still on boss waiting, a 175 used to do it. so you have sense. it's all we're going to let that stay the the fiber, buddy program notes. as we've been telling you, we're posting the show every day. now so many of you said you liked it, so guess what used to be a weekly malware daily called no punches. so look for a trip on number one. there's a painful iron in, in what denmark and belgium in britain and germany, the netherlands, norway are now doing just bottom number to those countries. wanna make sure underwater pipelines are not blown up. truth bomb number 3 to those countries. 2 of those countries you know, a lot about blowing up pipelines. i'm roxanne. busy this is directive tax the

okay, so this is one of those stories that makes you kind of want to shake your head and wonder i, i've a stupid are they really that stupid or maybe they just think we're that stupid. so here's what's now. 6 countries and we're going to show you where they are on a map. these countries, denmark, belgium, britain, germany, benevolence, norway, norway is important in this case. so it's germany by the way, but let me continue. those countries have decided to come together to build a security alliance. what is the purpose of this international security consortium to protect what connects them under the north sea pipelines? there are obviously pipelines that travel at the bottom of the north say right, well, okay, that seems like a good idea, right? to make sure that those pipelines are safe, guarded. but when we get into the why,

right, why are they doing this? that's when this good idea seems both curious and hypocritical. so let's start with why they are doing this. the reason is this. tonight sabotaged it. see that's what the president finding is calling the leaks and explosions on the north stream pipelines pipe announced it interesting. remember that as we go through the story, so yes, on september 26th, 2020 to 3 huge explosions, erupt along the underwater north stream pipeline, sending an estimated 300000 tons of has it has methane gas pouring into the baltic sea. the pipeline belongs to russia, which is used to transport natural gas to other european countries. it was a devastating act of sabotage, targeting the russian economy. and more specifically,

the russian energy industry. somebody who wanted to heard russia obviously did this . so who did it? who did this? apparently the us and other western countries blamed swear you can't make this stuff up. you know, they blamed russia. they blamed russia. and that is the absolutely ridiculous story that the c and ends of the world ran with. because here and let me just say it as a person who used to work at cnn, that's what the us state department told them to say. we think it was russia. ok? they say it was russia, and that's what they report it's. it's not. but along comes seymour hersh, for the most respected reporters in the world. former new york times reporter who was fired by them because he was very honest about stories, is considered one of the best in the business. and he and covers cool really blew

up the north stream pipelines. and it certainly wasn't russia right. he defines according to his sources, but it was an act of sabotage, coordinated by, according to his reporting present, and joe biden. along with the c. i a chief as well as the state department head anthony blinking, and the other secretary victoria know that all of whom have a historical hatred for russia and nordstrom. imagine all of those people in a room coming up with some kind of plan about how what we're going to do with north street, right? so in this meeting to try and figure out what they can do about nord stream, according to hers. in his article, they come up with a way to secretly blow up the pipeline using specially train divers from the navy diving school in panama city, florida. so immediately we read the article, i read the article and we got on the phone with seymour hersh insight. and we said, would you, would you mind coming on and taking us through the story?

here's mr. hersh, the united states and those who did it, they know the president did it. you're going to another way of asking this question . the know reporters ask, going to press conference the, the, the, let me blow up the paper. i'm and pipe and bite. and so k, a group, a, c, i, a officers and other agencies are put together. and uh, really this year, last year, a year ago, at this time, if there is something else that hirsch on covers, that makes this new story regarding the security arrangement between denmark, belgium, breton, the netherlands in germany, so, so peculiar, you know, which country, according to hersh, help pull off the sabotage the explosion of these russian pipelines. obviously, us divers or us military the c i. but which other country had to know because they needed their cooperation to do it physically do it. according to hersh, norway. that's right, nor way. the country that more and more is becoming

a giant us military installation with extremely. busy as ties to washington, and it has its own energy industry and pipelines who compete with russians north stream project. oh, and guess who norway shares a border with russia. by the way, according to hers, both norway and germany were on the pipeline. we're, we're or we're in on the plan to destroy the pipeline. i want to talk to you about 2 things, norway, in germany. why? when, if germans, germany is chancellor went along with us, mr. shoals. why would he do that? and given what we know about how this has hurt the german people, i don't get that they've always been worried about the frank rush. it has a numerous deposits of natural gas and oil. tons of it. yeah. for. and the russians have been selling gas, particularly methane gas, clean gas, that can cheats businesses at homes to germany for decades since the sixty's. hey.

