Why should I put any stock into what Louise Mensch says or writes?

[Stinky The Clown]

I see all manner of posts telling us how this or that is *almost* ready to happen. That this one or that stands in the face absolute evidence of all manner of crimes.

Why should I put stock into what she postulates?

[oberliner]

1. You shouldn't

Quite simple.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. That's what I've been thinking. But man the posts citing her just go on and on.

For some reason I find myself waiting for a time frame expressed in business days.

[oberliner]

9. Exactly

24 Business Hours.

[womanofthehills]

23. OMG! She had the biggest scoop on the FISA warrents - why are you dismissing her??

You never even write a sentence about why you dislike her. I am curious why. Entire article at link:


By Louise Mensch | 10:18 pm, November 7, 2016

Two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community have confirmed to Heat Street that the FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA court warrant in October, giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of ‘U.S. persons’ in Donald Trump’s campaign with ties to Russia.

Contrary to earlier reporting in the New York Times, which cited FBI sources as saying that the agency did not believe that the private server in Donald Trump’s Trump Tower which was connected to a Russian bank had any nefarious purpose, the FBI’s counter-intelligence arm, sources say, re-drew an earlier FISA court request around possible financial and banking offenses related to the server. The first request, which, sources say, named Trump, was denied back in June, but the second was drawn more narrowly and was granted in October after evidence was presented of a server, possibly related to the Trump campaign, and its alleged links to two banks; SVB Bank and Russia’s Alfa Bank. While the Times story speaks of metadata, sources suggest that a FISA warrant was granted to look at the full content of emails and other related documents that may concern US persons.

The FBI agents who talked to the New York Times, and rubbished the ground-breaking stories of Slate ( Franklin Foer) and Mother Jones (David Corn) may not have known about the FISA warrant, sources say, because the counter-intelligence and criminal sides of the FBI often work independently of each other employing the principle of ‘compartmentalization’.

The FISA warrant was granted in connection with the investigation of suspected activity between the server and two banks, SVB Bank and Alfa Bank. However, it is thought in the intelligence community that the warrant covers any ‘US person’ connected to this investigation, and thus covers Donald Trump and at least three further men who have either formed part of his campaign or acted as his media surrogates. The warrant was sought, they say, because actionable intelligence on the matter provided by friendly foreign agencies could not properly be examined without a warrant by US intelligence as it involves ‘US Persons’ who come under the remit of the FBI and not the CIA. Should a counter-intelligence investigation lead to criminal prosecutions, sources say, the Justice Department is concerned that the chain of evidence have a basis in a clear warrant.

https://heatst.com/world/exclusive-fbi-granted-fisa-warrant-covering-trump-camps-ties-to-russia/

[Warpy]

37. I'm not sure it was much of a scoop

After all, it took the WaPo time to fact check it for "confirm" or "deny" and print it in the paper.

At this point, I'm not following anyone on Twitter, it's a rumor mill at best. I don't do Farcebook at all, it's one of the main portals for fake news. I realize this makes me a Luddite and behind the pack in reaching for bright shiny things, but I'm deeply skeptical any of this stuff will really pan out, and if it does, that it will completely get rid of Asshole.

Carefully picking off all his hand picked Russian agent friends will certainly help, but it's been and going to be a slow process.

Meanwhile, agencies here have discovered just how far behind the curve they've allowed themselves to get and are racing to catch up.

That's going to take time, also.

In the meantime, I can't see getting my news from Twitter, I just can't, not unless there's a natural disaster with spotty communication and I want to find out which charities arrive first and are doing something constructive so I can contribute. Then, it's useful. For Washington politics, especially concerning someone we all know is a madman, not so much.

[L. Coyote]

76. If you learn to use Twitter, you can catch up fast.

People who are not using twitter and criticize it are the ones who don't know the first thing about how to use it to their own benefit.

Denigrating Twitter today is a bit like saying you don't need a tsunami warning system because the wave will tell you the facts when the fact arrives.

