DOUBLE CROSS: John Schindler, Louise Mensch and other "spooky" writers in the anti-Trump movement

[JCannon]

The anti-Trump movement includes prominent "former" spies and/or people with close ties to Spookworld. The best-known names would be Louise Mensch and John Schindler, whose pronouncements, in recent times, have received a great deal of publicity from the left-wing media. For example, Raw Story paid very respectful attention when Schindler proclaimed that the White House is targeting journalists using "Russian intel."

Is that specific allegation true? Don't know. This post is not about the merits of that claim. I am writing now to sound a note of caution.

Former NSA man Schindler claims to represent something called the 20committee. When I first saw that name, it struck a chord -- yet I did not comprehend the historical reference until this morning, when I slapped my forehead and flashed on a truth that should have been obvious from the start.

What an idiot I was! Why didn't I see it?

The "20committee" nomenclature is an homage to a classic WWII espionage operation better known as the XX Committee. "XX" is, of course, the number 20 in Roman numerals -- but in its original incarnation, it also referred to the double cross.

British intelligence agent John Masterman set up a spectacularly effective counter-intelligence ring which took effective control of all German spies within the British isles. Many Nazi spies were doubled; others were deceived. In order to sell false information to the Third Reich, the Brits surrounded each lie with a surprisingly large coating of genuine intelligence. It was the XX committee which convinced the Nazi high command that the Allied invasion would take place at Calais, not Normandy.

If John Schindler wants us to trust him, perhaps his group should not have named itself after history's grandest double cross.

About a month ago, liberal websites discovered Schindler. When he said that the intelligence community sought to remove Donald Trump, when he proclaimed that Trump would "die in jail," he told us precisely what we wanted to hear. Schindler tossed steak to the starving.

Schindler made no secret of the fact that he was a Republican. At first, his conservatism buttressed his credibility, since it automatically exempted him from the commonly-heard charge that only Hillary-loving die-hards believe in the Trump/Putin connection.

But Schindler is no ordinary conservative.

He is -- or was, until recently -- an employee of Jared Kushner, Donald Trump's son-in-law and loyal aide. Before he began working in the White House, Kusner owned The Observer, which published many articles in which John Schindler smeared Hillary Clinton. According to Schindler, Hillary is a demon from the deepest pits of hell -- and the email pseudoscandal was history's worst betrayal since Judas took up coin-collecting.

In short and in sum: Mere months ago, John Schindler was trying get Donald Trump elected.

Here are some examples of what John Schindler was getting up to in the days when he was a toiler for Trump's son-in-law:

Hillary’s Secret Kremlin Connection Is Quickly Unraveling

Why didn't that story catch fire? There are two possibilities. Either 1) Evil George Soros controls the entire mass media worldwide, or 2) Schindler didn't have his ducks in a row.

Did NSA Try to Destroy Hillary Clinton?
Allegations are circulating that the National Security Agency may be behind the massive hack of Hillary Clinton and her party

Vladimir, thou art absolved.

FBI Data Dump Shows Clinton Is Criminal and Clueless

She was neither.

EmailGate and the Mystery of the Missing GAMMA
Hillary Clinton’s 'unclassified' email included highly classified NSA information—why didn’t the FBI mention this fact?

Because it's bullshit...? No-one can credibly argue that the FBI helped Hillary.

Why Obama Is to Blame for Russia’s SpyWar on America

Most of us would blame Putin.

During this period, Schindler also published some material on the Trump/Putin linkage, although he was hardly "the firstest with the mostest." Always remember that Schindler is an admirer of the XX Committee. Always remember that the XX Committee deliberately fed genuine intelligence to the Nazis in order to make the false information seem credible.

I could write at equal length about Louise Mensch, the other "spooked up" conservative writer who has gained fame among the anti-Trumpers. For now, let's confine ourselves to two main points:

1. Just as Schindler took a paycheck from Jared Kushner, Mensch took (takes?) a paycheck from Rupert Murdoch. There's a line from Lawrence of Arabia for every occasion, and on this occasion, that line is this: "The servant is the one who takes the money."

2. Donald Trump's instantly-infamous tweet-storm blaming Obama for wiretapping Trump Tower traces back -- ultimately -- to a piece that Louise Mensch wrote for Murdoch's right-wing "libertarian" publication Heat Street. In recent days, Mensch has (truthfully) stressed that her article does not accuse Obama of wiretapping. As this WP profile notes...

