Briahna Joy Gray: Hakeem Jeffries CONFRONTED ON Nord Stream, Democrats INDIFFERENT On US Involvement

Briahna Joy Gray raises the question whether there will be a thorough investigation of who really was behind the Nord Stream Pipeline attack. #nordstream #russia #seymourhersh The U.S. has denied involvement in the destruction of the pipelines. See more here:

About Rising:
Rising is a weekday morning show with bipartisan hosts that breaks the mold of morning TV by taking viewers inside the halls of Washington power like never before. The show leans into the day’s political cycle with cutting edge analysis from DC insiders who can predict what is going to happen. It also sets the day’s political agenda by breaking exclusive news with a team of scoop-driven reporters and demanding answers during interviews with the country’s most important political newsmakers.

Follow Rising on social media:

Website: Hill.TV


Instagram: @HillTVLive

Twitter: @HillTVLive

Written by The Hill

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings


  1. If itā€™s not shocking that the US would bomb the Nordstream II, it IS shocking that Biden & Neuland threatened to do it with expectation of unilateral planetary support. Perhaps theyā€™re under the spell of the John Yoo memos and have mistaken them for international law. Hakeem Jeffries defended the US with all the authority of a guilty jock accused of hazing. What clowns!

  2. To carry out that kind of op (complexity of planning, know how, execution & tools necessary, etc), it would seem logical to conclude it has JSOC written all over it. Yes SAS could possibly execute it but given the overall complexity of that kind of operation, it seems far more plausible that it was Seal team 6 under JSOC or perhaps a joint op with both. But to suggest it was not a state actor is absurd.

  3. I understand Briahna's suspicions, but she has to know that every claim in Hersh's report that isn't from a single anonymous source is unsubstantiated speculation — plausible unsubstantiated speculation, but unsubstantiated speculation nonetheless. The rest of this is merely pointing out that the US/NATO isn't being transparent and has a history of lying — which is entirely true, but it doesn't prove anything.

    "So WHY isn't the New York Times covering this," you ask? Because it's all "he said, she said" and probably a dead end story. Call me back when they find somebody's laptop…

  4. The only thing I agree with in this is that Russia is using this as a smokescreen against their illegal invasion. No one has convinced me that the US didn't do it but there still is no proof that they did (I'm a conspiracy theorist). And interestingly, I've heard that they've found NO evidence that Russia did it, but they haven't said, that I've heard, that they've found no evidence that the US did it. Don''t forget the investigation of the JFK assassination. Oswald did it. ha ha ha ha ha


Watch "New Footage Shows The Only People At Jan 6th With Guns Were FEDS" on YouTube (

UKRAINE ANNIVERSARY Hawks Admit Russia Will NOT Suffer Total Defeat

UKRAINE ANNIVERSARY: Hawks Admit Russia Will NOT Suffer Total Defeat | Breaking Points