Exposed: Clinton Train Paid The Young Turks $20 Million

In this week’s episode of Newsbud’s Spiro Reports, Spiro investigates the deep state’s role in influencing the so-called alternative media. Recently the Young Turks secured an investment deal for $20 million. You know what they say, follow the money! Find out what we discovered in this hard hitting Newsbud community exclusive as we uncover the shady powerful network within the Clinton train who is pulling the money strings for the Young Turks. Plus, find out what former FBI whistleblower and Newsbud Founder Sibel Edmonds had to say about the Young Turk front man only at

*Follow us here at Newsbud Twitter

**Subscribe here at BFP-Newsbud YouTube Channel

Watch Episode Preview

Watch Members Only Full Episode Here

***Subscribing Members must be logged in to see the full video

Featured Video MP3 Audio Clip

***Subscribing Members must be logged in to listen to the audio

Show notes

Progressive media outlet The Young Turks has raised $20 million in venture-capital funding and plans to double its staff

The Media Consortium

Meet the New George Soros

3L Capital

Dave Leyrer’s Omaze Raises Money For Clinton Foundation

Hacked documents reveal Soros plans for more Internet regulation

Soros-Funded Lefty Media Reach More Than 300 Million Every Month

Don Gevirtz; Democratic Fund-Raiser

2010 Overview The Aspen Institute

Brookings Institute Attendee List

The “Partners”: Who’s Who in the Democracy Alliance

George Soros’s Democracy Alliance

Democracy Alliance

Security Tight at Secretive Democracy Alliance Meeting

Obama’s Top Fund-Raisers

WndrCo LLC

Global Development Council Alan Patricof 

Millenium Challenge Corporation Report

So many choices … from the Aspen Institute

Is Hillary Clinton still the one to beat in 2016?

Global development leaders offer suggestions for next US president

The Secret Masters

Jeffrey Katzenberg - news and investigations

With cash from Jeffrey Katzenberg, The Young Turks looks to grow paid subscribers

Greycroft Alan Patricof

The Left’s Hypocrisy? Dialing Seymour Hersh

If Obama Does ‘It’ … Well, We Simply  Won’t Cover It!

NYIt is not easy to criticize a solid professional journalist. It is much harder to criticize a Pulitzer Prize Winning and well-respected investigative journalist. And, it is extremely hard to criticize a professional multi award winning investigative journalist, who happens to be a friend I respect and like. I rather think of the following observation as raising the question (publicly, that is) rather than an accusatory criticism. This is not due to timidity or the fear of being royally attacked (which I know I will be), nor is it because of letting personal friendship determine the color and the tone of my commentary. I think when you read the following, objectively consider and weigh the hard evidence and undisputable track record presented, and pause enough to critically think about the ramifications and possible conclusions, you’ll agree: Raising the question versus pointing an accusatory finger.

It all started with an article I was reading at AntiWar.Com by Justin Raimondo. In his to-the-point and well-articulated commentary piece Raimondo criticizes the blinded partisanship of the Obama cult when it comes to their reaction and response- whether the pretense of naivety or out-right groundless defense of Obama’s ‘Libya War’:

Now that President Barack Obama has intervened in Libya, his army of apologists is mobilizing to defend his “humanitarianism,” declaring that his war isn’t at all like Bush’s wars. It’s something new, and different – and admirable.I’m not at all surprised. Are you? The anti-interventionist veneer of most American liberals and assorted “progressives” peels off quite readily when a little “humanitarian” lotion is applied – especially if it’s poured on thick by a liberal Democratic President with a domestic agenda they can endorse.

Yes, and you’ll note the Obama-ites went to the Council, not the Congress, to ask permission to strike: and just to show we’re not the Top Dog, they let the Brits and the Frenchies take the lead. What generosity.