In tweets on Monday, Mensch emphasized that her reporting does not back up Trump’s wiretapping claim, even though the White House cited her article to justify the allegation. She stressed that her reporting refers to a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court warrant and does not mention anything about wiretapping

.

In her report, published Nov. 7, Mensch said the FBI 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.”

She cited “two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community” as evidence for those claims.

Her twitter feed indicates that she is quite tight with John Schindler, whose 20committee is named after history's most successful counter-intelligence operation. Is Schindler one of those two sources? If he were, would she admit it?

For that matter, can we be certain that there is a second source? (James Angleton would sometimes pretend to have multiple sources when he was just repeating Golitsyn's bullshit.) If there are two sources, how can we be certain of their independence? How do we know that her sources are not beholden to the pro-Trump faction of the intelligence community?

Schindler and Mensch push a "intelligence community versus Donald Trump" narrative which I consider simplistic and false. Trump owes even more to Steve Bannon than he does to Vladimir Putin. Most liberals still don't understand that Breitbart (Bannon's operation) has been seriously spooked up for years. Go ahead and double-check that claim. I dare you to prove me wrong.

A short word about the CIA documents on Wikileaks. Ten days after Trump took office, high-placed western moles in the FSB had bags placed over their heads as they were hustled off to their presumed dooms. And now we learn that -- at roughly the same time -- Wikileaks received a massive CIA data-dump, although Assange waited until now to spill the beans.

Who gave that material to Assange? I believe that someone within the Trump administration is leaking secrets.

The material published by Wikileaks includes the claim that the CIA can spoof the work of Russian hackers. The entire Putin/Trump meme began when Crowdstrike performed a forensic analysis which identified the DNC hack as the work of Russian hackers. As soon as the Wikileaks story hit the news, Milo Yiannopoulos instantly issued a piece arguing that the Putin hack was really a CIA hack. I don't think that Milo is right -- but the hell of it is, I can't prove him wrong.

[hlthe2b]

1. Maybe--I have never liked the JS-Observer-Kushner link.

However, this site was seemingly intentionally seeded with false stories--as were other leading progressive internet sites during primaries and election--mostly from low count/newbies or "hit and run" sporadic posters to this site.

So, expect to raise some questions, yourself, whether or not you are as sincere as they come. Just sayin.

Skepticism is a healthy attribute, right now.

[OKNancy]

2. I see nothing in his post to doubt.

I've come to the same conclusions.

[salin]

11. Count me in the skeptical column

as well.

BTW, OKNancy, hope you are well!

[OKNancy]

14. Hi there

Yes, I'm doing fine. I hope you are doing fine too!
You and I have seen a lot of paper heroes here at DU. The ones some posters worship who turn out to be scammers or worse.
Two off the top of my head are Bev Harris and seventhson. There are more too.

I'm not sure of the two mentioned in the OPs post, but for sure people reading should know their background and look for possible "kookery"

[salin]

20. I also thought of Bev Harris

forgot seventhson - but he always set my radar off (I was, for a while, fooled by Bev).

I often think history, history of how $ is made, and consistency are worth paying attention to when sudden "Stars" or "Soothsayers" are found.

Oh, I am well as well.

[GliderGuider]

85. I was taken in until quite recently by Assange, Snowden and Greenwald,

My strong anti-authoritarian bias prevented me from being sufficiently skeptical of them. So I know about being flim-flammed personally.

That experience has made me doubly careful about unknown news sources whose writing agrees with my position. I usually read a lot of their work critically now, and snoop around the net to find out who is saying what about them. I've done that with these two, and I'm satisfied that they are who and what they say they are.

If new evidence comes up, I'll re-examine. I'm all about not being emotionally attached to my opinions.

[pbmus]

102. Right on, right on...

'If new evidence comes up, I'll re-examine. I'm all about not being emotionally attached to my opinions."

[msanthrope]

27. Except that he's completely misstated what Mensch reported on. That's a glaring mistake.

Funny how there isn't a direct quote from the seminal source.

[OKNancy]

42. all I know is she is a nut

My opinion, which I think eventually will be proven correct.
Just read her twitter feed.