so it's all about the business and the relationship. so no way to, according to her, she may have help bought the pipeline is now joining forces with 5 other countries to help them figure out how to protect their pipelines. k with no. right? but does it does, is that, doesn't that seem hypocritical? and why not invite, by the way, russia in this consortium, if not as a group in the, in the group at least to ask for their opinions that all that they were the victims of a pipeline exposure. you know, in fact, let's just not even mention in their report that i have been reading since they put this out yesterday. and as far as the attack on their pipelines go, well, every single one of these north sea border or lions countries, or whatever the heck it's called have, have taken the position at this explosion. it was simply the unsolved mysteries.

nobody knows what happened. maybe it was just blowing themselves up. maybe it was a way or a big giant shocked bit. who knows. and what about the country that according to hers, actually sabotaged the pipeline. the one who's president actually said she would in fact do it. oh yeah. i mean, i don't know if you've seen this or not, but there's actually tape of president biden branding about his plans to destroy the north stream pipeline. here it is. different rushing vase, that means tanks or troops crossing the the border of ukraine again. then there will be we, there will be no longer a north stream to we, we will bring it out with how we do. how will you do that? exactly. since the project and control of the project is within germany's control,

we will, i promise you will be able to yeah, link i promise you will be able to do it. we'll be able to get rid of the non stream pipeline. and then when the noise stream pipeline explodes, mr. biting is office at the state department. see, i'll go, can imagine or did it probably rush. all right. once again, the 1st question i asked when we started this story was, what are they that stupid or do we do? they think we're that stupid is actually the u. s. is an unofficial part of this security consortium that we've been telling you about with all these countries. why? well, because the alliance is a part of nato. and guess who is the kind of unofficial head of nato for us? sometimes you just can't make this stuff up, folks running mean out of talking about it is george from wiley. he's a senior research fellow at a global policy institute and the author of the book,

bottoms for peace, nato's humanity, larry and war on yugoslavia. and once again, here we are talking about bombs and talking about nato. um, what do you make of this? is there a didn't, can you, can you find, please find some fault in my premise and the questions that i asked them. what i just postulated is there was i, am i wrong to the full saying your premise. i mean, if you can, you highlighted that low ones in early february of 2022 when president buying and he's signing the next 2 chunks of the shoals in dc. and he says quite clearly what the united states is going to do. and then lo and behold, he does it. the moment it happens. we have uh the current flow as far minutes, the products that gorski he wasn't a farm is at the time sending out any salt and sweet thing. thank you. united

states, the lady withdrew that sweet. um and then you have victoria newland. uh, it's telling senator use that and she said it's a cruise i'm sure sent it to like me, your delight to the north stream pipelines that just a bunch of rusting metal at the bottom of the sea. and then you had the secretary of state blinking saying, hey, well, this is great, this is a, an exciting opportunity for europe to diversify its energy sources. so you've got the culprits for pretty much, pretty much making no secret that they did it. um, it's only the sort of the very same bones of the media that for a while went to the story. that's oh, yeah, well, i think russia did it. uh, because uh, because what they do because russia wanted to destroy it. it's the opposite. just like every time it is a terrorist attack in russia is always russia. that's responsible for some reason.

