Details Surface of Biden Administration Deliberately Destroying Nord Stream Pipeline, Then Lying Abo

[Kamaji]

Listen to Biden's own promise .....

"President Biden on Nord Stream 2 Pipeline if Russia Invades Ukraine: "We will bring an end to it.". (Video)


https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8



Biden: "I promise you, we will end Nordstream 2". (Video)
Feb 9, 2022

https://mobile.twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1623363506815832076

Talk about confirmation bias!!

Are you now going to sit there and tell me that Biden's SOTU speech was also all 100% true as well, just because Biden said it?

My God, talk about cherry-picking to suit one's own subjective biases!

[Right_in_Virginia]

FTA---

More recently, Victoria Nuland expressed satisfaction at the demise of the newest of the pipelines. Testifying at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in late January she told Senator Ted Cruz, “​Like you, I am, and I think the Administration is, very gratified to know that Nord Stream 2 is now, as you like to say, a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea.”

THE PLAYERS Left to right: Victoria Nuland, Anthony Blinken, and Jake Sullivan.

[Smokin Joe]

Wishful thinking.

But let's play this out - assume for the sake of fanciful argument that the U.S. sent a bunch of little frogmen over to blow up the pipeline:  what is gained by so assiduously trying to publicize that point?  Assuming that Russia is so blinkered and incapable that they cannot discover facts that Tucker Carlson can, why give them causus belli?  Are we so pro-Russian now - in a pavlov's dog sort of way - that we want to encourage Putin to go to war?

If Russia and the US were to go to war, cui bono?

The obvious answer: China.

[catfish1957]

Talk about confirmation bias!!

Are you now going to sit there and tell me that Biden's SOTU speech was also all 100% true as well, just because Biden said it?

My God, talk about cherry-picking to suit one's own subjective biases!

Cherry pick?  Biden's own State Dept. pretty much said the same.  Who is being subjective?  This was not a "one off"

[Kamaji]

FTA---

THE PLAYERS Left to right: Victoria Nuland, Anthony Blinken, and Jake Sullivan.

Ahh, yes, because simply being glad that something has happened is the same thing as having personally caused it to happen.


Wow.  Cherry-picking that should make even the most hard-core lib/leftist proud.

[Kamaji]

Cherry pick?  Biden's own State Dept. pretty much said the same.  Who is being subjective?  This was not a "one off"

No, they said they were glad that it happened.

Tell me, since Biden has claimed to have reduced the deficit and reduced inflation - and did so in a televised speech - are you now taking the position that he has, in fact, done these things?

If not, then why cherry-pick this one instance as "proof" that Biden ordered US forces to blow up the pipeline?

Yes, that is cherry-picking in the extreme.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Mike Lee
@BasedMikeLee

I’m troubled that I can’t immediately rule out the suggestion that the U.S. blew up Nord Stream. I checked with a bunch of Senate colleagues. Among those I’ve asked, none were ever briefed on this. If it turns out to be true, we’ve got a huge problem.

2:39 PM · Feb 8, 2023

[catfish1957]

No, they said they were glad that it happened.

Tell me, since Biden has claimed to have reduced the deficit and reduced inflation - and did so in a televised speech - are you now taking the position that he has, in fact, done these things?

If not, then why cherry-pick this one instance as "proof" that Biden ordered US forces to blow up the pipeline?

Yes, that is cherry-picking in the extreme.

4 people pretty much surmising the demise and an event that under normal conditions should happen at a probability of 0.000001%....prior to its occurence? (See my earlier prognosis around pipeline design)

In the court of law this might be admissible as circumstantial evidence. 

[catfish1957]

Mike Lee
@BasedMikeLee

I’m troubled that I can’t immediately rule out the suggestion that the U.S. blew up Nord Stream. I checked with a bunch of Senate colleagues. Among those I’ve asked, none were ever briefed on this. If it turns out to be true, we’ve got a huge problem.

2:39 PM · Feb 8, 2023

Uh oh...   Another danged Putin stooge.  /s

[Kamaji]

4 people pretty much surmising the demise and an event that under normal conditions should happen at a probability of 0.000001%....prior to its occurence? (See my earlier prognosis around pipeline design)

In the court of law this might be admissible as circumstantial evidence. 

Actually, no, it wouldn't be, except as hearsay going to show state of mind - i.e., that the individual believed it would be a good thing - or as an admission against interest (possibly), but likely would still be ruled inadmissible because of its inherently inflammatory nature.

