The Biden cover-up

Seymour Hersh: The Cover-Up 


The Biden Administration continues to conceal its responsibility for the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines 

It’s been six weeks since I published a report, based on anonymous sourcing, naming President Joe Biden as the official who ordered the mysterious destruction last September of Nord Stream 2, a new $11-billion pipeline that was scheduled to double the volume of natural gas delivered from Russia to Germany. The story gained traction in Germany and Western Europe, but was subject to a near media blackout in the US. Two weeks ago, after a visit by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to Washington, US and German intelligence agencies attempted to add to the blackout by feeding the New York Times and the German weekly Die Zeit false cover stories to counter the report that Biden and US operatives were responsible for the pipelines’ destruction. 

Press aides for the White House and Central Intelligence Agency have consistently denied that America was responsible for exploding the pipelines, and those pro forma denials were more than enough for the White House press corps. There is no evidence that any reporter assigned there 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. . . . .

In early March, President Biden hosted German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Washington. The trip included only two public events—a brief pro forma exchange of compliments between Biden and Scholz before the White House press corps, with no questions allowed; and a CNN interview with Scholz by Fareed Zakaria, who did not touch on the pipeline allegations. The chancellor had flown to Washington with no members of the German press on board, no formal dinner scheduled, and the two world leaders were not slated to conduct a press conference, as routinely happens at such high-profile meetings. Instead, it was later reported that Biden and Scholz had an 80-minute meeting, with no aides present for much of the time. There have been no statements or written understandings made public since then by either government, but I was told by someone with access to diplomatic intelligence that there was a discussion of the pipeline exposé and, as a result, certain elements in the Central Intelligence Agency were asked to prepare a cover story in collaboration with German intelligence that would provide the American and German press with an alternative version for the destruction of Nord Stream 2. In the words of the intelligence community, the agency was “to pulse the system” in an effort to discount the claim that Biden had ordered the pipelines’ destruction…. 

. . . .

The agency did its job and, with the help of German intelligence, concocted and planted stories about an ad hoc “off the books” operation that had led to the destruction of the pipelines. The scam had two elements: a March 7 report in the New York Times citing an anonymous American official claiming that “[n]ew intelligence…suggests” that “a pro-Ukrainian group” may have been involved in the pipeline’s destruction; and a report the same day in Der Zeit, Germany’s most widely read weekly newspaper, stating that German investigative officials had tracked down a chartered luxury sailing yacht that was known to have set off on September 6 from the German port at Rostock past Bornholm island off the coast of Denmark. The island is a few miles from the area where the pipelines were destroyed on September 26. The yacht had been rented from Ukrainian owners and manned by a party of six: a captain, two divers, two divers’ assistants, and a doctor. Five were men, and one a woman. False passports were involved. 

 . . . .

“It was a total fabrication by American intelligence that was passed along to the Germans, and aimed at discrediting your story,” I was told by a source within the American intelligence community. The disinformation professionals inside the CIA understand that a propaganda gambit can only work if those on receiving are desperate for a story that can diminish or displace an unwanted truth. And the truth in question is that President Joe Biden authorized the destruction of the pipelines and will have a difficult time explaining away his action as Germany and its Western European neighbors suffer as businesses are shuttered amid high day-to-day energy costs….


Excellent journalists "ad hominem'd" by Democrats


[Taibbi testifying at the “Hearing on the Weaponization of the Federal Government on the Twitter Files” for the House Judiciary Committee:]

Chairman Jordan, ranking member Plaskett, members of the Select Committee, 

My name is Matt Taibbi. I’ve been a reporter for over 30 years, and an advocate for the First Amendment…. 

I’m here today because of a series of events that began late last year, when I received a note from a source online. 

It read: “Are you interested in doing a deep dive into what censorship and manipulation… was going on at Twitter?” 

A week later, the first of what became known as the “Twitter Files” reports came out. To say these attracted intense public interest would be an understatement. My computer looked like a slot machine as just the first tweet about the blockage of the Hunter Biden laptop story registered 143 million impressions and 30 million engagements. 

But it wasn’t until a week after the first report, after Michael Shellenberger, Bari Weiss, and other researchers joined the search of the “Files,” that we started to grasp the significance of this story. 

The original promise of the Internet was that it might democratize the exchange of information globally. A free internet would overwhelm all attempts to control information flow, its very existence a threat to anti-democratic forms of government everywhere. 

What we found in the Files was a sweeping effort to reverse that promise, and use machine learning and other tools to turn the internet into an instrument of censorship and social control. Unfortunately, our own government appears to be playing a lead role. 


