Judge Jeanine Goes Nuclear On Hillary: "The American People Have To Stop Her"

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/16/2016 21:50 -0400
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-16/judge-jeanine-goes-nuclear-hillary-american-people-have-stop-her
Having previously warned "an insurrection is coming," and that the establishment's "scorn for the will of the American people is mind-boggling," FOX News Judge Jeanine - the only media peronality who correctly predcted trump's ascent due to his position as a colective middle finger to the status quo - unleashed another tirade of reality checks for the establishment - this time aimed at Democrats...

“Hillary Clinton cannot be President of the United States, and if the establishment, including law enforcement, does not stop her – you have to,” Judge Jeanine Pirro said in her opening statement on Justice.

This is not about politics, she urged. “It’s about preventing people who have no regard for the law, or you, for that matter, from running this country.”

Despite this election season’s anti-establishment sentiment, “Clinton is still in line to be coronated the Democratic nominee,” Judge Jeanine said.

But what is it that makes Clinton above the law? she questioned.

“The majority of Americans believe, and are right, that Hillary Clinton is untrustworthy, dishonest and a liar,” said Pirro.

"And don't give me that woman thing where it's time for a female president.  Yeah, it is – but not her.”

Of all the Washington politicians who “walk into those hallowed chambers and proceed to line their pockets and their pensions and their campaign reelection coffers and walk out multi-millionaires, the Clintons are among the worst,” Judge Jeanine added.

“If the establishment is not willing to admit that no one is above the law and is not willing to garner justice, then ordinary Americans need to make sure the scales of justice are level for all of us.”

Full opening statement...

Full Transcript...
Hello, and welcome to Justice. I'm Judge Jeanine Pirro. Thanks for being with us tonight.
Hillary Clinton cannot be President of the United States, and if the establishment including law enforcement does not stop her – you have to.
This is not about politics. It's about you, your family, and this great nation. It’s about preventing people who have no regard for the law, or you, for that matter, from running this country.
At a time when just about everybody is fed up with establishment politicians, when two outsiders are winning epic contests against preordained presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton is still in line to be coronated the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.
How can the woman – who is under criminal investigation – who knows she's under criminal investigation, but lies to your face saying that she's not – continue on her path to the White House?
The majority of Americans believe, and are right, that Hillary Clinton is untrustworthy, dishonest and a liar. Hillary has danced with federal prosecutors for most of her career. She knows how to conceal, delete and destroy evidence – remember those pesky missing Rose Law Firm files? Not to mention 30,000 deleted emails… She lies so much she doesn't know the difference between the truth and a lie, and, like most liars, can’t even keep her stories straight.
Example:  this week – in response to Hillary's claim that the FBI was doing a security inquiry on her private homebrewed server, one by the way conducted reportedly by over 100 FBI agents, FBI director Jim Comey says: security inquiry? I don't know that term. We investigate crimes.  This is a law enforcement proceeding.
Now I told you that three months ago:  now the cynics among you might say it's all political. But Jim Comey is appointed by Barack Obama. And is one of the most clearheaded, logical and honorable people in Washington – a trait somewhat foreign to that town.
And don't give me that woman thing where it's time for a female president.  Yeah it is – but not her.
What makes you think electing this woman who's spent most of her career riding her husband’s coat tails is necessarily a good thing? Doesn't it depend on the individual man or woman? For those of you who think a woman will help other women – consider this: the Clinton Foundation - an organization over which the Clintons have control – pays female employees 38 cents less per dollar than males. So much for that old pay inequality thing.
Supporting women?  Hillary made her bones creating the attack team on all the women who said Bill engaged in sexual activity, ranging from harassment to affairs to worse. If these women are all liars, why was Paula Jones awarded $850,000 from the Clintons? And Monica Lewinsky's dress – if only that blue dress could talk.
Which brings me to the Clinton Foundation, an alleged 501c3 not-for profit that I see as nothing more than a piggy bank for the Clintons, their friends and her presidential campaign.
Just this week – it was reported that this wonderful charitable organization gave $2 million to Bill's blonde divorcee friend, designated the energizer by the Secret Service when she visited him at home in Chappaqua when Hillary was on the road.
The report in The Wall Street Journal says money from the charity was actually given to a for-profit company partly owned by Ms. "Energizer". According to government watchdog groups, this may very well violate federal law. And consistent with past Clinton behavior, the destruction and/or removal of evidence begins.
Shortly after the grant, Ms. Energizer's company was reportedly removed from the Clinton Global Initiative's website. I'm sure it was an oversight, like the moneys from countries to the foundation when Hillary was Secretary of State, over whom her department made decisions that benefited them.
The Clintons have always been about the Clintons. Evidence: Benghazi.  She lied about the video when she knew it was Al-Qaeda to benefit her politically. But even that doesn't matter as much as knowing there are men waiting for help on a rooftop for eight hours when that assault on the consulate took place. Remember that 2008 3 am phone call she wants you to believe shows that she is ready to protect us? That's baloney. She had a chance to prove it and she proved just the opposite. That her political future was more important than American lives.
And the woman has no shame claiming that the parents of Tyrone Woods and Shawn Smith are lying, not her, about what she said to them as their children’s bodies were brought into Andrews.  The woman has never been able to keep her stories straight.  From one Blackberry for convenience and then there were three, and then there were 30,000 emails destroyed – she engages in the destruction of evidence to protect herself, like those pesky lost Rose Law Firm emails.
And they are in it together. Bill just last week saying that email thing is kind of like a speeding ticket. No, Bill, it's got nothing to do with speeding tickets. It's got to do with espionage, conspiracy, destruction of evidence, concealment and risking the secrets of this great nation for the world to see. Russia has admitted it's got 20,000 of her emails. Guccifer says that hacking her emails was one of the easiest things he'd ever done.
So why do they get away with it? Why do they do things that if any of us – even a four-star general – does, would put us in jail? What is it about them that puts them above the law? I submit it is the people that are indebted to them, the people for whom the Clintons have done favors, the classic inside game.
For years, Americans working two and three jobs to support their families have watched as Washington politicians elected to represent us walk into those hallowed chambers and proceed to line their pockets and their pensions and their campaign reelection coffers and walk out multi-millionaires. The Clintons are among the worst.
If the establishment is not willing to admit that no one is above the law and is not willing to garner justice, then ordinary Americans need to make sure the scales of justice are level for all of us.
And that's my open.
*  *   *