Overall, what I agree with is to be careful who you believe ( or worship in the case of some)

[msanthrope]

43. Ok....she's a nut. So why not directly quote the nut, to prove her nuttiness? "Nuts and sluts"

offered as an critique indicates to me a paucity of credible critique, and on International Women's Day, I'm pretty offended.

[Denzil_DC]

57. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on Mensch,

but a few Google searches will show up her past record, not least on Twitter.

Here's a couple of tweets of hers:

Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch)
I want precision bombing raids. Bank hacks. Massive cyber war. Russia is a paper bear cub let @Potus show Putin what alpha means https://t.co/gLXbjHxKvi
December 10, 2016

Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch)
Putin should, in my view, be completely removed by the USA, by any means necessary. Regime change in Russia. Flex American muscle. https://t.co/YDlflTEeZX

January 5, 2017

They've been deleted, but live on as archives and in the feeds of people who quoted her on Twitter (search for her name and any phrases from those two tweets if you want to find them - DU won't let me link to the archived versions, as it now garbles any URL which includes a tweet URL).

Then there was her extended horrible online bullying campaign against Abby Tomlinson, a young woman whose only crime was to set up a support group for Labour Party leader Ed Miliband during the 2015 UK general election:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/may/19/louise-mensch-founder-twitter-abby-tomlinson-sun

I wouldn't call that very sisterly.

Then there was the time she tried to prove antisemitism among Jeremy Corbyn's supporters on the strength of Twitter search autocompletes, which ended up being her very own searches:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/22/louise-menschs-bid-to-smear-jeremy-corbyn-backfires

I could go on, but I won't.

Does all this discredit what she's saying right now? Not in my opinion.

But she's shown - to say the least - very bad judgment repeatedly in the past, so once (or numerous times) bitten, twice shy.

[msanthrope]

62. I'm not in disagreement with her.

If Putin hacked this election in any way....is he not our enemy? A true enemy. Undermining the franchise is indefensible.

As for "bullying" I would hardly call noting someone's publication of a telephone number "bullying."

As for her fucked-up Google search...well...she did admit she fucked-up, yes?

As I wrote....."She's Nuts" is weak sauce.

[PaulaFarrell]

69. So you're up for WWIII?

This time it's nuclear!

Mensch is a horrible person. I was so happy when she left the UK and she stopped appearing as a 'celebrity' on tv shows. I was so surprised to see her name cropping up on DU. I can't help but feel she's created an account (or two?) here to big herself up. Self promotion is the only thing she's good at.

[msanthrope]

77. Mensch is starting WWIII.....well fuck that is a world of power.

Here's the thing..... she may be an ultimate piece of shit..... but if her reporting is accurate and clearly defines her biases..... then it's up to us to look at what she says and use it appropriately and dispassionately.

I've nothing personally invested in her.... but when I hear the farthest left and the far right both conspired against the person... well that tells me something.

[PaulaFarrell]

88. Someone quoted to you that she would like to see 'regime change' in Russia

You said you didn't disagree. Regime change in Russia would involve nuclear war.

[msanthrope]

91. Really? Regime change in Russia has occurred quite a bit. Tell me when nukes were used. nt

[JCannon]

5. I'm getting peeved...

"low count/newbies or "hit and run" sporadic posters to this site..."

Look, hlthe2b, I've been writing a liberal blog since 2004. I'm fairly well-known, though (to be honest) not as well-known now as I used to be. I write a fairly long essay nearly every day -- and on a number of occasions, DU writers have cited my work.

How much writing can you honestly expect me to do? I can't come up with original material for TWO sites on a regular basis.

What I would like to do, on occasion, is to do a light rewrite of posts from my own site -- posts which I think contain important information or insights -- and share them here and elsewhere.

And what, may I ask, is wrong with that? Why on earth would you have a problem with that?

No-one can fairly accuse me of being a secret squirrel. Yes, I've made plenty of mistakes over the years -- as have we all -- but I've plugged at it day after day after day. At this point, my entire life is an open blog. Anyone who writes as much as I have written each and every day has few secrets left. You're accusing me of being an unknown quantity? That's like accusing a stripper of being too demurely dressed. How much more can you reasonably expect to see?

In the past when I've contributed to DU, there was always some personage like you who complained that I was trying to drum up readership for my site. (Which is not true: I've asked other sites NOT to include me on their blog rolls, just to forestall that accusation.) But even when I construct pieces that contain no links to my own blog, someone here INVARIABLY finds some obscure reason to toss crap at me whenever I dare to attempt to contribute.