So, please tell me again why we're so willing to credit these statements as 100% gospel truth, but treat the SOTU on Tuesday as if it were 100% garbage?

Smells like

[catfish1957]

Actually, no, it wouldn't be, except as hearsay going to show state of mind - i.e., that the individual believed it would be a good thing - or as an admission against interest (possibly), but likely would still be ruled inadmissible because of its inherently inflammatory nature.

So, please tell me again why we're so willing to credit these statements as 100% gospel truth, but treat the SOTU on Tuesday as if it were 100% garbage?

Smells like

Still equivalant to circumstantial evidence from my POV.    Now even Mike Lee is questioning.  Is he a pro-Putin flunky?

Guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Substack has been one of the most dependable, credible conservative depository sources for quite a while now.  Now our side is dissing it?

Substack is the new home of actual investigative journalism.  The authors are doing some great work.  I'm grateful they're stepping up and filling the void --- it's refreshing to think about information uncovered rather than just wade through repetitive headlines.

[catfish1957]

Substack is the new home of actual investigative journalism.  The authors are doing some great work.  I'm grateful they're stepping up and filling the void --- it's refreshing to think about information uncovered rather than just wade through repetitive headlines.

Now especially since O'Keefe has strangely been reprimanded by Project Vertias.  Sometmes I wonder if these groups are getting infiltrated by external hatchet plants.

[Kamaji]

Mike Lee
@BasedMikeLee

I’m troubled that I can’t immediately rule out the suggestion that the U.S. blew up Nord Stream. I checked with a bunch of Senate colleagues. Among those I’ve asked, none were ever briefed on this. If it turns out to be true, we’ve got a huge problem.

2:39 PM · Feb 8, 2023

I quite agree with him that it would be nice to be able to immediately rule out U.S. involvement.  But that's the nature of these things - they are inherently ambiguous and unclear.  That does not, however, mean that the U.S. was involved.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Now especially since O'Keefe has strangely been reprimanded by Project Vertias.  Sometmes I wonder if these groups are getting infiltrated by external hatchet plants.

[Kamaji]

Still equivalant to circumstantial evidence from my POV.    Now even Mike Lee is questioning.  Is he a pro-Putin flunky?

Guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Maybe you read something else from Mike Lee, but all I saw was his statement that he wished he could "immediately rule out" that the U.S. blew up the pipeline.

That is not the same thing as stating that the U.S. was involved, was most likely involved, or was even probably involved.  It means that evidence is scarce.  And that shouldn't really be surprising given that the damned thing is under water.

Again, treating Lee's statement as some sort of "evidence" of U.S. involvement is simply confirmation bias - one wants so badly to believe that the U.S. blew it up, that one will treat all statements as confirming that belief, whether they in fact do so or not.

[Bigun]

I quite agree with him that it would be nice to be able to immediately rule out U.S. involvement.  But that's the nature of these things - they are inherently ambiguous and unclear.  That does not, however, mean that the U.S. was involved.

 

[Bigun]

It's going to take far more than the ramblings of known snake oil salesmen to get me to buy in to anything.

[DB]

The gas provided in the pipeline is peanuts compared to the cost of the Russian war. Blaming the loss of the pipeline on the US during winter so Europe suffers is a good way to cause a split in NATO which is a major goal of Russa. So there are many possibilities. Can anyone be certain Biden and crew didn't do it, no, not even close. There are a lot of players involved with different angles to play. I do think the west needs to hold together to stop Russian agression.

[DB]

Tucker Carlson had a block concerning this on tonight's show and evidence around our government's intervention. No clips have been posted yet, but some of the claims seemed pretty specific.

Not advocating either way at this point.  But two things seem to be pretty safe bets at this point:

1.  There is compelling evidence that the pipeine was intentionally destroyed
2.  No matter what anyone says, there is no plusible reason that Putin destroyed his own energy hardware after many billions of dollars of investment.

I despise Putin as much as the next Briefer, but if blowing up this pipeline is tied to U.S. / NATO, this is an act of war.  No way that Putin doesn't see it otherwise.

I just gave a plausible reason to your #2.

[Kamaji]

As far as Russia losing sales of gas due to the pipeline demolition - sales to China and India have picked up, and India has just announced that it intends to massively increase its share of world gas supplies, so in the grand scheme of things, probably not as massive an economic loss to Russia as it might appear at first glance.