[Warpy]

78. I know how to use it. It's a rumor mill.

I'll avoid the rumor mill, thanks. It's much too easy to manipulate people into believing stupid things when there is no fact checking, ever.

And I'm inland and a mile up, so no tsunamis.

[L. Coyote]

80. What you say indicates you don't know how to use it.

My Twitter account is academic. My news feed gets ZERO rumors.

I control Twitter, it does not control what I see.

You can learn.

[Warpy]

82. Ah, you're omniscient.

Bless your heart.

[HopeAgain]

79. Hello fellow Luddite...

When it comes out in WaPo, NYT, LA Times or the like, then I will see it. I can wait.

[Warpy]

81. Not really a Luddite, I have an account there and I sign in

when there's a natural disaster. However, believing everything on Twitter these days is like believing Asshole.

He'll never use a fact checker, either.

[still_one]

85. I think the question is why should we expect anything to come from this? Republicans control

Congress, and it is highly doubtful anything will result from that, and while there is an FBI investigation regarding the connections between the Russians and the election, along with assumed connections within the trump circles, there seems no great urgency, and the fact that the FBI themselves were involved with interfering with the election, there is every reason to believe that it will be in stasis for some time.

The only way we are going to get through this is focusing on 2018, because depending on the media or the republicans has very poor prospects

[DanTex]

27. This

[L. Coyote]

73. Why would Stinky ask this question on a discussion forum online?

That's the real question here. Doesn't Stinky know what to think? Why doesn't Stinky know, and will he ever know? Does Stinky rely on anonymous web comments to determine what to think?

OR, we could discuss what Louise Mensch says and stick to substantive discussions.

If you post something substantive, the trolls come out and attack the messenger. That alone is a good reason for trust:

FBI has FISA warrant for Trump secret server connected to Russia.

[blue neen]

2. I don't mind reading what is posted "according to Louise".

One doesn't have to look at messages about her tweets, etc. as the gospel, but she seems to be right a lot of the time.

Where's the harm? You have the choice to read what you want here, as it's your choice to put stock in what she says.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

5. Since I somehow have not heard of her until a day or so ago,

can you please tell me some of the things she's been right about?

[sarah FAILIN]

12. the fact that there was a FISA warrant.

You don't have to read her or believe anything she says, but if you read her blog it waste nothing but time.

Your choice either way.

[womanofthehills]

24. Can you be more specific? I find her blog extremely informative.

[sarah FAILIN]

38. Specifically,

BEFORE the election, she posted about the FISA warrant and that is when I first heard she was nuts. Here we are though.. I'm sure someone told her the things she comes up with so it's a matter of if she has sources or not to me. I think she does, but to each their own.

[pnwmom]

14. For example, she was the first media source to write about the existence of the FISA

warrant on the Alfa bank server -- in November. After that, her report was confirmed by The Guardian, the BBC, and McClatchy.

More recently, she wrote about Nunes and his charade, and named a probable WH link -- and that same person was confirmed to be Nunes's WH connection three days later by the NYTimes.

She wrote about Carter Page and Paul Manafort's Russian connections last June.

Those are just the reports of hers that came to the top of my head.

You could read more at patribotics.com

[muriel_volestrangler]

46. Writing about Page and Manafort's Russian connection by June wasn't unusual

For instance, the right wing 'Accuracy in Media' was writing about them in April:

Donald J. Trump said it was a “great honor” to be complimented by Russia’s Vladimir Putin. What’s significant is what the New York businessman has done to earn this praise. He pursued deals in the old Soviet Union and Russia and, as a presidential candidate, has hired little-known “experts” like Carter Page, an adviser to Russian gas company Gazprom.

Another curious Trump hire is Republican insider Paul Manafort, a “fixer” who has a history of doing business in the former Soviet Union. After taking a job as Trump’s delegate hunter, Manafort swiftly accused Trump’s main opponent, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), of using Gestapo-like tactics in the presidential race.

But it’s Manafort who has something to explain and answer for. He did consulting work in Ukraine for the pro-Russian candidate, Victor Yanukovych. Manafort was called “Ukraine’s Fixer” when the country was under the yoke of Moscow, the Russians were desperate to remain in control, and the people of Ukraine were crying out for freedom and ties to the West.