h/t @Raven_PA_

Weapons Headed To Libya: Hillary's Interventionist Disaster Continues To Spiral Out Of Control

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/17/2016 12:17 -0400
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-17/weapons-headed-libya-hillarys-interventionist-disaster-continues-spiral-out-control
Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

In retrospect, Obama’s intervention in Libya was an abject failure, judged even by its own standards. Libya has not only failed to evolve into a democracy; it has devolved into a failed state. Violent deaths and other human rights abuses have increased severalfold. Rather than helping the United States combat terrorism, as Qaddafi did during his last decade in power, Libya now serves as a safe haven for militias affiliated with both al Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). The Libya intervention has harmed other U.S. interests as well: undermining nuclear nonproliferation, chilling Russian cooperation at the UN, and fueling Syria’s civil war.?

As bad as Libya’s human rights situation was under Qaddafi, it has gotten worse since NATO ousted him. Immediately after taking power, the rebels perpetrated scores of reprisal killings, in addition to torturing, beating, and arbitrarily detaining thousands of suspected Qaddafi supporters. The rebels also expelled 30,000 mostly black residents from the town of Tawergha and burned or looted their homes and shops, on the grounds that some of them supposedly had been mercenaries. Six months after the war, Human Rights Watch declared that the abuses “appear to be so widespread and systematic that they may amount to crimes against humanity.”?

As a consequence of such pervasive violence, the UN estimates that roughly 400,000 Libyans have fled their homes, a quarter of whom have left the country altogether. ?

