The Young Turks are now running hit pieces on Mueller to help Trump

[geek tragedy]

They must be so proud of their work--they got a reTweet from Wikileaks, who then got re-reTweeted by Roger Stone.

https://mobile.twitter.com/rogerjstonejr/status/893945336993112065

The alt-left is little better than the alt-right, and is generally identical from a functional point of view.

[elleng]

1. Evidence? Your link(s) don't show TYT.

[riversedge]

3. oh my. roger has blocked me. No lose.

[greeny2323]

4. Subtweet

It is in the sub tweet:

[elleng]

6. Thanks.

Old (and weak, imo.)

[emulatorloo]

12. Here are your Young Turks, Ellen

Time to wake up and smell the coffee

Cenk hires the best people:

Alleged "progressives" who promote alt-right conspiracy theories and lie about Democrats like Maxine Waters:

Link to tweet

------

Link to tweet

[rockfordfile]

22. That guy has right-winger written all over him.

Michael Tracy comes off as a Fox News wannabe idiot.

[StevieM]

29. He also repeated the false claim that Susan Rice lied about Benghazi. Shame on him. (eom)

[emulatorloo]

35. Dore was a big promoter of the RW Seth Rich Conspiracy too

[MonkeyC]

44. That man talking to Waters is nasty. That smile was the worst. Nt

[Laffy Kat]

2. Gosh, that surprises me. nt

[NewJeffCT]

5. weird

I've listened to Cenk a few times at night on Sirius 127 when I driving. He seems pretty solidly anti Trump and pretty sure the Russians have serious compromat on Trump.

[elleng]

7. I agree.

[m-lekktor]

9. He is anti-trump. nt

[Ninsianna]

14. The TYT were bankrolled by Right Wing Republicans.

Back in 2014. He's done his job well, to sow division and discord within the left.

[NurseJackie]

31. Truth.

[R B Garr]

36. +1,000, he's such a good "ex" Republican.

It's so obvious. Hard to believe people fall for this nonsense.

[ThirdEye]

39. Yeah who cares about working with people who share common ground!

If you understood why they took the money and how transparent they are about it, you might learn that not only is he not the enemy but perhaps one of the few fighting the big fight against big media and money in politics.

[Ninsianna]

41. Sure, because we share common ground with disruptive forces that attack

Democrats.

I understand why they took money, and I see the results of what that money bought. Perhaps at some point you'll figure out that the guy attacking us, seeking to sow division is serving his masters and is very much the enemy, you can tell cause he's using RW tactics and talking points against us.

He's taking money from the right wing to produce propaganda attacking Democrats to what? Demonstrate why money in politics and the right wing are not to be trusted?

No common ground here with this "ex" Republican on the Right Wing payroll or his "fight" "against big media" by producing small media full of Big Lies.

[Doremus]

18. Same.

A lot of pot stirrers here nowadays.

If anybody is 'sowing discontent' it would be the people focusing on the differences between far left and left of center.

We (collective 'we') need to focus on our shared goals and ignore the pot stirrers. I know it's getting harder to do with all the socks and puppets, et al, but we have to try.

[m-lekktor]

8. Eh, not everybody lives in the world of simplistic partisan binaries. nt

[emulatorloo]

13. Not everybody has a Republican sugar-daddy either

The Young Turks Network Raises $4 Million From Former Republican Presidential Candidate
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-young-turks-network-raises-4-million-from-former-republican-presidential-candidate/

Young Turks Network raises $4 million from former Louisiana governor
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-the-young-turks-raises-4-million-from-former-louisiana-governor-20140416-story.html

[a kennedy]

24. there's this: "News is red hot right now and being positioned on the progressive side of the coin

has put us in a very good place," Mr. Uygur said

The media’s “Trump Bump” is starting to get the attention of investors.

The Young Turks Network, the left-leaning, YouTube-driven political news outlet led by outspoken activist Cenk Uygur, has raised $20 million, which it plans to use to double the size of its newsroom and business operations.

The funding round is being led by newly formed growth equity fund 3L Capital, with additional backing from venture capital veterans Greycroft Partners and e.ventures, as well as Jeffrey Katzenberg’s recently launched WndrCo.

“News is red hot right now and being positioned on the progressive side of the coin has put us in a very good place,” Mr. Uygur said.

He said the company currently has about 70 staffers and 30 freelancers but plans to use the investment to increase its staff to about 200 people. Part of that expansion will be in creative talent, but Mr. Uygur said it would also entail building an ad sales team and bolstering its paid subscription offerings.

The valuation of Young Turks in the deal wasn’t disclosed.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/political-news-outlet-young-turks-raises-20-million-after-viewership-gains-1502186406 (from the Wall Street Journal)

[emulatorloo]

25. Thanks for the link very interesting. Not clear

who all this money is coming from. Which is very interesting

[uponit7771]

10. Why would TYT retread the old "he repeated what they said" Iraq war talking points as proof?

[SethH]

11. that video is from Jun 19

they were skeptical at his appointment, as was I. He's a republican for one thing.

here is TYT's latest on Mueller, from Aug. 3. If you are going to talk about what TYT is doing "now", this would be more accurate:

[Kentonio]

20. Yeah, not sure how anyone can watch this and still think Cenk is pro-Trump.

[Phoenix61]

27. Thanks so much for posting this

News is coming so fast it's hard to keep up with who is saying what when.

[Gothmog]

16. Cenk and tht TYT are not progressives but are tools of Russia and conservatives

I stopped watching Cenk a long time ago. He is funded by russian interests now and does his best to attack the DNC and defend Putin

[ThirdEye]

37. BS

you need to back up such statements, which fly on the face of everything I see from Cenk as I watch him. Otherwise you are the propaganda tool repeating BS because he's not pure enough.

