Check-in for members of the "I'm indifferent about Louise Mensch" Club...

[JHB]

Can't tell if we're growing or not without a headcount.

I've seen too many breathless tidbits that surely herald the implosion of various Republicans over the decades to get all excited about what her Twitter feed and website say. There's no percentage in "I knew it first!" Without frogmarches it's vaporware.

There's also people going above and beyond "cool your jets", sometimes with comically inept attempts to discredit her (e.g., the "discrediting" can be debunked within two minutes) that I find curious too.

She's a self-described conservative (British variety), so everything she says should be taken with a mine's worth of salt. But I don't get the kamikaze attacks either. So....sew buttons.

But mostly I damn everybody paying so much attention to her that I felt the need to spell her name right in this post.

[Shrike47]

1. Count me in.

[mhw]

2. Thanks. That's a pretty cool rant.

[Madam45for2923]

3. KnR!

[Stargleamer]

4. It just seems like a lot of wishful thinking to me

sure, I want good news of Trump being going down/impeached, etc. but just wanting so much for it to be true, doesn't mean that it will be true. Even proving "intent" seems daunting; I don't know why intent has to be "proved"--why can't the preponderance of the evidence suffice?

[Warpy]

5. I'm finding too much wishful thinking in her posts

It reminds me too much of early 1973 when it was obvious that Tricky Dick's hands were dirty but the case proving it had not quite been made yet.

IOW, I've seen this movie before and plot development takes its own sweet time--a lot of it.

[sarisataka]

6. I really have no idea who she is

But I'm willing to throw the bullsihit flag when I see the same speculation posted ten times over as if it was a done deal

[PufPuf23]

7. I think Mensch is an intelligence agency asset

influencing the media and public discourse however interesting and attractive her missives,

[JHB]

14. My thinking is along those lines too...

She may be part of generating a buzz for actions that have consequences, preparing the ground for further action. Even in a "fantasy alternative history" world where the Obama administration ditched the "look forward not back" view, they wouldn't have been able, politically, to go right for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. It would have been necessary to have a constant stream of lower-level cases to create a popular mood about the corruption and incompetence of the Bush League that would allow prosecuting the top people after the fact.

In fact, that's pretty much been Republican policy since 1992: every day has a Democratic scandal. On FOX, when a Republican scandal comes up, slap a "D" in front of the name of the guy in handcuffs. Do everything to create an impression that Democrats are criminals who have been getting away with it.

The psychology works in both directions. Kremlin Don won't be dislodged by one badass spearthust but by a thousand fish hooks, even if they just hold him in place for the prosecutorial spears.

On the other hand, I've also seen opportunists provide people who were just a little _too_ eager for the latest news with exactly what they wanted to hear.

If she's being employed to put the smell of impeachment in the air, let her fart away! But as I said above, until the frogmarches begin, it's just vaporware. I'm not making an (emotional) down-payment for a product until I can take it home and use it.

[PufPuf23]

17. One thought is that Mensch is preparing the stage for a Trump resignation

to be replaced by Pence.

Resignation is a better scenario then impeachment for the fascists among us. Mensch's missives may be to threaten and confuse Trump as well as diminish the asshole with the public.

Pence is more competent and more the ideologue religious fascist but could never have been elected POTUS because of popularity or merit.

I basically agree with your fine post.

[Jacquette]

28. A lot of this in reaction to what she said last week about indictments

warrants being imminent. She also made a big to do about the schedules of multiple Federal judges being cleared and saying that only happens if a bunch of arrests are expected. Then she really messed up. She gave a time frame of 48-72 hrs.

The backlash is because people are on edge and at a fever pitch. We expected something late last week, some movement. She all but guaranteed it. And nothing happened. She's trying to fix it with: Jared Kushner is a POI!! And? That ain't cutting it, too little too late. Who DIDN'T already suspect that even if not confirmed?

She reacts by lashing out and scapegoating the msm. Now that the story is picking up heat officials and sources are doing what they always do...going with the talking heads, the big feet journalists. & none of them are crediting her scoops and she's melting down.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

8. Here.

If she's right, that's great. I'll let the facts prove her right.