The “argument” presented here is the one progressives have salved their perpetually guilty consciences with ever since this manifestly unqualified ex-“community organizer” took up residence in the White House: he’s not Bush! That’s why they remained silent when he extended our perpetual “war on terrorism” into Pakistan, why they kept mum as the PATRIOT Act was reauthorized at the behest of the administration, and why they put the covers over their heads and stuck their fingers in their ears as George Bush’s torture regime continued, unabated and even expanded, under Obama. It’s why they ignored our failure to withdraw from Iraq, as promised by candidate Obama, and why they smiled politely and changed the subject whenever anyone had the poor taste to mention these unpleasant subjects.

Corn supplements the Not Bush argument with a new variation, an ideological rationale for knee-jerk defenders of the Obama regime: the we’re-not-neocons meme. Obama’s war in Libya is an example of what Corn actually dubs “the Anti-Bush Doctrine,” which is “precisely the opposite of how the neocons of the Bush-Cheney crowd viewed the world.”

Back in the 1990s, the neocons lent their names to innumerable “open letters” urging Bill Clinton to strike at the Serbs, with prominent progressives such as Susan Sontag leading the charge. George Soros financed a “grassroots” pro-war campaign, and the neocons were more than happy to jump on board the bandwagon – just as they are today.

Pushed into war by a coven of relentlessly nagging neo-liberal Amazons, and a cabal of round-shouldered flabby-faced neocons, President Obama has been captured by ideologues just as surely as was his predecessor – and, I’ll predict right here and now, with equally disastrous results.

The article got me thinking: The previous hawkish administration with its Iraq-Afghanistan wars, PATRIOT ACT, Guantanamo, Kidnap & Torture, Assassins, NSA Illegal Wiretapping of All Americans …

It got me thinking about the present Obama administration: Iraq-Occupation, Afghanistan-Pakistan Wars, Bombing Yemen, Libya War, Extension & Reauthorization of the PATRIOT ACT, Jailing & Torture of Government Whistleblowers, Guantanamo, Bagram Prison Torture & Fiasco, NSA Illegal Wiretapping of All Americans …

Then, it made me jump out of my chair while asking out loud: Where the heck is Sy Hersh?! Where has he been during the last two years plus?! We are talking about issues, scandals, wars, abuses of power …basically, all those topics that are, and have been, right up his alley!! So where is he?! Why haven’t I, we, heard much of him in the last two and a half years?! I am sure we haven’t missed it since when he writes on these issues we get to (justifiably, that is) hear the thunder, post-thunder, and echoes of his exposés. He couldn’t have run out of ‘thunder topics’ with the Obama administration’s relentless and nonstop assaults internationally and domestically!

I didn’t want to rely on my thoroughness in keeping track of Hersh’ long-winded and detailed investigative pieces in the New Yorker. Instead, I went to the New Yorker’s website and ran a search, and what I got was the following:

3 articles. Three articles. Only three articles since Mr. Obama’s presidential victory. That’s it. None of them on the scandals, issues and abuses of the Obama administration. None of them on Obama’s drone-mania. None of them on bombing and killing civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan. None of them on the dubious brief assault in Yemen. None of them on Bagram torture-abuse-secret imprisonment. None of them on Libya. None of them on jailing Manning-DOD whistleblower or bringing criminal charges against other government whistleblowers. Instead of listing the long list of ‘Nones,’ I’ll give you the only three articles written by Hersh at the New Yorker:

Syria Calling: The Obama Administration’s Chance to Engage in a Middle East Peace- Published in April 2009.

Defending the Arsenal: In an Unstable Pakistan, can Nuclear Warheads be Kept Safe? Published in November 2009.

The Online Threat: Should we be Worry about a Cyber War? - Published in November 2010.

That is it. None of them on Mr. Obama, his hawkish administration, his military blunders or evil exercises, his continuation of prisons and torture, his ‘generals’ problems …No.

I went a bit further in this research venture. I started checking Hersh-New Yorker coverage of the Bush administration abuses during its first three years. In fact, I documented the exact time frame of existence (Bush first 2.5+ years). And, this is what I got:

13 articles. Thirteen hard-hitting well-written, thoroughly investigated, and unabashedly presented articles. Thirteen articles on abuses involving war(s), military, ‘generals’ games, prison and torture … You want to check it for yourself:

Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. Point made, no?