Frankly, I'm skeptical of your motives, hlthe2b. People like you seem to have no problem with lazy posts that do nothing but quote mainstream articles. But whenever a well-meaning contributor here attempts to write a long, meaty essay containing original research, someone like you will instantly -- and I mean INSTANTLY (within less than ten minutes) -- try to chase that writer away from DU. I don't think that I'm the only person who has experienced this phenomenon.

You know why I don't write here more often? THAT'S why.

Yeah. Damn right I'm skeptical of you.

[eShirl]

19. ok, where's your blog?

edit: never mind, I see someone just posted a link downthread

[salin]

22. I found it by searching on his user name, + liberal blog

very easy to find.

I don't think he is trying to hide - gave enough info to find it. Choose to accept the idea that he is avoiding the "attempting to drive traffic to my site" charge.

[hlthe2b]

45. Perhaps

However, anonymity breeds deceit.

Skepticism is critically important.

[JCannon]

52. You DARE to talk about "anonymity"?

I've written a blog under the name Joseph Cannon for 13 years. People know me. That name appears on my driver's license. I've never deleted a post. I tend to write long, long essays, and I usually publish once a day. Regular readers know everything about me -- where I live, the names of my dogs, how I've earned a living, where I grew up, people I've met. It's as massive an autobiography as anyone has ever provided.

And yet you imply that I'm secretive.

Savor the sheer hypocrisy on display here: An anonymous coward who writes under the pseudonym "hlthe2b" dares to score ME for being secretive!

Is there any possible way you could be more hypocritical?

Christ, if I invited you to join me in the shower, you would still accuse me of hiding something. There's no way to please you people.

[peggysue2]

99. Hey, Joe!

Well, you have my attention, even my affection for your daily posts. And as I said on site, I thank you for the heads up on Schindler/Mensch, the advice to be cautious, regardless of the popularity of particular bloggers, tweeters and/or researchers. On your advice, I did read Schindler's previous positions on Hillary Clinton. Wasn't hard to find. I was surprised and disappointed, making me somewhat suspicious of what he's saying now.

Judging from some of the reactions, I think you've hit a nerve. Keep up the good work. I'll be reading, even when I'm not commenting.

[OKNancy]

3. Required reading

I want all at this site and all on the left/center left to be aware that there are fakers out there and we have to be aware.
There are not only fakers, but nuts who are just as kooky as Trump.

[msanthrope]

12. When I have Greenwald and the rest of the claimed "Far Left" decrying the Deep State,

And then the alt.Right decrying exactly the same thing..... I asked myself who benefits from the deflection???

[ymetca]

81. Good point

But I have always suspected that the so-called "Deep State" is just a polite way of restating the "continuity of government" meme, which means, basically, rich well-connected people sticking their greedy snouts as deep and far as possible into the public coffers, then using "national security" as the means to cover up their crimes.

To wit: we bailed out Wall Street with enough money for every last man, woman and child in America to own their own homes.

[GliderGuider]

4. Your concern for our wellbeing is touching.

I don't know how to thank you for warning us off those reporters.

So I won't.

[GliderGuider]

6. To clarify

There seems be a push going on to discredit Schindler and Mensch. I wonder why?

Just a reminder to take everything - pro and con, lib and con - with a log shaker of salt (sorry, Jimmy).
Remember that there is a war going on. And the first casualty of war is always the truth.

[SecularMotion]

8. Discredit?

When did they have credibility?

[GliderGuider]

10. I follow them both. I don't make policy based on their writing, but

I haven't seen them be wrong on any significant aspect of the Tangerine Clusterfuck.
Of course I could be completely fucked up, because I also supported Assange and Snowden until relatively recently. I learned a major lesson about my own biases from that.

There are a lot of people out there, each with his or her own opinion.
IMO there are better ways of asking us to be skeptical than asking us to buy a smear job from an unknown party, holus-bolus.

[JustAnotherGen]

32. The truth is out there - and in time we will find Nance, Mensch, and Schindler were right

[drm604]

7. I get your point about his 20committee handle,

but it seems odd that he'd put out a clue like that.

In any case, his 20committee Twitter account was created July 2012, long before people were thinking about a Trump presidency. He probably used that handle simply because of his admiration of the WWII operation.