– From the post: The Forgotten War – Understanding the Incredible Debacle Left Behind by NATO in Libya

Earlier today, The Guardian published an article detailing how foreign leaders were gathering in Vienna to discuss how to address the humanitarian disaster/ISIS haven they themselves created in Libya. As usual, the key agenda item revolved around whether the U.S. and its allies should ship weapons into the arena to inspire, you know, freedom and democracy.


Reading the piece leaves you with a clear sense of what a quagmire it really is. For example:

Leading foreign ministers from Europe and the Middle East are to meet in Vienna on Monday under the joint chairmanship of the US and Italy to discuss how to bolster support for the UN-backed Libyan government in the face of deepening splits in the country over political legitimacy, oil resources and Islamic State.

Special forces from the US, UK, France and Italy are operating in various parts of Libya, sometimes backing different military forces and hindering efforts to reunite Libyan politics behind the UN government of Fayez al-Sarraj.

Remember this paragraph for later.

Sarraj has been trying to broaden his authority in Tripoli since he and his political allies arrived in late March, taking over key institutions such as the central bank and the National Oil Corporation, but he still faces a rival administration, and military power, in the east. Disputes between the factions are such that bankers on one side are depriving the other access to the code to a bank vault containing badly needed cash to pay staff. Different groups are also trying to export oil.

Officials say that at the Vienna meeting on Monday, which will be held under the joint chairmanship of the US and Italy, the fledgling Tripoli administration is likely to submit a list of requests for western partners to assist its forces with arms, training and intelligence. The meeting will be chaired by the US secretary of state, John Kerry, and the Italian foreign minister, Paolo Gentiloni.

The Libyan government – the putative Government of National Accord (GNA) – has struggled to take hold because a minority of the House of Representatives – the Libyan parliament – has refused to provide its backing, leaving the government without the majority required.

In a further complication some western-backed countries, notably the UAE and Egypt, are backing a bigger role for the rival forces of General Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan National Army based in the east.

In a new development the rival military factions from east and west claim to be gathering forces to take on Isis at its base in Sirte on the Libyan coast, but there are fears that they will end up fighting each other.

You really can’t make this stuff up.
Fortunately, a fleeting voice of sanity emerged from the wilderness.

But in a country overflowing with arms, some argue that lifting an embargo is unwise.

Before the summit, Mattia Toaldo, a policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, urged the west to hold back from focussing on military solutions. He said: “Europeans now have what they asked for, namely a unity government ruling from the capital. They should take care not to burden it with unrealistic demands, from ending the migrant crisis to defeating Isis. Instead, the west should work to strengthen the government’s political control over the country.”

Good suggestion, but I think we’ll pass. As Bloomberg reports, prepare to open the weapons floodgates…

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry backed providing weapons to Libya’s unity government to assist in the fight against Islamic State and other jihadist groups, a move endorsed at a meeting of top diplomats of nations from Italy and the U.K. to Russia and Saudi Arabia.

The idea “makes sense,” Kerry said after talks in Vienna with the head of the unity administration, Fayez al-Sarraj, and representatives of more than 20 nations. Sarraj said his Government of National Accord would supply the United Nations with a list of weapons it needs “as soon as possible.” The UN would have to provide exemptions to an arms embargo before weapons could be shipped.

The envoys met in the Austrian capital to discuss ways to bolster Sarraj’s UN-backed government, the most significant attempt so far to end the violence that has fractured Libya since the ouster of former leader Muammar Qaddafi in 2011. But Sarraj has yet to win the support of powerful armed factions based in Libya’s east, which are contesting control of the crucial oil industry. 

Gotta love the media. They make is sound as if Libya just stumbled into its current situation via some freak historical accident. In reality, we know the whole thing is essentially the handiwork of Presidential candidate, and neocon warmonger extraordinaire, Hillary Clinton.
For more, see: “We Came, We Saw, He Died” – Revisiting the Incredible Disaster That Is Libya

“It is imperative to put the international community’s full weight behind the Government of National Accord,” Kerry said. “It is the only way to ensure that vital institutions such as the central bank and the national oil company, that they fall under representative and acknowledged authority.”

The central bank and Libyan oil. At least he’s honest about what matters.

