New York Times Refuses to Acknowledge Seymour Hersh Evidence that Joe Biden Committed the “Crime” of Destroying the Nord Stream Pipeline

crime scene NYT

Someone blew up the Nord Stream Pipeline. On Dec 26, the New York Times wrote a long article calling this a “crime.” On Feb 8, Seymour Hersh gave us detailed evidence that Joe Biden committed this crime. The NYT has refused to even mention Hersh’s blockbuster investigation. Here’s the chronology.

Feb 7, 2022: Joe Biden promises that Russia invades Ukraine, the Nordstream 2 Pipeline will not be operational: “We will bring an end to it.”

Sept 26, 2022 – The Nordstream 2 pipeline is destroyed.

Sept 28, 2022 – Washington Post scolds Tucker Carlson for reporting that the U.S. destroyed Russia’s pipeline.

Sept 30, 2022 – White house denies U.S. involvement in destroying the pipeline. Accuses the Russians of lying. Claims that Russia destroyed its own pipeline. Mass Media gaslights U.S. Citizens that Russia purportedly blew up its own pipeline (see video below).

Feb 8, 2023 – Highly respected investigative reporter Seymour Hersh issues news article detailed how the U.S. blew up the Nordstream 2 Pipeline.

Feb 8, 2023 – The White House claims that the article by Hersh, a well-decorated reporter, is “utterly false and complete fiction.”

As of Feb 12, 2023 – The New York Times refuses to discuss Hersh’s blockbuster findings.

 

—

Screenshot 2023 02 12 at 12.40.56 PM

[Added Feb 18, 2023]

In the following video, Symour Hersh extensively discusses the U.S. destruction of of the Nord Stream pipeline with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now. He also points out that the U.S. attack goes way beyond U.S. ambitions in Ukraine. The destruction of the pipeline was to cut off Germany from cheap Russian fuel, a partnership that threatened U.S. economic interests. The attack caused damage to Germany’s economy, however. Biden would rather fight a war in Ukraine than prevent economic damage to Germany, a U.S. “Allie.” I’m using the scare quotes because of Hersh’s prediction that this U.S. action will likely cause many members of NATO to rethink NATO membership and to rethink whether the U.S. has their back. Hersh also mentions, that the U.S. destruction of the pipeline invited Norway (who cooperated with the U.S. navy in blowing up the pipeline) to at least double its own production of natural gas.

Share

Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth is an attorney focusing on civil rights (including First Amendment), consumer law litigation and appellate practice. At this website often writes about censorship, corporate news media corruption and cognitive science. He is also a working musician, artist and a writer, having founded Dangerous Intersection in 2006. Erich lives in St. Louis, Missouri with his two daughters.

This Post Has One Comment

  1. Avatar of Erich Vieth
    Erich Vieth March 7, 2023 Reply

    Dennis Kucinich outlines the legal consequences for a President who chooses to destroy the Nord Stream Pipeline:

    Congressional investigations must ensue. The bombing of Nord Stream, (owned 51% by Russia’s Gazprom and 49% by four European partners) instantly cut off an energy supply for 83 million Germans, and destroyed a multi-billion dollar infrastructure was clearly an act of war. Under the United States Constitution, Article One, Section 8, the war power is clearly vested in Congress.

    If any President proceeds to commit an act of war, absent congressional approval, it is an impeachable offense. Likewise all top officials in an Administration who participate in the planning and execution of such action are similarly vulnerable to impeachment.

    Article Two, Section 4 of the Constitution states impeachment can reach not only the President and Vice President, but also “civil officers of the United States,” easily implicating everyone involved in a Nord Stream conspiracy at the executive level.

    It is vital for the Secretary of State Antony Blinken, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, all prominently mentioned both in Hersh’s account, and in news reports both prior to and subsequent to Nord Stream, to be called before Congress to testify about what they knew and when they knew it.

    Let’s suppose for a moment that Congress, for whatever reason is reluctant to peer into the Executive conduct regarding Nord Stream. In that case, this matter clearly comes into the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, Rome Statute, which permits investigations of war crimes if the act occurred in a country which was a signatory to the statute.

    The attack on Nord Stream occurred off the coast of Denmark’s Bornholm Island, within that country’s territorial waters. Denmark was a signatory to the ICC Rome Statute in 1998, so the matter would properly present to the ICC.

    It is noteworthy that neither the UN Security Council, nor the US, nor Germany, nor Sweden, nor Denmark, nor any other country having investigated the Nord Stream pipeline destruction has produced any public report on their findings, further making the case for the necessity of an ICC public investigation.

    If the Nord Stream bombing remains unquestioned, US Constitutional checks and balances and international structures of law will be severely eroded. We must get the facts and follow where they lead.

Leave a Reply