrong, you're a jerk, and you do this.
No, it is vitriol, it's hatred.
And I've always said the whole thing started with jealousy because he was saying things nobody else could say.
And if they did, they were kicked out.
You know, he could say it.
So it's jealousy, and then it turned into hate.
And it's continued.
But the longer it goes, the more they hate him.
So, anyway, we try our best not to hate anybody except the ones that hate us.
But anyway, I want to thank our audience for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.