Then I picked the last 2.5 years of the Bush administration, and here is the number of articles written by Mr. Hersh:

10 articles. Ten articles. Ten slamming, thunder-making, hard-hitting investigative articles. Here they are:

Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here.

Finally, I did my best to exclude factors such as death, being laid-off, major illness, etc. I could not find any of those factors. I also took into consideration the ‘writing book(s)’ factor, and when I compared the status on that factor for the same time period during the Bush-Cheney administration and Obama’s presidency, I found them to be pretty equal.

With all this, I raise the question: Is this a case of the left’s hypocrisy? Why have we been getting no dial tone when we dial Seymour Hersh-New Yorker? Is this a pure & simple case of blinded and biased partisanship that says: If Obama (A Democrat) Does ‘it’ we simply won’t cover it?! And, what do ‘you’ say?

# # # #

Here at Boiling Frogs Post we do NOT pick or choose topics-issues based on partisanship. Please Support us and let us present to you truly independent work. Thank You!

Please Donate Now

The New York Times: Home of Disgraced Editors, Shady Reporters & Agenda-Driven Foreign Correspondents?

From Judith Miller to Dean Baquet to Ethan Bronner

NYTI am certain all of you know of the infamous New York Times reporter Judith Miller. You know, the dark lady who worked with the Bush administration’s Pentagon to sell us the war with Iraq - based on planted made-up stories on WMD; the one who was involved in the Plame case? The one who ended up not getting fired, but retired from the New York Times, took a job with the Fox News Channel, and joined the conservative Manhattan Institute think-tank? Yes, that Judith Miller you all know about.

I am sure many of you are aware of the New York Times decision to cover up and bury the story on NSA’s illegal domestic wire tapping program. Right? They were later forced to admit that they held the story on the eve of the 2004 presidential election. Basically, they protected the Bush administration and helped them get reelected.

I believe some of you are also familiar with the New York Times’ decision to hire the disgraced LA Times editor, Dean Baquet, after he was exposed for killing AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein’s documented revelations, and voluntarily disclosing those revelations to Negroponte and the head of NSA, Michael Hayden. Exactly! This same man was later hired by the New York Times and put in charge as head of their Washington DC Bureau - the perfect place for a rat who buries stories and leaks whistleblowers and their information to government officials.

BronnerWell, here is the latest on another New York Times character with a questionable pedigree who is positioned by the paper in another strategically sensitive and important division:

New York Times fails to disclose Jerusalem bureau chief's conflict of interest

The New York Times has all but confirmed to The Electronic Intifada (EI) that the son of its Jerusalem bureau chief Ethan Bronner was recently inducted into the Israeli army. Over the weekend, EI received a tip suggesting this had been the case and wrote to Bronner to ask him to confirm or deny the information and to seek his opinion on whether, if true, he thought it would be a conflict of interest.

Susan Chira, the foreign editor of The New York Times wrote in an email to The Electronic Intifada this morning:"Ethan Bronner referred your query to me, the foreign editor. Here is my comment: Mr. Bronner's son is a young adult who makes his own decisions. At The Times, we have found Mr. Bronner's coverage to be scrupulously fair and we are confident that will continue to be the case."

The Electronic Intifada also wrote to Clark Hoyt, the public editor of The New York Times, to confirm the information and ask for an opinion on whether this constituted a conflict of interest, but had yet to receive a response.Bronner, as bureau chief, has primary responsibility for his paper's reporting on all aspects of the Palestine/Israel conflict, and on the Israeli army, whose official name is the "Israel Defense Forces."


Read the rest here.

How should we characterize New York Times’ criteria when it comes to selecting, hiring, and promoting their reporters for strategically important divisions of reporting? Do they have an unwritten but consistently practiced policy which says ‘Thou shall be a government approved rat, tied to special interests and agenda, shady and unethical by any standards, to be selected and placed in high places?

Am I being fair?

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by contributing directly and or purchasing Boiling Frogs showcased products.