Interestingly, Manafort’s former business partner is Roger Stone, a former adviser to Trump who now runs a pro-Trump Super PAC. He wrote a book, popular on Russian TV, insisting that President John F. Kennedy wasn’t killed by a communist conspiracy based in Moscow or Havana, but was murdered on orders from his vice-president, Lyndon B. Johnson.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/trump-hires-fixer-with-soviet-connections/

And Bloomberg wrote about Page's links to Gazprom in March 2016: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-30/trump-russia-adviser-carter-page-interview

[blue neen]

15. I spent some time looking up some of Louise's theories and claims.

I found some to be quite believable and some not so much. If you truly want to be educated about what Louise Mensch says, you should probably do the same.

At that point, you can draw your own conclusions, which is what I advised in the first place.

Oh, and you've been questioning her for more than a day.

[womanofthehills]

17. Article on Mensch from Guardian - she was first to write about FBI surveillance of "US persons"

Louise Mensch: the former British MP who scooped US media on Trump's Russian ties

On the eve of the November election, Mensch published a sensational story reporting that a special intelligence court in Washington had granted a warrant to allow the FBI to conduct surveillance of “US persons” in an investigation of possible contacts between Russian banks and the Trump organisation.

At the time, the story did not cause much of a ripple. It was published on Heat Street, a libertarian-leaning website run by News Corp, and an unknown quantity in journalism. So was Mensch, whose recent public profile consisted mainly of a string of angry Twitter spats.
Meanwhile, the combined investigative forces of the US media had spent months seeking to prove a secret connection between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin and had come up with very little.

later in the article:

However, it seems increasingly clear that Mensch landed an extraordinary scoop that had eluded the best investigative journalists in the US. Her explanation is that her vocal advocacy on behalf of UK and US intelligence agencies since former NSA contractor Edward Snowden’s revelations about mass surveillance led her sources to trust her.

“They gave me one of the most closely guarded secrets in intelligence,” she said in a telephone interview. “People are speculating why someone trusted me with that. Nobody met me in a darkened alley in a fedora, but they saw me as someone who has political experience and is their friend. I am a pro-national security partisan. I don’t have divided loyalties.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/17/louise-mensch-trump-russia-ties-media-scoop
Read more

[Doodley]

3. Because you want to live in hope and not despair? We are at the point where we have to cling to hope

[still_one]

87. The best way to cling to hope is 2018

[tableturner]

4. Because a very high percentage of her assertions have turned out to be correct.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. Can you back that up?

Thank you.

[pnwmom]

16. Please see post #14.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. That doesn't answer my question

The poster suggested she has a high rate of accuracy. That's was what I was asking after.

[pnwmom]

21. No one has done a scientific analysis of her accuracy, or of any reporter in any newspaper

of which I am aware.

So I wouldn't make that claim -- but I would say she has been correct in some KEY reports, and beaten the competition. So I wouldn't automatically discount her as some here do.

[womanofthehills]

30. "Louise Mensch is not a Nutter, and she may be the reason why Biglygate is big-league" - Daily Kos

However, it seems increasingly clear that Mensch landed an extraordinary scoop that had eluded the best investigative journalists in the US.

On the eve of the November election, Mensch published a sensational story reporting that a special intelligence court in Washington had granted a warrant to allow the FBI to conduct surveillance of “US persons” in an investigation of possible contacts between Russian banks and the Trump organisation.

At the time, the story did not cause much of a ripple. It was published on Heat Street, a libertarian-leaning website run by News Corp, and an unknown quantity in journalism. So was Mensch, whose recent public profile consisted mainly of a string of angry Twitter spats.
Meanwhile, the combined investigative forces of the US media had spent months seeking to prove a secret connection between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin and had come up with very little.

The online magazine Slate had published an article at the end of October about mysterious pings that had been detected between a Russian bank, Alfa, and a server connected to the Trump organisation, but the New York Times quoted FBI officials as saying they had looked into it and decided there “there could be an innocuous explanation” for the computer contacts.