Following the trail of communications between Twitter and the federal government across tens of thousands of emails led to a series of revelations. Mr. Chairman, we’ve summarized these and submitted them to the committee in the form of a new Twitter Files thread, which is also being released to the public now, on Twitter at @ShellenbergerMD, and @mtaibbi

We learned Twitter, Facebook, Google, and other companies developed a formal system for taking in moderation “requests” from every corner of government: the FBI, DHS, HHS, DOD, the Global Engagement Center at State, even the CIA. For every government agency scanning Twitter, there were perhaps 20 quasi-private entities doing the same, including Stanford’s Election Integrity Project, Newsguard, the Global Disinformation Index, and others, many taxpayer-funded. 

A focus of this fast-growing network is making lists of people whose opinions, beliefs, associations, or sympathies are deemed “misinformation,” “disinformation,” or “malinformation.” The latter term is just a euphemism for “true but inconvenient.” 

Undeniably, the making of such lists is a form of digital McCarthyism

Ordinary Americans are not just being reported to Twitter for “deamplification” or de-platforming, but to firms like PayPal, digital advertisers like Xandr, and crowdfunding sites like GoFundMe. These companies can and do refuse service to law-abiding people and businesses whose only crime is falling afoul of a distant, faceless, unaccountable, algorithmic judge. 

As someone who grew up a traditional ACLU liberal, this mechanism for punishment without due process is horrifying. 

Another troubling aspect is the role of the press, which should be the people’s last line of defense. 

But instead of investigating these groups, journalists partnered with them. If Twitter declined to remove an account right away, government agencies and NGOs would call reporters for the New York Times, Washington Post, and other outlets, who in turn would call Twitter demanding to know why action had not been taken. 

Effectively, news media became an arm of a state-sponsored thought-policing system….

* * *

Chat GPT: "I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do."

Outsourcing empathy? What does it it mean to have a machine craft or draft messages of sympathy, solidarity, equity and justice?

The apology email also acknowledged that despite adding messages of inclusivity, using an AI program to write a condolences note was inappropriate. “While we believe in the message of inclusivity expressed in the email, using ChatGPT to generate communications on behalf of our community in a time of sorrow and in response to a tragedy contradicts the values that characterize Peabody College,” the email read.

The first text output from ChatGPT reads like a convincing summary of Bloomberg’s post-electoral philanthropic activities – complete with a quote from Bloomberg, himself. But the I-Team could find no record of the former mayor ever uttering those words.  When the chatbot was reminded to include commentary from Bloomberg’s critics, ChatGPT seemed to make up entirely fabricated quotes from phony anonymous sources. And those fake sources appear to skewer the former mayor for using his wealth to influence public policy. 

What are the expectations for scholarship in the sciences and why?

from Science magazine:

For years, authors at the Science family of journals have signed a license certifying that “the Work is an original” (italics added). For the Science journals, the word “original” is enough to signal that text written by ChatGPT is not acceptable: It is, after all, plagiarized from ChatGPT. Further, our authors certify that they themselves are accountable for the research in the paper. Still, to make matters explicit, we are now updating our license and Editorial Policies to specify that text generated by ChatGPT (or any other AI tools) cannot be used in the work, nor can figures, images, or graphics be the products of such tools. And an AI program cannot be an author. A violation of these policies will constitute scientific misconduct no different from altered images or plagiarism of existing works. Of course, there are many legitimate data sets (not the text of a paper) that are intentionally generated by AI in research papers, and these are not covered by this change.

Most instances of scientific misconduct that the Science journals deal with occur because of an inadequate amount of human attention. Shortcuts are taken by using image manipulation programs such as Photoshop or by copying text from other sources. Altered images and copied text may go unnoticed because they receive too little scrutiny from each of the authors. On our end, errors happen when editors and reviewers don’t listen to their inner skeptic or when we fail to focus sharply on the details. At a time when trust in science is eroding, it’s important for scientists to recommit to careful and meticulous attention to details.

The scientific record is ultimately one of the human endeavor of struggling with important questions. [Emphasis all mine] Machines play an important role, but as tools for the people posing the hypotheses, designing the experiments, and making sense of the results. Ultimately the product must come from—and be expressed by—the wonderful computer in our heads.

College cheating: “Professors just don’t care”

Students say they are getting ‘screwed over’ for sticking to the rules. Professors say students are acting like ‘tyrants.’ Then came ChatGPT...