The unity government was formed under a UN-mediated peace deal last year. The agreement is backed by Western allies as the only way to stem spiraling unrest that has plagued the North African nation and enabled Islamic State to expand along the southern Mediterranean coast.

Once again, Bloomberg acts as if this unrest just spontaneously erupted out of nowhere.

Italian Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni, who joined the gathering of diplomats at the roughly three-hour meeting in Vienna, ruled out a wholesale lifting of the UN arms embargo but said humanitarian aid and weapons could help Sarraj’s government bring stability to the country.

Speaking at the briefing with Kerry and Sarraj, Gentiloni also ruled out putting “boots on the ground” in Libya, while pledging support in “several security dimensions.”

“The international community stands ready and the U.S. stands ready to provide humanitarian, economic and security support,” said Kerry, who added that nobody is talking about inserting troops into the conflict.

What a relief. At least Kerry and Gentiloni are promising no boots on the ground! There’s just one minor problem. Recall what we learned from The Guardian article earlier. Yeah that’s right, this…
Special forces from the US, UK, France and Italy are operating in various parts of Libya, sometimes backing different military forces and hindering efforts to reunite Libyan politics behind the UN government of Fayez al-Sarraj.
So not only are there already Western boots on the ground, but these boots are fighting each other.
The whole affair is reminiscent of a similar promise I heard once before: Obama Announces “Boots on the Ground” in Syria, Despite Promising “No Boots on the Ground” 16 Times
Even better, we don’t have to go back to The Guardian article to point out the obvious Kerry “no boots” lie. It’s right there in next paragraph of the same Bloomberg article…

Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook told reporters in Washington on Monday that “small teams of U.S. forces” already have gone into Libya to gather intelligence on the ground about Islamic State forces expanding their foothold in the country.

“If Syria and Iraq would end tomorrow, then Libya would definitely be No. 1” for Islamic State, he said. “Libya is very much already a hub.”

Yes, America, they really do think you’re that stupid. They think you’re such schmucks, you’ll still vote for Hillary despite the fact that she was the driving force behind the Libya intervention while Secretary of State.
If you want to know what a Hillary presidency will look like, just take a look at Libya.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is a sociopath in action:
Average:

4.2

Hillary Consolidates Wall Street Support as Republican Financiers Shift to Clinton

Posted on May 9, 2016 by WashingtonsBlog
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/05/hillary-consolidates-wall-street-support-republican-financiers-shift-clinton.html 

Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

(Satire)Some will say that you are simply parasitic on those who labor at menial physical production—these are people who still subscribe to 18 Century notions of value production–and that you skim off profit without doing anything meaningful or of value. Those people are misguided: we know that if money never sleeps, that’s because you keep it awake! You have—if I may use a metaphor–injected money with caffeine, Adderal, crack, meth, with LSD so that it can dance the crazy dance and grow a crazy thousand psychedelic feet tall in a rainbow minute!   Money was a lazy b*tch, until you put it to work! And look how it works! Look how it grows! Materializes out of nowhere!
As you know, my husband tried very hard to change the culture of this misbegotten underclass, by kicking them off the government teat, by poisoning their milk with harsh, bitter regulation, and by disciplining them with the most arbitrary, racist, punitive, devastating criminal laws in US history, laws which Richard Nixon, the Southern strategists, the slave catchers, could only have dreamed of. He also passed NAFTA, which told them in no uncertain terms that they needed to discipline themselves as workers, and learn to be competitive in the global sweatshop, or face certain extinction. But they have not learned their lesson.