they always want to develop themselves. it's uncanny. kind of people, you gotta have bang intestinal fortitude to do and say these things with knowing there will be no impunity. i mean, the person united states, as i'm going to do something that happens and then he says, oh my god, like somebody did this, it wasn't made. and nobody asked tim. and when, when, when, when seymour hersh, who as you saw, i had here on the show exactly where you are right now. and i had a conversation with him at the time. one of the things that we talked about that i didn't include was that he was being a pat, assailed by the media for bearing to suggest that perhaps the united states and the west would be involved with blowing up this pipeline, which obviously was either blown up by russia, or it just happened by itself, or as i suggested, a large shock, the rest of it, right, because he was attacked for russia's late as a conspiracy theorist. united that's

a conspiracy, as opposed to when you blame me, that was washer. that did it. that's not a conspiracy theory that did it, they did it to those. um and then of course in response to hushes story, then the german media and then the american of the british media in so came up with this alternative ridiculous story about this. um the independence freelance ukrainians were involved. nobody knows who they were. they had absolutely nothing to do with the landscape and rest assured it was entirely a free line celebration. there was a whole baby involved with the beginning. you know, she was part of the project, but the amazing thing is they never came up with a name, just one name or one address somebody that you know, that's the story and the media when with this ridiculous nonsense for, for a while. but now it's all being completely forgotten. i didn't expect that whole story, but the intrepid the freelancers who just did this amazing thing,

going deep deep on the war to the freezing cold water released in the bones and blow it out. but this amazing commitment on it and it's open, but don't put it back in that. that wasn't a conspiracy area. you know, it's interesting now though, that they're creating this consortium. and by the way, as i think, i stated, i don't know if i made this as clearly as i want it to. that's a good idea. but they should have a security consortium where countries come together to protect something as important as this. i mean, there should have been a security consortium between russia and germany and norway and sweden and whatever other countries. i don't know my maps well enough for my geography. well enough to tell you. busy the countries that surround the baltic sea, but all the countries around the baltic sea should have a pipeline consortium to protect it, and they should put their navies together and work to do. in fact, i think back now to why doesn't that exist? is it because if we did that, then we'd have to team up with russia and we're not willing to do that as well. i could well be because obviously as you said in your,

in show russia is the primary victim and all of this, uh, it was a russian bill pipeline that was destroyed. and yet, um, within a week or so of this disruption. um, they just secretary general, you install them, but start to like, you know, we are your, our energy infrastructure is very vulnerable. but you have to do something about on your own ruble infrastructure and not be, you know, accepting of all the as back. but it's rushes energy infrastructure that has been destroyed. and what is was amazing is that even in this announcement? no one is asking the obvious question. i mean, what was that? who did it all right, well, crime is being committed as a was fact of industrial sabotaged. it isn't a complete lack of curiosity as to who did it or who committed nevada and that's it

. and so we had these investigations with us. we investigate investigated and i said, oh, it does have, we don't actually have any jurisdiction. so we'll just do it closed down the investigations or october. these moms suddenly think it, oh, we don't have jurisdiction. and then deadlock, they closed it down and said we just, we were just not getting anywhere with this. but the interesting thing is a denmark, didn't the police say what you've been working on this for a few months? how about publishing a report? you know, what have you found? you know, you spend, i know 89 months on it. you must have found something. but we never had a report and i guess the germans are now investigating it or would be borrowing away and i guess something. yeah. right. but it's currently or are here on there? yeah. that surely are george. yeah. all hallway. yeah. it's a very big, you know, in fact uh, i think maybe sometime tomorrow we might be right most a knew you were in about, and i know you're a expert on nato. when we come back, i want to push you a little bit to share with us information about how nato the united states and

other western countries can get away with these narratives that they're so good at creating that seem to go on challenge george sam. well, when we come back talking about that very thing right here, stay with us because we've got a lot more to ask about this curious, curious situation. the the, the,

the magenta itself, the gaining independence and from the form of the ivory coast remained under the strong influence of its full metropolitan pro french president, phoenix, who say, borne, you rule the country for 33 years, ensuring the interest to from the dead. the gun on feeding isn't in the trunk. then there's no simple new foster larry shifting backwards was dumb so strong. and the more appropriate after the death of, of a one year and usually to bill i'll come back the ball came to power. and i'm ready to double, for example, we have curious to know if we're picking up from the was it isn't good enough for tiffany to one is the one that the bronze immediately deemed good luck. boeing