Two months later, however, the BBC put out a story echoing Mensch’s original report about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Fisa) court warrant issued in October to allow the justice department to look into transfers and communications between the Russian banks and Trump associate – and that US intelligence agencies were investigating the link.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/2/20/1635812/-Louise-Mensch-is-not-a-Nutter-and-she-may-be-the-reason-why-we-are-Democrats-and-love-Metallica

[Igel]

10. It's more like,

"A very high percentage of her assertions that I can easily remember have turned out to be correct."

We almost certainly remember those that were correct; those that weren't fade quickly from mind because, well, we heard the story once and then there was no confirmation, no blather in the media, etc. So when we look back, we notice that she was mostly right, because our bias is to remember those that were right.

Hard to fight those cognitive biases. But it's a worthy struggle.

[alwaysinflux]

42. I proved one of her claims wrong

And she hasn't mentioned it again since, as far as I can tell. It was a small thing, but it is an example of how she sometimes is quick to jump to incorrect conclusions on dubious evidence.

Link to tweet

(She thought she had proved that Michael Harris had previously had the twitter handle of yuri_bezmenov)

[SticksnStones]

48. A person can't have two Twitter handles and tag one from the other?

I'm missing your point...would you clarify?

[alwaysinflux]

89. She assumed because the tweet

... from @lsosis replying Harris started with "@yuri_bezmenov," that meant that Harris' Twitter handle was originally @yuri_bezmenov. I showed that Harris' subsequent reply to @lsosis also included @yuri_bezmenov, which seems to indicate that @lsosis added @yuri_bezmenov to her tweet.

Furthermore, I showed that @lsosis replied a second time to Harris, and this time @yuri_bezmenov was no longer in her tweet, indicating she must have removed him.

I know it sounds confusing. Her logic is also very confusing and I can barely make sense of her patribiotics blogs. She is very fond of using jargon and not defining it. It is as if her goal is to confuse people so that they will believe her convoluted theories.

[Historic NY]

74. The Yuri account was a tribute page now gone.....

she was having great trouble with trolls for a time....

[UTUSN]

8. I did my own Google today, would like to believe, am still not sure

[bitterross]

11. Why not make up your own mind? Try this.

I refuse to be spoon-fed by anyone. I know that this site is a left-leaning site. So I know I'm going to get tons of confirmation bias here. I want Mensch to be right and I'll get the confirmation of that if I only read left-leaning sites. Fortunately for me my mentors and teachers taught me to go do the painful thing. Go do the research in support of opinions opposite of my own. I do that. It often keeps me from making some post where I grandly state some "fact" that is either not completely accurate at best or just wrong at worst.

I simply did two google searches:

"louise mensch accuracy" and "louise mensch correct"

I got an eye-full. The first me gave me all the things from the right where they were able to refute or call her outlandish. While they, of course, made the most of even the smallest error on her part they had a few good points. And gave me reason to not just accept everything she says as true and accurate.

The second search gave me a far smaller list of results than I'd hoped for.

While Mensch appears to have been correct about the FISA court warrant (that turned out to be the one for Carter Page I believe) there isn't much more of a track record of accuracy I could find. If some one else here can provide more I welcome it. I WANT it.

Having said all that. I really do hope she is correct in her latest postings. But alas, my non-sainted mother always told me the adage "Why don't you hope in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up faster." And now you have more insight as to my user name here

[pnwmom]

18. I wrote more about what I remember "off the top of my head" in post #14.

Also, I'm not sure you are aware that she isn't a liberal. She was a conservative MP in the UK, before she married an American and moved here. She still is a conservative and used to write positively about Pence. Over time she has changed her opinion of him and now thinks he's involved.

[bitterross]

22. Those are good points in her favor for not being a left-wing shill.

Over time we have seen several true conservatives speak out. And there are one or two true Christian ministers who have and continue to speak out against Trump.

There are people with actual morals and values still left in the world.