– From the post: Hillary Clinton’s Full Speech to Goldman Sachs (Satire)
As I wrote about in detail in last week’s post, Why Trump Winning the Republican Nomination is Good for American Democracy, the best thing about Donald Trump beating all of his controlled Republican rivals is that a Trump vs. Clinton general election will prove once and for all that there’s essentially no difference between the Republican and Democratic parties when it comes to the really big issues of our time.
In a typical election, both corrupt political parties diligently work to ensure that the American public has no real choice, and they are almost always successful. With the clueless citizenry being forced to choose between one corporatist puppet, banker bailout supporting, war mongering, civil liberties destroying sociopath or anothe, people generally end up voting based on wedge issues such a abortion or guns, and the road to serfdom marches onward. That’s how pretty much all elections during my lifetime have operated.
2016 presents a bit of a dilemma in this regard. While Donald Trump may end up falling perfectly in line as a good status quo stooge, he might not. It’s this risk that is leading many “Republicans” to support the neocon, Wall Street puppet Hillary Clinton. She is the sure thing.
You don’t have to be politically astute to understand what this proves. That that two party system is a joke, a sham, a diversion to keep the public fighting over wedge issues while “elite” criminals from both parties rape and pillage the American public. If that’s the only lesson we draw from 2016, that’s good enough.
The Wall Street Journal reports:

Hillary Clinton is consolidating her support among Wall Street donors and other businesses ahead of a general-election battle with Donald Trump, winning more campaign contributions from financial-services executives in the most recent fundraising period than all other candidates combined.
The Democratic front-runner has raised $4.2 million in total from Wall Street, $344,000 of which was contributed in March alone. According to a Wall Street Journal analysis of fundraising data provided by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, the former secretary of state received 53% of the donations from Wall Street in March, up from 32% last year and 33% in January through February, as the nominating contests began.
The analysis of campaign-finance reports shows that some Wall Street donors have shifted their financial support from Republican candidates who dropped out of the race, such as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, to Mrs. Clinton in recent months.
Mr. Trump, by contrast, hasn’t garnered more than 1% of Wall Street contributions in any month through March.
In the 2012 presidential election, the financial-services sector donated more than any other industry, topping $90 million in total contributions to campaigns. Some three times as much of that Wall Street money went to Republican nominee Mitt Romney as to Mr. Obama.

Despite getting less financial sector money, we still saw how much of a Wall Street stooge Obama has been. We can only imagine what a Clinton presidency will look like.

Mrs. Clinton’s popularity on Wall Street could prove a liability with some liberal voters, as primary rival Bernie Sanders has attacked her for being too cozy with the financial industry. But winning back a sizable chunk of money that went to Mr. Romney four years ago would likely give Mrs. Clinton a big fundraising advantage in the general election. 
An analysis by the nonpartisan organization Crowdpac found that more than 500 donors, including many Wall Street executives, who gave more than $200 to a Republican who later dropped out, including Messrs. Bush and Rubio, have since given to Mrs. Clinton. More than one-third of the money that business interests have donated to presidential campaigns has gone to Mrs. Clinton’s coffers, the Journal’s analysis found.
“Business interests are generally not sold on the notion that Trump will be a more business-friendly candidate; there’s a lot about Trump they don’t know,” said Ed Rogers, a Republican lobbyist. “They know Hillary. And they know that she is not antibusiness.”

Indeed. Wall Street knows Hillary very, very well, which is why they paid her ridiculous sums for speeches previously, and why they are bankrolling her campaign presently.

Seymour Hersh Says Hillary Approved Sending Libya's Sarin To Syrian Rebels

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/01/2016 22:00 -0400
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-01/seymour-hersh-says-hillary-approved-sending-libyas-sarin-syrian-rebels
Authored by Eric Zuesse via Strategic-Culture.org,
The great investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, in two previous articles in the London Review of Books ("Whose Sarin?" and "The Red Line and the Rat Line") has reported that the Obama Administration falsely blamed the government of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad for the sarin gas attack that Obama was trying to use as an excuse to invade Syria; and Hersh pointed to a report from British intelligence saying that the sarin that was used didn’t come from Assad’s stockpiles. Hersh also said that a secret agreement in 2012 was reached between the Obama Administration and the leaders of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, to set up a sarin gas attack and blame it on Assad so that the US could invade and overthrow Assad.

"By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria."