enemy, a deep political crisis is huge and walk a the country 2nd largest city, turned into a theatre of last year from 130 to the other 2 on the road as of no mortgage. how did the dramatic events unfold? and how is walk a recovering from he is a bloody conflict. watch on. see the fad. welcome back. i'm rick sanchez. george sam welly is a senior research fellow at the global policy institute and the author of the book, bombs for peace. nato's humanitarian war on yugoslavia and make sure if you reach out to him, you reach out to some welly samuel as i pronounced it earlier, he won't respond to you. that's his cousin. so it goes towards. so

you went about data, you are an expert on nato, i want to understand. so what made those same doing is when they create these narratives like this one that we're reporting on today. and they all come together and they always seem to have a cover story and they always protect each other. and i get it. nations should come together and help each other and we should be unified. but when you do it as a group and you exclude other nations, then i don't think it's so positive. and that's what we seem to see more and more. it's these uh, well, in high school, we call them clicks, right? a yeah, i yeah, right now the, the, the big lie at the heart of nato is that it's a defense of the lines. it never was a defense of a lines. i mean, even from the very beginning when he claim the we are defending the west against

the law. so it's helpful for, for the most of the well not to know the most basic fact which is a major was 1st made. it was created in 1949 also i didn't come into existence until 6 is later in 1955. so how happens and you to be defending anyone from the law so okay. um and then we have this uh, phenomenon essentially late. so, waging one more often another, so it waged a war against the bosnia in 1995 and you was love, you 1999 that it's wage war or guys? libya 2011 is wage war in iraq and left counties and yeah, nature continue since this that needs to finish it. well, who is defending whom i guess i only see the rest of the and i'll give you a better example. i mean, i don't know if you caught this, but if you happen to see the i think it was a 15 hour interview, the talk across and did with the vladimir button. i think at the time because your

button says to him and we knew is, i know guys i do and i probably noticed, but some people didn't. lot of important. it said we tried to convince the west the level as join nato. we rush out if we are a part of it, but you don't have to be scared of us because we're all in the same team. he even went to them, went to the united states. i believe it was kind of liza rice and said look, why don't we come up with a new deal where we share nuclear arm immense and use them against anybody who tries to attack either one of us will hear back and you have our back on both occasions the west, the united states said, hell no, we don't want to be a joint with you guys. we'd rather fight you. we'd rather be against do that stupid . are you ever use that word way too much today? pardon me for doing it again, but your thoughts? good. yeah. that, that history is absolutely correct. he did put in a did offer a bill clinton in to 1000, to join nato. so of course, when he did that, it made

a lot of sense because he said he's essentially saying, look, we've had these uh, security agreements. we have the else thank you, final act of 1975. we had the tree data, the the chopper of paris and 1990. the whole point of having these security frameworks is that everybody is in it and everybody feels secure. everybody guarantees everybody else is for those. but if you create and the lines that excludes us, then obviously we see this alliance as being director that us nato has made no secret of the fact that it was, it is directed at russia, rockridge, with god as the enemy. and it keeps incorporating one state off through another, the states that border russia, with a view to walk with a view, obviously to insert russia and eventually weakening and waging war is russia. i mean, you know, it's very obvious, because if they use, if that wasn't the nature of project, then why did they say no to russia's thing? okay. well, we were going, just as we were, 5 of the, the

o. s. c were part of the helsinki find what and as far mentioned, norway is looking like, it's gonna be the 51st state in the united states pretty soon with all the military bases that we seem to be putting there. i wanna share something else with you. we're learning today that no less than $194.00 were us military officials incentive . amec has brief, which is essentially like a friendly note of information. they want the court to consider to the supreme court of the united states regarding former president donald trump. here's a headline for you, the headline where you can see how it says that giving trump sweeping immunity would bring k also, according to former us generals admirals and military service leaders. what's it about? well, it's about mr. trump, asking for immunity from prosecution because he was after all the press, the united states, as the former generals argue that as mr. trump gets immunity, us troops stationed everywhere else will feel like if the president doesn't have to abide by the law, then why should way the generals are telling the court that if it grant mr. trump request for immunity, will threaten to inject chaos in the military operations. and also threatens to