[melman]

19. You absolutely should not

She has no credibility whatsoever.

And the people that are constantly promoting her tweets and blogs conveniently overlook the fact that she is a right-winger.


Just a couple of days ago one of these people dug up a 12 year old quote from Matt Taiibi where he called himself a libertarian. This was supposed to be all the evidence we need that we should never take him seriously.

Meanwhile, Louise Mensch describes herself as a conservative today right on her twitter.

And not only that but she she works for Rupert Murdoch to this very day and praises News Corp in interviews.

But that's all okay because she says what people want to hear.

[womanofthehills]

25. Give me a break - she said she is a conservative who is horrified by the GOP, Trump and Putin

Open your mind up. We need everyone (even conservatives) to fight this f**king fight. Why put down someone with (obviously) very good intel connections who despises Trump, despises the people Trump surrounds himself with and bigly despises Putin.

[FDRsGhost]

59. She said Andrew Breitbart was murdered by Putin

and that Ferguson riots were backed by Russia.

She is a nut case.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

61. Uh oh!

That sounds like something Alex Jones would say!

[FDRsGhost]

62. Bingo!

[womanofthehills]

83. Daily Kos: Louise Mensch is not a Nutter, and she may be the reason why Biglygate is big-league

and this is about the 10th time you have made the nut case comment on Louise Mensch. Louise did not REPORT that Breitbart was murdered - she said it's just her personal belief not something she reported.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/2/20/1635812/-Louise-Mensch-is-not-a-Nutter-and-she-may-be-the-reason-why-we-are-Democrats-and-love-Metallica

[FDRsGhost]

86. RAW STORY: Mensch is a conspiracy blogger

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/conspiracy-blogger-carter-page-went-to-russia-with-secret-recording-of-trump-asking-putin-to-hack-election/#.WPTHuB7IYh8.twitter

[SticksnStones]

50. John schindler, Jester, Mensch...all conservatives, all digging fast and furiously

And broadcasting their findings on Twitter...

And I would argue that a takedown of 45 by a conservative has more overall traction than a takedown by a progressive/democrat

For me, conservative creds isn't a disqualifier in this scenario ~

[Warren DeMontague]

26. This could be bigger than Watergate, and it could be fuckin' Fitzmas all over again.

We don't know, so we're stuck speculating and watching rumors fly around twitter.

Seems to me there's an awful lot of smoke for no fire, but who knows.

[hrmjustin]

28. I take everything with a grain of salt.

She is an interesting character and handsome interesting things to say, but she is not infallible.

[name not needed]

29. Louise Mensch goes on a twitter rant about the Russians if she can't find her keys in the morning.

I wouldn't lose sleep over anything she says.

[womanofthehills]

31. Well - let's just see how this Carter Page tape turns out

and if old Rudy gets arrested in the next few weeks. Randi Rhodes also tweeted about Rudy's bigly problems and Malcolm Nance did not disagree.

[certainot]

32. if they're feeding her or others with diversions what's the purpose?

are they hoping dem reps and media jump in to be discredited later?
or using one manufactured/distorted detail to destroy the whole thing, like rove sabotaging rather's bush awol story?
are they trying to confuse investigators?
just trying to confuse things?
or is it real.

[womanofthehills]

34. She's not the one with the bigly diversions right now

[davsand]

33. Because it isn't always just her alone saying it.

Link to tweet

[womanofthehills]

35. Agreed

Olga_nyc
✨? @olgaNYC1211

Same source has told me they have received audio of Trump directly involved with arranging financial arrangements with 🇷🇺..
#Trumpleaks

[Stinky The Clown]

69. And then there's the all knowing Olga?

Come on people.

Really?

[womanofthehills]

36. Also Alexandra Chapula who worked for Clinton seems to be repeating this too

[womanofthehills]

40. Claude also posting this about Louise's post

Claude Taylor? @TrueFactsStated

Claude Taylor Retweeted William Butler

Markel knows. Trudeau knows. Theresa May knows. Everybody. Knows.