If she's wrong, I'll let the facts wrong.

Enough said.

[emulatorloo]

9. I take her w a boulder of salt. But I don't get the OTT obsession to discredit her

Sounds like the Breitbarters are going after on twitter today. Why are DU'ers feeling like they need to help the Breitbarters out?

[sarah FAILIN]

30. I don't get that either

Why is there a constantly a new thread on hating her every time I get online now? I don't like certain foods. I don't feel the need to make everyone else agree with me about that food and I don't talk about it constantly.

I feel like someone is out to discredit her for a reason.

[progressoid]

10. Yeah, reminds me a little too much like the Fitzmas debacle of yore.

[salin]

34. yup.

I pretty much ignore her and those speculating about her twitterbits.

I do read 1 twitter feed a couple of times a day: Laura Rozen - long time journalist who retweets mostly other journalists. Get most of the real news just before or as the headlines break. Less like Fitzmas, but jaw dropping at times, none the less.

[Kaleva]

11. I pretty much ignore the threads that use her as a source.

And I pretty much ignore the threads attacking her credibility too.

[MedusaX]

12. It is as foolish to blindly accept as it is to refuse to consider any given source of information

Every piece of information--
regardless of its source --
should be thoroughly evaluated and verified/validated
to the greatest extent possible

Question Everything

Always Evaluate Objectively

Accept Some ....None....All

Re-Evaluate old information
in light of new information

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

[RandomAccess]

15. Finally, a sensible approach

I follow Mensch, Claude Taylor, and several others. I've posted some things from her here, but perhaps I'll not do that any more. Why take my time when it's not only not appreciated, but can be seen as a negative for ME?

We now know -- and she knew quite some time ago (feels like weeks, tho in Trumpworld that could've been yesterday) -- that Manafort and Flynn have been indicted. She talked about 2 grand juries and Comey confirmed that under oath when he last testified. Back to the beginning she said that dossier was mostly true -- something that's been confirmed in the meantime. And so forth. She's said many other things that I strongly suspect are entirely right, not because they've been officially verified by "acceptable" mainstream news (yet), but because there are hints in existing environmental conditions or events that IMO strongly point to their verity.

I happen to think that most of what she puts out there is true -- a good bit of it not YET verified and some of it may never be verified. I relish the information she shares, BUT I still read her with a strong sense of doubt in my own mind, precisely because it's not "mainstream news." Until, of course, it is.

I do have a problem though with the kind of sorting out the true believers who categorically condemn her from the heretics and sinners like me, and not just because that leaves me out of the "in crowd."

IN short, I think your position and response are perfect.

[JimGinPA]

19. Your Post & The One You Responded To Both Make Sense, As Does The OP...

I have a Twitter account but I spend very little time on it. I do see a lot of her tweets, as well as Palmer Report and several other "blog reports" on my FB feed. I do read some and, a few threads here also, but I guess I'm skeptical. Many of them are at least entertaining and if they do happen to to turn out to be true and a lot of these thugs do end up in perp walks, more's the better.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

26. Have Manafort and Flynn actually been indicted?

If that's true, then why aren't they in jail? What am I missing. Or are indictments totally meaningless? Just a way of saying "We know what you've been doing"?

Really. explain to me just what the word 'indictment' means, and how it applies to Manafort and Flynn.

[sarah FAILIN]

31. You could ask a lawyer but

The way I understand it is that an indictment says that a grand jury looked at the evidence and said there was enough fishy stuff you are involved in to make them think you may have broken the law and need to have a trial. I don't read her regularly so last I read there were not actual indictments against those yet, but evidence was being gathered for an indictment. So once they are indicted, and they will be I believe from all sources and not just Mensch, they can still bond out of jail almost immediately.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

38. Thank you for that explanation.

I'm not a lawyer, although I was a paralegal for a while, but I didn't work for attorneys who did criminal work, so I know as close to zero about that stuff as a person can.

But still, if they really have been indicted I can't imagine that information has not become officially known. So someone tweeting that so-and-so has been indicted, or is about to be indicted, and then said indictments don't happen, that someone is simply not a reliable source. And it seems as though nothing this Mensch person has tweeted has actually been valid.