[Gothmog]

43. Cenk is putting out pro russia crap and that is not being a progressive

I stopped watching the TYT and Cenk a while back because it was clear that they sold out and were pushing crap designed to hurt the Democratic Party. Cenk is being financed by venture capital and the business model is to attack progressive and the Democratic Party to make his investors happy

Cenk is not being pure but is promoting Putin and idiots like Greenwald/Assange. Cenk is better suited for JPR compared to this board.

[Tarheel_Dem]

17. Cenk & Ed Schultz, both "former" Republicans have just returned to their roots. They used the left

to gain notoriety, but they were always rightwingers.

[Progressive dog]

19. Mueller is part of the establishment,

and the establishment is the enemy of both the alt-right and the alt-left. Neither cares for the rule of law, they want to get their own way.

[Tavarious Jackson]

21. Money talks and TYT get plenty money from Moscow nt

[ThirdEye]

38. Prove it

Especially the "plenty" party.

[Thrill]

23. Hey they got bills to pay

[still_one]

26. The only observation I have is that TYT's political analysis skills are anyting BUT impressive

[Jim Lane]

28. My naive question: Was the Young Turks report TRUE?

The video includes a clip of Mueller dutifully repeating the "WMD" lie of the Bush administration. Was the clip faked, or did he actually give that testimony?

Of course, there is the theory that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." On that logic, we don't like Trump, Mueller is investigating Trump, therefore Mueller is good, therefore even truthful reporting about his past actions is unacceptable if it puts him in a bad light.

I do not agree with that theory.

[geek tragedy]

32. He was expressing the views of the administration and its stated concerns.

the FBI had no jurisdiction over the Iraq WMD intelligence, so anything he would have said would have embedded as an assumption that the CIA/NSA etc were correct in their conclusion that Saddam had WMD. Seems unrealistic to expect that the FBI director would be second-guessing intelligence-gathering which his agency didn't do.

More to the point, this is a talking point used to discredit his investigation of Trump, and that's exactly what the creator of that piece, Michael "Maxine Waters ran over me with a tank" Tracey did--by positioning Mueller's appointment as the "political and media class" vs the populist hero, Donald Trump. It's classic propaganda as one would expect of a Kremlin apologist like Tracey, who disbelieves nothing Putin and Trump say about Russian interference in our elections.


See also Glenn Greenwald's complaints that civil service public servants are trying to uphold the rule of law from the madman in office.

[Jim Lane]

33. Okay, so the report is true.

The facts stated in the report are accurate, even if they're open to differing interpretations.

You point out that the FBI had no jurisdiction here. That occurred to me as well, and I was wondering why Mueller was joining the cheerleading for the war. I admit that I wasn't wondering strongly enough to get the full context of his testimony. One question would be what, if anything, the FBI Director could add beyond an assumption that the responsible agencies were correct.

Incidentally, you state the assumption as "that the CIA/NSA etc were correct in their conclusion that Saddam had WMD." IIRC that was what Bush and his coconspirators were saying, but the administration line was a misleading summary of what the intelligence reports actually said. If Mueller didn't look at the actual reports, then it would be more accurate to say that he assumed the truth of the Bush/Cheney statements about the reports. At the time of his testimony, the reasons to question that assumption were probably not as clear as they are now.

[geek tragedy]

34. Mueller was testifying to Congress.

Not sure if he was cheerleading (not really his style) so much as plugging in his portion as to what the implications of the (now disproven) WMD claims would be for domestic security/risks.

I think there's a bit of revisionism going on with Iraq, to be candid. The real debate as I recall it was not so much whether Saddam had some kind of WMD program, but what we should do even if he did have one. The notion that he did try to run a secret program--though as we saw certainly untrue--was still plausible given his past behavior. With WMDs there's also a fine line between maintaining an active program and having the required pieces (especially know-how/technology) to boot one up quickly.

But, this all should have been moot, since going to war in Iraq would have been a catastrophically stupid decision even if he did have WMDs.

[Jim Lane]

42. Both debates that you mention were underway.

You write:

The real debate as I recall it was not so much whether Saddam had some kind of WMD program, but what we should do even if he did have one.

There certainly was the "what should we do even if" debate, but there was also plenty of rejection of the Bush administration's lies about Saddam's alleged WMDs. This is not just hindsight. Before the invasion, Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector, made a presentation to the U.N. Security Council on the progress of the inspection effort in Iraq. He stated, for example:

Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities. Food-testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen as well as large containers with seed-processing equipment. No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found.

Of course, you're right to the extent that the debate about whether Saddam did have WMDs was decidedly muted in the American mass media. They generally acted as stenographers for the Bush administration.

[geek tragedy]

45. Personally I think the anti war left made a couple of mistakes

1) not making the "even if" argument more prominent--debate over presence of WMDs almost implicitly assumed that decision to use force followed (problem exacerbated because suspicions of Saddam were high and confidence in UN as institution were low);

2) not having a coherent argument for what should be done. Sanctions were as widely condemned as the war wound up being-humanitarian catastrophe. But what was the third option to making sure Saddam was kept in check and disarmed of WMDs? Never got an answer.

[ismnotwasm]

30. Because of course they are.

[D_Master81]

40. why

i just watch their videos on youtube, but they are constantly calling trump an idiot and a child. I dont get why people on here are saying they are trying to help trump. They are always playing that audio of when they got sadaam and insinuate one day we will play it for trump. I dont get the anti Young turks posts on here personally, but to each their own i suppose.