[alwaysinflux]

43. But he has no track record

And believe me I looked on his twitter to find out if he's ever been right about anything. I found that it's a rather new development that he's posting these "sourced" tidbits on twitter. So there's no track record for reliability.

I found that he was in the Clinton White House for less than a year and he was a relatively low level staffer (visitor center, I believe).

Hope his info is legit, but there's no way to know yet.

[Stinky The Clown]

68. Claude Taylor? Oh good. Another meaningless name of a nobody?

[L. Coyote]

72. Plus #TrumpsTrolls and the #PutinTrolls are working overtime attacking her.

That should tell us something about the danger she poses to their agenda.

How can you tell the difference between the #TrumpsTrolls and the #PutinTrolls?
The eight hour time zone difference.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Swagman]

39. Mensch no longer works for Murdoch but is

a contributor to his Heat website which she edited for a fairly short time.
She is living out a contract she had with News Corp after falling out with Murdoch.

Most of her career was as a Conservative politician but being a Tory should not automatically mean she does not have credibility. She is more an old style Conservative with perhaps a few Libertarian tendencies but is not extreme.

Mensch is applying for US citizenship. She was active in Parliamentary inquiries into News Corp's hacking and did not hold back on criticizing the News Corp offending newspaper.

A typical Murdoch tactic is to employ critics on huge salaries to neuter them so it could be said that was why he hired Mensch for Heat Street which is losing money hand over fist & costing Murdoch heaps $$ for little return.

Mensch supported Brexit but is now expressing reservations and says she now believes Russia help fund & promote the Brexit campaign.

Her website hasn't printed many articles but each one seems fairly detailed in evidence.

She may be jumping the gun that Trump & Putin are intertwined but presents detailed reasons why as opposed to even many on here who do not.

It is not implausible that European intelligence agencies would leak to someone like Mensch..a former Tory MP with establishment contacts in order to get the ball rolling.

Former UK spy boss Sir Richard Dearlove is now confirming some aspects that Mensch presented so she is slightly ahead of the game.

It would be foolish to write her off as she has not presented any stories that are more or less provable than the mainstream media.

# You need to have followed the career of Rupert Murdoch closely to recognize his tactics. He has handed over a lot of control to sons Lachlan & James who abhor Fox News and openly told their father years ago it was a network that would be eventually be doomed for failure by turning off advertisers. Lachlan & James were the ones who had Roger Ailes removed and would sack O'Reilly in an instant.

Rupert Murdoch's only raison d'etre is making money. He always has a link to all sides of politics. If he thought Trump would hurt his business..highly likely , he would dump on Trump in an instant. When Murdoch dies or the sons takeover completely they will sell off (if they can) his newspaper publishing interests and force Fox News back into the center before it self destructs.
Their only interest is entertainment and their film making enterprises or successful book publishing companies.

[melman]

41. She absolutely does still work for Murdoch

which is why it says this..

[img][/img]


at the bottom of this op-ed

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/opinion/what-to-ask-about-russian-hacking.html?_r=0

[Spider Jerusalem]

44. As someone who lives in the UK, and has been aware of Louise Mensch for some time...

I find the frequency of her commentary being cited around here to be weird and alarming. Like all the links to the Daily Mail. I mostly put it down to "Americans not knowing any better". Louise Mensch is a pro-Brexit right-wing Tory and generally terrible person. No-one over here takes her very seriously. She runs a crackpot fake news site called "HeatSt.com" which is under the Murdoch umbrella. She is not your friend, she is not on your side. If she tells you it's raining you can probably leave your umbrella at home.

[alwaysinflux]

45. She also brags A LOT

Which I find really off-putting and unprofessional.

[lindysalsagal]

47. Anyone who spends the majority of every day tweeting is suspect.

IMHO, she's a media whore, more interested in constant meaningless attention than accuracy.

[SticksnStones]

53. 99% of the Internet is people self promoting...

Just sayin'

[Stinky The Clown]

49. Reading the replies to this thread put me in mind of the lead up to . . . .

. . . . . Fitzmas and other such widely touted nothingnesses. I understand her track record is a little better than the FitzmasMorons, but like Fitzmas seems to require a shitload of wishful thinking.