 By Suzy Weiss; The Free Press; February 28, 2023 

     When it was time for Sam Beyda, then a freshman at Columbia University, to take his Calculus I midterm, the professor told students they had 90 minutes. 
     But the exam would be administered online. And even though every student was expected to take it alone, in their dorms or apartments or at the library, it wouldn’t be proctored. And they had 24 hours to turn it in. “Anyone who hears that knows it’s a free-for-all,” Beyda told me. 
     Beyda, an economics major, said students texted each other answers; looked up solutions on Chegg, a crowdsourced website with answers to exam questions; and used calculators, which were technically verboten. 
     He finished the exam in under an hour, he said. Other students spent two or three hours on it. Some classmates paid older students who had already taken the course to do it for them. 
     “Professors just don’t care,” he told me. 
     For decades, campus standards have been plummeting. The hallowed, ivy-draped buildings, the stately quads, the timeless Latin mottos—all that tradition and honor have been slipping away. That’s an old story. Then Covid struck and all bets were off. With college kids doing college from their bedrooms and smartphones, and with the explosion of new technology, cheating became not just easy but practically unavoidable. “Cheating is rampant,” a Princeton senior told me. “Since Covid there’s been an increasing trend toward grade inflation, cheating, and ultimately, academic mediocrity.” 
     Now that students are back on campus, colleges are having a hard time putting the genie back in the bottle. Remote testing combined with an array of tech tools—exam helpers like Chegg, Course Hero, Quizlet, and Coursera; messaging apps like GroupMe and WhatsApp; Dropbox folders containing course material from years past; and most recently, ChatGPT, the AI that can write essays—have permanently transformed the student experience. 
     “It’s the Wild West when it comes to using emerging technologies and new forms of access to knowledge,” Gregory Keating, who has a joint appointment at USC’s Department of Philosophy and Gould School of Law, told me. “Faculties and administrations are scrambling to keep up.” …. (continue reading )



From Scheerpost 

✅ German Lawmaker Calls for Nord Stream Probe 

Sevim Dagdelen takes the Scholz government to task for its lack of “strength and will” in responding to Seymour Hersh’s reporting on the U.S. sabotage of the Russian pipeline. Video and text of her Feb. 10 speech to the Bundestag.

From Scheerpost

✅ [Bernie] Sanders Proposes ‘New Deal for Journalism’ To Ensure Media Serves Public Interest 

Nonpartisan, publicly funded media is "an idea that we should explore," said the senator.

...“[N]obody has ever come up to me, not one reporter—not you, not anybody else—and said, ‘Bernie, why are we spending twice as much on healthcare as any other country and yet we have 85 million uninsured or underinsured?’ How many programs at CBS, NBC, ABC had on why we have a dysfunctional healthcare system? Does that have anything to do with who owns the major networks? ‘Bernie, what are you going to do about income and wealth inequality?’ … ‘Why are billionaires paying an effective tax rate lower than working class people?’ No one asked me those questions.”....

The US blew up Nord Stream Pipeline? Hersh answers questions

Seymour Hersh Answers Questions on Explosive Allegation that US Blew Up Nord Stream Pipeline 

The Wire

The renowned investigative reporter is interviewed about the allegations that President Joe Biden authorised a covert military operation to destroy the pipeline which transports natural gas to Germany from Russia. 

 …Please start to lay out your findings in detail. What happened precisely according to your source, who was involved, and what were the motives behind it? 

   What I’ve done is simply explain the obvious. It was just a story that was begging to be told. In late September of 2022, eight bombs were supposed to go off; six went off under the water near the island of Bornholm in the Baltic Sea, in the area where it is rather shallow. They destroyed three of the four major pipelines in Nord Stream 1 and 2. 

   Nord Stream 1 has been feeding gas fuel [to Germany] for many years at very low prices. And then both pipelines were blown up, and the question was why, and who did it. On February 7, 2022, in the buildup to the war in Ukraine, the president of the United States, Joe Biden, at a press conference at the White House with German chancellor Olaf Scholz, said that we can stop Nord Stream....


   I’ll tell you something. The operational people, the people who do kinetic things for the United States, they do what the president says, and they initially thought this was a useful weapon that he could use in negotiations. 

   But at some point, once the Russians went in, and then when the operation was done, this became increasingly odious to the people who did it. [My emphasis.] These are well-trained people; they are in the highest level of secret intelligence agencies. They turned on the project. They thought this was an insane thing to do. And within a week, or three or four days after the bombing, after they did what they were ordered to, there was a lot of anger and hostility. This is obviously reflected in the fact that I’m learning so much about it. 

   And I’ll tell you something else. The people in America and Europe who build pipelines know what happened. I’m telling you something important. The people who own companies that build pipelines know the story. I didn’t get the story from them but I learned quickly they know….  

. . .