Plus, the notion that she's setting the groundwork for Trump to resign and Pence to become President is nonsense. No one person can actually do that. It may be that for some reason she'd love to see that scenario take place, but then you have to ask, Why? Why would she care that much about who our president is?

Okay, so she now lives in this country, but there's still something just a bit off with her.

[melman]

21. "Every piece of information-- regardless of its source"

No. Sorry, some sources are bullshit.

[Voltaire2]

42. of course, but it is frequently of interest what they choose to bullshit about.

[Voltaire2]

41. exactly. And build your own internal credibility score.

[lostnfound]

13. Count me in.

[justiceischeap]

16. One of the things I've grown increasingly paranoid about is planted news

Not just fake news but planted fake news. After reading that Time article about how Putin has fake news sites springing up in America to sow discord I worry that Mensch and her ilk (Claude Taylor) are useful pawns in Putin's war.

I was born in the early 70's and lived through the end of the Cold War (if it ever really ended) and never thought I'd have to live in McCarthy-era type atmosphere but it seems of late that that particular bit of history is starting to repeat itself but with more validity than in the past.

[womanofthehills]

47. If you read Mensch's tweets you will see she despises Trump and Putin.

She does love Bush,Nancy, Obama, Michelle and Hillary though. She also likes Bill Clinton.

Link to tweet

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Taken with salt, exactly.

If all of a sudden we're on a universal tear against evidence-free assertions, lets start with the giant invisible man in the sky who is interested in the sex lives of human beings.

[applegrove]

20. Fitzmas was a set up to make democrats look uninformed. Don't want

Last edited Sun May 21, 2017, 12:10 AM - Edit history (1)

that again. Fell for it last week.

[DefenseLawyer]

22. I'm definitely in this camp

Que sera, sera

[betsuni]

23. I don't know anything about Mensch and somehow I don't care.

I'm completely indifferent.

[Scurrilous]

24. I can't get past the last name.

Mensch...lol.

[dalton99a]

25. I am skeptical

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

27. The only reason I've even heard of Louise Mensch is because I'm here on DU.

Since I don't Twitter, I guess I'm shut off from a lot of stuff.

But I do know that a lot of what she seems to have claimed hasn't quite materialized. Indictments? Why hasn't anyone actually been arrested?

What she says does feel a lot like Fitzmas.

And who exactly is she? Why should we trust her? What are her sources?

So many questions, so few answers.

[JNelson6563]

29. I follow her on Twitter

But I don't follow Twitter regularly. when I do check in my feed is usually cluttered up with her bickering with critics and I rarely am interested enough to find the big news she posts and catch it posted elsewhere. It's too bad she puts soooooo much energy into that personality bickering sort of crap. It doesn't tell a story of confidence which would lend to credibility.

[lillypaddle]

32. If you're truly indifferent

why bother posting about her at all?

[JHB]

37. I'm not posting about her. I'm posting about the reactions about her...

A great many of which strike me as more... what's the proper word? Excitable? Intense? No, those are a bit much too. Let's just stick with "more: ...which strike me as more than is warranted.

[samnsara]

33. same here. i think blind trust in any ONE person/source is bad....

..just do your homework with ANY tidbit you read. I try to get three verifications before I get all excited about some news.

[HAB911]

35. Que Sera, Sera

I believe when I see it, buyer beware

[Mr. Ected]

36. It's tough to consider her reporting as sensational and overboard

When the "real" news about Trump printed by the "real" media on an almost daily basis is sensational and shocking...and very well sourced.

Based on all the corroborated information that we have already seen, I am of the belief that Trump was involved in RICO violations for years prior to running for President; that the Russians bailed him out in return for a few 'favors' that included money laundering; that some of that money ended up in Republican Party hands; that a foreign adversary influenced our national election and Trump and the GOP were not only aware but complicit; and that most members of Trump's campaign, transition, and current staff were somehow involved and implicated. I think we are looking at dozens of potential criminals being arrested, tried and convicted in DC and in the state courts in which some offenses took place, for federal and state crimes, obstruction of justice, income tax evasion, witness tampering, and a bevy of other charges yet to be revealed.