[Mr. Ected]

51. I understand your reluctance to go all-in at this point

Why don't we reserve judgment until all of this is in the rear view window.

Only then can we accurately gauge Mensch's veritability. She may be smoke. Or she may bring fire.

[get the red out]

52. Probably not

But her "breaking news" is re-tweeted by a lot of people I follow.

[Stinky The Clown]

55. So does "breaking news" on Breitbart and Drudge. In her case, it sounds more like breaking wind.

[SticksnStones]

54. I wonder if some of the dismissal of Mensch is tinted by her views on Sanders

[Stinky The Clown]

56. Not for me. Until this thread, I had little knowledge of her. I just smelled bullshit.

[SticksnStones]

58. I started reading her Twitter feed with a sceptical eye

I dunno...Her blog is quite thick with dots getting connected using logical trails setting the way. I'm a bit more convinced but mindful of the traps ~

In general, it's the Wild West on Twitter but most news is breaking there long before the MSM chimes in.

[womanofthehills]

84. Let's see - sounds like an obsession with no knowledge

t.

[Stinky The Clown]

88. Who's obsession?

If you're saying I've got some obsession you would be very wrong. I had dismissed her as a kook and ignored posts about her. I don't do Twitter so I see no twats from her except here on DU. This thread has served to confirm my assumption that she's a kook. And probably for the same reasons you and a few others assert she's revelatory.

Have a swell day.

[lillypaddle]

57. Malcomb Nance had nothing good to say about her on twitter

FWIW, also read a number of tweets from people saying she cyber stalks them. I'm not saying this is true, just saying that there are apparently a number of people who have no respect for her. I quit following her.

[LanternWaste]

60. I empathize with your inability to find out one way or the other on your own.

I empathize with your inability to find out one way or the other on your own.

[tazkcmo]

63. You don't have to do anything.

You're a smart person. Trust yourself. It's about all any of us can do.

[Justice]

64. I look at all sources so don't rule her out or in

Entirely. She has been investigating as have others. Learned a lot about Trump's lawyer from her for example.

It's going to take a village to get our country back.

[MineralMan]

65. Anytime someone throws enough crap toward a wall,

some of it is bound to stick.

[KittyWampus]

66. Claude Taylor also collaborates the same information from different sources.

[muriel_volestrangler]

67. Because it can't be as bad as her fiction

The Guardian's Digested Read of one of her novels, from just before she was elected as a Tory MP (she quit after a couple of years):

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/apr/13/desire-louise-bagshawe-digested-read?INTCMP=SRCH

"Digested read, digested: Vote for Louise. If only to stop her writing."

[alarimer]

70. You shouldn't.

She's not a trustworthy source of information.

I'm pretty sure Trump won't be impeached over this. There are plenty of other things to impeach him for (many, many conflicts of interest, for one thing.) I think they need to think seriously of 25th Amendment, Section 4 solutions. He should be removed for being unfit, over and above anything else.

People were all breathless over Patrick Fitzgerald and the Bush impeachment that never happened too.

Personally, I think Democrats need to concentrate on winning in 2018 so we can have a proper independent investigation. Russia is not a winning issue with voters, but health care and Trump's budget are.

[L. Coyote]

71. Because she is an "Unhinged British witch" AND "a textbook succubus"

Where else can you find such direct, reliable sourcing?

And, she is always right about Trump so far, but stick with reasons that really matters (see above).

[titaniumsalute]

75. Frankly I think she is a fraud and a joke

[Eyeball_Kid]

77. Mensch's posts are only as good as her sources.

If she's good, she serves as as conduit of information from undisclosed sources. She values credibility, so she appears to be careful about her "informed speculations".

Mensch will lose credibility if her posts stop being tethered to her sources, or if her sources feed her misinformation.

Her latest posts, as well as posts from other freelance journalists (Taylor, Schindler, et al), suggest that arrests will begin this week. This is Monday.