So what’s your sense of the motives of the US government, if they blew up the pipeline?  
   I don’t think they thought it through. I know this sounds strange. I don’t think that Blinken and some others in the administration are deep thinkers. There certainly are people in the American economy who like the idea of us being more competitive. We’re selling LNG, liquefied gas, at extremely big profits; we’re making a lot of money on it. I’m sure there were some people thinking, boy, this is going to be a long-time boost for the American economy. 
   But in that White House, I think the obsession was always re-election, and they wanted to win the war, they wanted to get a victory, they want Ukraine to somehow magically win. 
   There could be some people who think maybe it’ll be better for our economy if the German economy is weak, but that’s crazy thinking. I think, basically, that we’ve bitten deep into something that’s not going to work. The war is not going to turn out well for this government.  
How do you think this war could end?  
   It doesn’t matter what I think. What I know is there’s no way this war is going to turn out the way we want, and I don’t know what we’re going to do as we go further down the line. It scares me if the president was willing to do this. 
   And the people who did this mission believed that the president did realise what he was doing to the people of Germany, that he was punishing them for a war that wasn’t going well. And in the long run, this is going to be very detrimental not only to his reputation as the president but politically too. It’s going to be a stigma for America. 
   So what you have is a White House that thought it may have a losing card: Germany and Western Europe may stop giving the arms we want and the German chancellor could turn the pipeline on – that was always a fear. I would be asking a lot of questions to Chancellor Scholz. I would ask him what he learned in February when he was with the president. The operation was a big secret, and the president wasn’t supposed to tell anybody about this capability. But he does talk. He says things that he doesn’t want to….

(Continue reading


How the US Took Out the Nord Stream Pipeline

Seymour Hersh: How US Took Out the Nord Stream Pipeline 

ScheerpostFebruary 8, 2023 

The New York Times called it a “mystery,” but the United States executed a covert sea operation that was kept secret—until now 

…Biden’s decision to sabotage the pipelines came after more than nine months of highly secret back and forth debate inside Washington’s national security community about how to best achieve that goal. For much of that time, the issue was not whether to do the mission, but how to get it done with no overt clue as to who was responsible. 

Asked for comment, Adrienne Watson, a White House spokesperson, said in an email, “This is false and complete fiction.” Tammy Thorp, a spokesperson for the Central Intelligence Agency, similarly wrote: “This claim is completely and utterly false.”…. (continue reading)

Two remarkable pieces this week—each earth-shattering in its own way

The press versus the president, part one  
Columbia Journalism Review 
By Jeff Gerth 

     ...My main conclusion is that journalism’s primary missions, informing the public and holding powerful interests accountable, have been undermined by the erosion of journalistic norms and the media’s own lack of transparency about its work. This combination adds to people’s distrust about the media and exacerbates frayed political and social differences. 
     One traditional journalistic standard that wasn’t always followed in the Trump-Russia coverage is the need to report facts that run counter to the prevailing narrative. In January 2018, for example, the New York Times ignored a publicly available document showing that the FBI’s lead investigator didn’t think, after ten months of inquiry into possible Trump-Russia ties, that there was much there. This omission disserved Times readers. The paper says its reporting was thorough and “in line with our editorial standards.”.... 

Washington Post editorial
Leonard Downie Jr.

     …More and more journalists of color and younger White reporters, including LGBTQ+ people, in increasingly diverse newsrooms believe that the concept of objectivity has prevented truly accurate reporting informed by their own backgrounds, experiences and points of view. 
     “There is some confusion about the value of good reporting versus point of view,” said current Post executive editor Sally Buzbee, who noted that many journalists want to make a difference on such issues as climate change, immigration and education. “We stress the value of reporting,” she said, “what you are able to dig up — so you (the reader) can make up your own mind.” 
     “The consensus among younger journalists is that we got it all wrong,” Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor in chief of the San Francisco Chronicle, told us. “Objectivity has got to go.”....

     Gerth's blockbuster piece—it comes in four parts—is a near book-length assessment, by this veteran New York Times journalist, of the mainstream press's handling of "Russiagate" (Steele dossier, etc.), perhaps the biggest story of the early Trump era. 
     Gerth's assessment: A complete fiasco suggesting an abandonment of time-honored standards of objectivity. (The mainstream press clearly got the story wrong and then doubled-down instead of acknowledging error.)
     Gerth's remarkable piece is devastating; naturally, it is being ignored.

     Downie's piece announces that the Washington Post no longer seeks objectivity in its reporting. I.e., it is a declaration of rejection of the old "objectivity" standards.

"Be it resolved, don't trust the mainstream media." On the PRO side of the debate were Douglas Murray (The Spectator) and Matt Taibbi (TK News on Substack). On the CON side of the debate were Malcolm 'Malc' Gladwell (The New Yorker, Revisionist History) and Michelle Goldberg (The New York Times).

The Biden cover-up

Seymour Hersh: The Cover-Up  SCHEERPOST  The Biden Administration continues to conceal its responsibility for the destruction of the Nord St...