Hersh didn’t say whether these 'arms' included the precursor chemicals for making sarin which were stockpiled in Libya, but there have been multiple independent reports that Libya’s Gaddafi possessed such stockpiles, and also that the US Consulate in Benghazi Libya was operating a "rat line" for Gaddafi’s captured weapons into Syria through Turkey. So, Hersh isn’t the only reporter who has been covering this. Indeed, the investigative journalist Christoph Lehmann headlined on 7 October 2013, "Top US and Saudi Officials responsible for Chemical Weapons in Syria" and reported, on the basis of very different sources than Hersh used, that:
"Evidence leads directly to the White House, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, CIA Director John Brennan, Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Bandar, and Saudi Arabia´s Interior Ministry."
And, as if that weren’t enough, even the definitive analysis of the evidence that was performed by two leading US analysts, the Lloyd-Postal report, concluded that:

"The US Government’s Interpretation of the Technical Intelligence It Gathered Prior to and After the August 21 Attack CANNOT POSSIBLY BE CORRECT."

Obama has clearly been lying.
However, now, for the first time, Hersh has implicated Hillary Clinton directly in this 'rat line'. In an interview with Alternet.org, Hersh was asked about the then-US-Secretary-of-State’s role in the Benghazi Libya US consulate’s operation to collect weapons from Libyan stockpiles and send them through Turkey into Syria for a set-up sarin-gas attack, to be blamed on Assad in order to ‘justify’ the US invading Syria, as the US had invaded Libya to eliminate Gaddafi. Hersh said:

"That ambassador who was killed, he was known as a guy, from what I understand, as somebody, who would not get in the way of the CIA. As I wrote, on the day of the mission he was meeting with the CIA base chief and the shipping company. He was certainly involved, aware and witting of everything that was going on. And there’s no way somebody in that sensitive of a position is not talking to the boss, by some channel".

This was, in fact, the Syrian part of the State Department’s Libyan operation, Obama’s operation to set up an excuse for the US doing in Syria what they had already done in Libya.
The interviewer then asked:

"In the book [Hersh’s The Killing of Osama bin Laden, just out] you quote a former intelligence official as saying that the White House rejected 35 target sets [for the planned US invasion of Syria] provided by the Joint Chiefs as being insufficiently painful to the Assad regime. (You note that the original targets included military sites only – nothing by way of civilian infrastructure.) Later the White House proposed a target list that included civilian infrastructure. What would the toll to civilians have been if the White House’s proposed strike had been carried out?"