So when Mensch drops a doozie, in this context, I am not shaken to my core that I am reading fake news. If it sounds outlandish, it may be....or it may not be. File it away in your memory banks and see if proof is forthcoming. Don't use her allegations and her reporting as the basis of a factual argument. Theoretical, fine.

You just don't ever know with these gang of conspiratorial, criminal, mendacious skinwasters.

[Ellipsis]

39. Shes a conduit...

[smirkymonkey]

40. Count me in.

I take what she says with a grain of salt, but don't dismiss her entirely.

[Different Drummer]

43. I'm in. Totally indifferent. n/t

[Barack_America]

44. I'm here. I think she's getting "insider knowledge", it's just 2nd hand.

She's most likely getting American leaks via British intel, which explains why some of the finer details are confused.

Still, she seems to be serving as a proxy for what's being leaked to more reputable US sources, but given her info is second hand, it has to be looked at with a greater degree of skepticism.

She is, however, unquestionably adding fuel to the fire, and I highly support that.

[emulatorloo]

45. That's a good theory and very well said.

[womanofthehills]

49. I think so too - could be an ex intel lover for all we know

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Starry Messenger]

46. I ignore all posts about her.

I saw someone retweet a Claude Taylor thing the other day and it whiffed of the Fitzmas nonsense. I won't get excited about anything until I see handcuffs on people.

[SMC22307]

48. When her more vocal supporters try to win me over with how "patriotic" she is...

my bullshit meter goes into overdrive. So far I'm taking your approach: mine's worth of salt.

[murielm99]

50. I will wait and see. n/t

[GoneOffShore]

51. Louise who?

[wildeyed]

52. She is nutty, but I don't really care.

She's like Palmer Report. Not a credible source, IMO, but has some entertainment value.

[liberalmuse]

53. Who?

I have no idea who she is except for the posts here. Oddly, I have no desire to find out which is unusual for me.

[TNLib]

54. I'm in

Her and Claude Taylor are interesting to read because of what could possibly be happening behind the scenes.

But in reality we're all just watching the shit show as it unfolds through good journalism like the NYT, WP and other reliable journalist.

[pbmus]

55. Until it becomes mainstream with verification, then I pay little attention.

[tibbiit]

56. Me indifferent.

I hope she is right. I love reading it. I don't even care if she is proven nuts, her twitter is read by those close to the chump and it is upsetting to them!

Ive been here since 2003 and I remember Fitzmas! So Until the moment after it happens... then I'll celebrate!

tib

[NCTraveler]

57. I'm indefferent. Have been.

Two reasons I find her to be important.

1) Even a grain of truth can get people questioning.
2) I'm not above propaganda and feel it's an extremely important tool in politics. I don't care if it's all bs. If that's the case she is getting away with it because Trump has made the absurd seem possible and Flynn and his ilk supply a base for the stories.

I'm good if it's one or two.

[Shandris]

58. I never heard of her before she showed up in posts here.

Still know next to nothing about her as I don't follow Twitter links here (it's obnoxious as phuq on a mobile phone) but I typically ignore the 'debunking' of anyone who is called a 'conspiracy theorist'.

Rather, I'll listen to their ideas and compartmentalize them as 'things that may be true' and 'thought experiments to find new leads' and what-have-you. They're invaluable for that purpose, and occasionally they'll have a story right too. That's just gravy.

But yah, lots of breathless reporting of everything she says. Some of it is interesting, and that's about all I can expect from news these days.

[Tiggeroshii]

59. She and Taylor have nice Twitter pictures

aaaanndd that's all I can really account for them.

[gldstwmn]

60. Does take it with a grain of salt

count as indifferent?

[JHB]

61. Pretty much. The baseline is a lack of inclination to ...

...either enthuse over or excoriate what's coming over her Twitter feed and/or website.

If you'll step off to the right, one of our volunteers will fit you out with a club jacket. Keep in mind, until we draw up a charter and collect dues, the bar is cash only.

[Dem_4_Life]

62. Count me in....

I take what she says with a grain of salt but don't count her out completely. I follow her on twitter but doubt check on her tweets everyday just in passing every now and then.