Timmy Teepell’s firm paid $250,000 by America Next, which has been trying to gin up ‘organic’ opposition to El-Sayed

The man who attempted to ambush the Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed with a question about his supposed allegiance to the Muslim Brotherhood – which El-Sayed parlayed into a viral clip for his campaign – is the son of a political operator who recently received $250,000 for “canvassing and influencer marketing” against El-Sayed, the Guardian has learned.

In the now-famous exchange, a man – first identified by the Handbasket as Thomas “Tommy” Teepell – asked El-Sayed if he would “disavow” the Muslim Brotherhood. El-Sayed said he would, but then asked: “What are you implying? Do you assume that I wouldn’t?” What followed was a five-minute exchange that has drawn over 50m views across several social media platforms, in which El-Sayed queries the man about the guarantees of religious freedom in the constitution.

Teepell is the son of Timothy “Timmy” Teepell, a longtime strategist for the Missouri Republican senator Josh Hawley as well as former Republican Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal. Timmy Teepell’s firm, Breakthrough LLC, was paid $250,000 on 29 September by America Next, a 501(c)(4) non-profit with which it shares a Baton Rouge office suite, according to a filing with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14 points 1 day ago (3 children)

is after El-Sayed disavowed terrorists who are Muslim

Moderately important nitpick but the Muslim Brotherhood haven't been terrorists for a few decades now. Middle Eastern dictators really want them to be terrorists, but they've been a peaceful movement for quite a while.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 hours ago (1 child)

    That's true. Now they're just pig-ignorant authoritarian ultra-conservatives. It's surprising that MAGA don't like them, they're so similar.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 hours ago

    I mean, not really? They're definitely conservative in a religious sense, but not in an economic sense (their founder was a pseudo-anarchist) and they're at least in theory pro-democracy (though their actual track record is spotty). I suspect a read through their Wikipedia page would be informative here; they're not exactly nice people, but the popular image of them as much as one exists almost entirely comes from their enemies. I know the instinct among atheists on the internet is to project what they know about one religious ideology onto all others, but this absolutely, 100% does not work in this case; there's no substitute for actually knowing what they believe.

  • source
  • parent