1:11:19 It's a very classic Seymour Hersh, uh lot of confidential sources. A little bit of embellishment I believe but not too much i think he's on the money. I think generally speaking he blew this out of the water it did is a little different than earlier thesis that it was UK or Poland, there was a couple of things. There were a number of things but this made the most sense and coming from him and it was well put together I liked it a lot I think he nailed it and got no play
1:11:58 Well, it got pushback is what I got. So first there was a press briefing at the State Department so Jake Sullivan was taking it on and the audio sounds a little thin...I'm not sure what happened why it's so thin or from the microphone that the journalist...and no Matt by the way! I was waiting for Mat to show up with a question but haven't found one of his yet This is one of the reporters who I recognize from the State Department briefing room and here's a snippet. I'm sure you're aware of the new report from Seymour Hersh, how America took out the Nord Stream pipeline and the White House's denial. Of any involvement given the longstanding opposition to the pipeline Secretary Blinken is calling its demise a tremendous opportunity and Undersecretary of State Nuland saying that U.S officials were pleased with the destruction of the pipeline especially the secretive investigation do you think the US government
1:12:57 denial of involvement is credible. I absolutely do and i repeat it here. Let me follow up on that if I might, have you or anybody else at the State Department any communication with German Norwegian ambassadors or other allies or officials on this matter? on the matter of northstream two on the matter of latest allegations uh... which give up it's really i mean you can see is not a resource to use it and they've barely it is not a with you would not be uh... in fact he wouldn't do would not be typical for us to engage allies and partners on something that is other incomplete nonsense and that's what i love this
1:13:40 So, no of course we wouldn't engage allies and other entities on something that's nonsense. This is so good, Jake. It would not be typical for us to engage allies and partners on something that is utter and complete nonsense and it should be rejected out of hand by anyone who was looking at it through a through an objective lens yes One more aspect on this one of the allegations that her makes is that it was? Taken off the CIA in order to prevent involvement oversight As a covert operation did you read the piece I
1:14:16 I'm familiar with it. One of his allegations is that it was taken off the... Rather than let this propaganda be aired in the briefing room... ...for an operation, did you read the piece? One of his allegations is that it was taken off the... Rather than let this propaganda be aired in the briefing room, but let me just say it's a fundamental misunderstanding of oversight in our US Congress. Beyond getting his facts entirely wrong as he has before and very
1:14:51 high-profile ways. It is a fundamental misunderstanding suggests that... I love the discreditation here, rather he gets things wrong in rather high profile ways he's gotten things wrong what was that? Was that The My Lai Massacre? Was that the Abu Ghraib prison torture, was that wrong in high profile ways. What did he screw up our Pulitzer Prize winning award-winning journalist, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh. What did he screw up? Oh! The Russian collusion story. That's where he really screwed up if I recall
1:15:28 Because he was wrong. It was propaganda. So, here's what they... If they had uh... Hirsch does have a bad habit and if they wanted to smear him they could do this at the age one of the agencies if they put it together they put some time into it I don't think they do I think he's an asset I think the agencies, the Intel agencies... Who's an asset? Hirsch is an asset. I think he's an asset because he does dig through stuff He does find leaks. An asset for who? I don't understand what you're saying when you say an asset. I think it's an asset for the spy agencies Because he shows them that here's where you screwed up
1:16:10 And it's like, here is another look what I found. You guys aren't very good at this because here is the whole story. Here he is again because if they wanted to smear him and get him out of the picture completely they could do it because he's known amongst journalists even who know him well, he's known for saying screwy stuff in public. He never writes anything that's inaccurate or far as he is concerned his writing is impeccable but when he goes and gives speeches... He says weird crap! ...He says stuff that he never writes up that if you documented it you could ruin him Let's listen. There is another 30 seconds left.
1:17:10 high-profile ways. It is a fundamental misunderstanding suggests that our intelligence community is not subject to oversight anyone who writes that anything who writes anything like that should not be believed by me. No, no, he wrote it was taken off of the CIA. Hold on can you back it up does this guy actually say our intelligence community is not subject to oversight? before in very High-profile ways it is a fundamental misunderstanding suggests that our intelligence community is not subject to oversight You got it, right? Yeah. Okay anything he says okay. Yeah well so that was part of the Part of the or the interesting part of the article which I haven't highlighted Was that once it's taken out of the intelligence community moved to
1:18:01 If we, the way President Biden and Victoria Nuland said that you know we know how to do it. Something changed and they did not have to report to Congress that is the... It was a tick that Technicality. And so Sullivan is saying that's not true anyone who writes that anything who writes anything like that no no it was taken off of the CIA and put under military in order to our military is also subject to rigorous over time question yes the answer is you recognize and abide by the War Powers Clause in such a situation and the War Powers Resolution? In a situation, your question is if we abide by the war powers resolution in a situation that never occurred. In any situation involving US military do you abide by the War Powers Resolution? We follow the law in every instance yes. Including the War Powers Resolution? We follow the War Powers Resolution and the broader law
1:19:00 in every instance. Now he said in the broader law so that was that I am NOT a lawyer so I can't really figure out if he's right or not but we have to be a specialist lawyer too, not just any lawyer yeah which um you know I have some qualifications yes shut up Zippy So that, yeah... it sounds squirrely what he's doing there. Sounds squirrely! It was fun to watch the- Well this is a horrible situation that Hearst has uncovered. Hearsh. Hersch. I'll get it eventually. Yeah. He's uncovered a situation that's inexcusable we can't be doing this What was cool about uh... of course I read the Dutch press actually Ancilla sent this to me