damage potentially irreparably, the public's trust in the military. that's what they say. okay, look, while that reasoning, george seems like a bit of a reach. the overall message presented by these generals is correct. they're right . no one under any system of governance should be above the law. if you commit a crime, it doesn't matter who you are. if you're found guilty, you go to jail, that's just the way it is. there's no kings here or should there be anywhere else? i think so my problem with this brief isn't the message. it's the messengers. former military officials become highly politicized in america, not to mention wealthy when they leave office. i know the media puts them on these pedestals, but i'm not sure that they're take on issues like this is really any more significant amount of any other citizen. in fact, i think it may even be less. so. what do you think? well, i agree i, i don't agree with you and tell you where you are in the 1st part of what you said, because i do think there is such a thing as sovereign immunity. i mean, that's a,

it's a basic constitutional principle. going back to the 17th century, which is the sovereign makes the laws, but the solver, it isn't bound by the law because we know the sovereigns do things that we as ordinary citizens, cannot do. i mean, we know, precedents, order assassinations, presidents, older invasion president for the attacks on other countries. they don't get prosecute, just because you know that they, they're acting as heads of state as, you know, acting in the nation's interest. as private individuals, you cannot do those things, but as a, as heads up states that you can so um, but what they doing here is that everybody is always known as whenever anyone has gone through a quote to say, well, i'm gonna assume fortunately you, george, because his waging of the legal horns on the notes are always thrown, that is correct and you know what? they think of george w bush. he did it as president of the united states. he has immunity for pursuing it, but what these people are doing is they saying, well, i'm sorry, i didn't hear that is fine except that you don't like the donald trump just if it

was the the from the fact that yeah, yeah, yeah, this is, um, you know every how the president can do this, but except for donald trump got supplies the same thing. know when the other thing they do um, uh they, they still go thinking go, if they get drunk to bring it criminal charges because he kept is his papers. every president takes drastic by the documents from the white house. it was home. i think the right then ma'am, was ever present this, done it, you know, present as being prosecutor except for trial. while i was that where i wanted to give you a shot at that because i wanted to just not talk about geo politics. i also want to include something else, but we're out of time, my friend george. and really, it is always a pleasure having a conversation with you. thank you for joining us. my friend, i thank you very much. regular was a pleasure. before we go, i want to remind you of our mission. simple. really. we tried the silo, the world truths don't live in boxes. neither do we. i'm rick sanchez. this is

direct impact the let's take a fresh look around his life. kaleidoscopic isn't just a shifted reality distortion by power to division with no real opinions. fixtures designed to simplify will confuse really once a better wills, and is it just as a chosen few fractured images presented to this, but can you see through their illusions, going underground can as a result, online,

it was can be started by lines. please can be satisfied for the importance of we can never be of a station. so that transparency is an extraordinary drawn mistake at trees. then just succeeded in finding 2 months that existed in making them available to the world public. i mean, what could be more than that by publishing information and sharing information with the public. he was exercising the right to free speech. he did so in the public interest was to so long realize tends to me and, and honestly, to relate to seriously. i know why advice may i know, who is the guy that illegal anymore wisely bought the adjustments for to be on box weighing a 175 used to go through

a distance. it's all we going to lift that stay the the leader of hamas says palestine will not vouch, who is rarely pressure after the idea of killed 3 of his sons and 4 of his grandchildren in dogs that were claiming to have targeted and terrorist water. nature has been raging here in russia score in the region for almost a week. more than 10 solvent presidential buildings were effected by the flood of a report from the flood stricken at central russia. as rising water impacts the regional capital of orange bird following a catastrophic exam bridge last week, russia sounds the alarm or the disastrous risk. suppose by the escalating and cranium. drones strikes on this that promoters a nuclear power plant. while the west turns.