Hersh responded by saying that the US tradition in that regard has long been to ignore civilian casualties; i.e., collateral damage of US attacks is okay or even desired (so as to terrorize the population into surrender) – not an ‘issue’, except, perhaps, for the PR people.
The interviewer asked why Obama is so obsessed to replace Assad in Syria, since "The power vacuum that would ensue would open Syria up to all kinds of jihadi groups"; and Hersh replied that not only he, but the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "nobody could figure out why". He said, "Our policy has always been against him [Assad]. Period". This has actually been the case not only since the Party that Assad leads, the Ba’ath Party, was the subject of a shelved CIA coup-plot in 1957 to overthrow and replace it; but, actually, the CIA’s first coup had been not just planned but was carried out in 1949 in Syria, overthrowing there a democratically elected leader, in order to enable a pipeline for the Sauds’ oil to become built through Syria into the largest oil market, Europe; and, construction of the pipeline started the following year. But, there were then a succession of Syrian coups (domestic instead of by foreign powers – 1954, 1963, 1966, and, finally, in 1970), concluding in the accession to power of Hafez al-Assad during the 1970 coup. And, the Sauds' long-planned Trans-Arabia Pipeline has still not been built. The Saudi royal family, who own the world’s largest oil company, Aramco, don’t want to wait any longer. Obama is the first US President to have seriously tried to carry out their long-desired "regime change" in Syria, so as to enable not only the Sauds’ Trans-Arabian Pipeline to be built, but also to build through Syria the Qatar-Turkey Gas Pipeline that the Thani royal family (friends of the Sauds) who own Qatar want also to be built there. The US is allied with the Saud family (and with their friends, the royal families of Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, and Oman). Russia is allied with the leaders of Syria – as Russia had earlier been allied with Mossadegh in Iran, Arbenz in Guatemala, Allende in Chile, Hussein in Iraq, Gaddafi in Libya, and Yanukovych in Ukraine (all of whom except Syria’s Ba’ath Party, the US has successfully overthrown).
Hersh was wrong to say that "nobody could figure out why" Obama is obsessed with overthrowing Assad and his Ba’ath Party, even if nobody that he spoke with was willing to say why. They have all been hired to do a job, which didn’t change even when the Soviet Union ended and the Warsaw Pact was disbanded; and, anyone who has been at this job for as long as those people have, can pretty well figure out what the job actually is – even if Hersh can’t.
Hersh then said that Obama wanted to fill Syria with foreign jihadists to serve as the necessary ground forces for his planned aerial bombardment there, and, "if you wanted to go there and fight there in 2011-2013, ‘Go, go, go… overthrow Bashar!’ So, they actually pushed a lot of people [jihadists] to go. I don’t think they were paying for them but they certainly gave visas".
However, it’s not actually part of America’s deal with its allies the fundamentalist-Sunni Arabic royal families and the fundamentalist Sunni Erdogan of Turkey, for the US to supply the salaries (to be "paying for them", as Hersh put it there) to those fundamentalist Sunni jihadists – that’s instead the function of the Sauds and of their friends, the other Arab royals, and their friends, to do. (Those are the people who finance the terrorists to perpetrate attacks in the US, Europe, Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, India, Nigeria, etc. – i.e., anywhere except in their own countries.) And, Erdogan in Turkey mainly gives their jihadists just safe passage into Syria, and he takes part of the proceeds from the jihadists’ sales of stolen Syrian and Iraqi oil. But, they all work together as a team (with the jihadists sometimes killing each other in the process – that’s even part of the plan) – though each national leader has PR problems at home in order to fool his respective public into thinking that they’re against terrorists, and that only the ‘enemy’ is to blame. (Meanwhile, the aristocrats who supply the "salaries" of the jihadists, walk off with all the money.)
This way, US oil and gas companies will refine, and pipeline into Europe, the Sauds’ oil and the Thanis’ gas, and not only will Russia’s major oil-and-gas market become squeezed away by that, but Obama’s economic sanctions against Russia, plus the yet-further isolation of Russia (as well as of China and the rest of the BRICS countries) by excluding them from Obama’s three mega-trade-deals (TTIP, TPP & TISA), will place the US aristocracy firmly in control of the world, to dominate the 21st Century, as it has dominated ever since the end of WW II.
Then, came this question from Hersh:

"Why does America do what it does? Why do we not say to the Russians, Let’s work together?"

His interviewer immediately seconded that by repeating it, "So why don’t we work closer with Russia? It seems so rational". Hersh replied simply: "I don’t know". He didn’t venture so much as a guess – not even an educated one. But, when journalists who are as knowledgeable as he, don’t present some credible explanation, to challenge the obvious lies (which make no sense that accords with the blatantly contrary evidence those journalists know of against those lies) that come from people such as Barack Obama, aren’t they thereby – though passively – participating in the fraud, instead of contradicting and challenging it? Or, is the underlying assumption, there: The general public is going to be as deeply immersed in the background information here as I am, so that they don’t need me to bring it all together for them into a coherent (and fully documented) whole, which does make sense? Is that the underlying assumption? Because: if it is, it’s false.
Hersh’s journalism is among the best (after all: he went so far as to say, of Christopher Stephens, regarding Hillary Clinton, "there’s no way somebody in that sensitive of a position is not talking to the boss, by some channel"), but it’s certainly not good enough. However, it’s too good to be published any longer in places like the New Yorker. And the reporting by Christof Lehmann was better, and it was issued even earlier than Hersh’s; and it is good enough, because it named names, and it explained motivations, in an honest and forthright way, which is why Lehmann’s piece was published only on a Montenegrin site, and only online, not in a Western print medium, such as the New Yorker. The sites that are owned by members of the Western aristocracy don’t issue reports like that – journalism that’s good enough. They won’t inform the public when a US Secretary of State, and her boss the US President, are the persons actually behind a sarin gas attack they’re blaming on a foreign leader the US aristocrats and their allied foreign aristocrats are determined to topple and replace.
Is this really a democracy?