[msanthrope]

13. let's not bring facts into this. nt

[drm604]

16. Oh, sorry.

I forgot that we're in a post-fact world.

[msanthrope]

9. You seem concerned. Please feel free to air more of your concerns, and enjoy your stay. nt

[Fast Walker 52]

15. well, of course, we have to take Mensch's and Schindler's posts with grains of salt

and of course we need to be wary of confirmation bias.

Still, they are just tweets, and interesting ones at that.

[JustAnotherGen]

34. Mensch has her Patriobotics blog - it's more than a tweet

I would trust her before a firedoglake or common dreams blog - but that's just me

[Fast Walker 52]

41. sure, she's more of a real reporter than Schindler

not sure how much to trust her though: how good are her sources, what is her track record?

[theglammistress]

17. Disagree

Mainstream Republicans Rick Wilson and Liz Mair were alluding to all the Russian connections, the dossier and the pee tape before the election. They said reporters had the info, no one could get it confirmed. Mensh and Schindler were right there with them in that regard. Since the election, both Mensch and Schindler have been most on top of this Russia scandal - releasing news days (weeks) before it hits MSM.

Sure, take everything with a grain of salt these days but be careful about discounting two of the biggest voices dedicated to bringing this mess to light.

[JustAnotherGen]

29. Yep - they are up there with Mr. Nance on this issue

[KittyWampus]

65. And other commentators I TRUST IMPLICITLY link to Mensch and Schindler.

So, people who are trustworthy read Mensch and Schindler... and someone I've never heard of before comes onto DU to voice concern at the same time Mensch and Schindler are getting attacked by Putin-bots/4chan losers.

[get the red out]

78. Very good point!

Thank you.

[JustAnotherGen]

92. +10000 n/t

[JCannon]

55. Y'know who was the first blogger to emphasize the Russian connection?

I'll probably be slammed for saying this. Haters gonna hate. But I'll say it anyways:

The first writer to lay out the case that Hillary would lose the election because Russia was working to elect Trump was not John Schindler or Louise Mensch or Rick Wilson or Liz Mair. To the best of my knowledge, the first lengthy piece to make that argument appeared as early as June 16, 2016.

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-russia-factor.html

Bottom line: I think Putin wants Trump to win.

If Hillary faces Trump in a fair fight, she stands a good chance, because Donald Trump is an unlovable fool and a national disgrace. But what if Hillary's true opponent is the intelligence apparat of a formidable foreign power?

If that is the case, she cannot win.

Perhaps you can name an earlier piece which made that argument. If so, please share.

At the time, a lot of people scoffed at the guy who wrote that post on June 16. "A Russian conspiracy to help Trump? Pull the other one..." And now the same writer is being accused of trying to undermine the investigation into the Russian connection. Apparently, people on DU place greater trust in a couple of spooked-up rightwingers who, until recently, were employed by Rupert Murdoch and Jared Kushner.

[bathroommonkey76]

18. Next time share the link of the original post.

And include all of the text that's in the body of the article.


http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2017/03/20-xx-beware-double-cross.html

[JCannon]

25. Oh lord...

In the past, whenever I linked to one of my posts, someone here would sneer that I was simply trying to increase my readership. (Which is not true.)

And now that I've taken that cue and NOT linked to my original post, someone here lambastes me for not providing a link!

Damned if ya do, damned if ya doesn't.

Look, I'll say it again: What I would like to do, on occasion, is to do a light rewrite of posts from my own site -- posts which I think contain important information or insights -- and share them here and elsewhere.

And what, may I ask, is wrong with that? Why on earth would you have a problem with that?

[Progressive dog]

21. All that from the number 20

used in a name. Amazing logic or whatever that was.

[yodermon]

23. Bizarre that you're reading something nefarious into his 20committee handle

He explains it right here

https://20committee.com/2012/07/06/your-mission-if-you-choose-to-accept-it/

"hey guys! Let me just telegraph that I'm a double agent hyuk hyuk, isn't that a riot"

[JustAnotherGen]

28. Thanks yodermon! n/t

[msanthrope]

31. I swear, all of a sudden, I miss Octafish. nt

[JustAnotherGen]

36. Me too!

Really - we are really going to take jabs at people who could get themselves killed for writing and standing behind what they are writing? Publishing? Broadcasting?

Maddow
Nance
Mensch
Schindler -

Hat tip to Evan McMullin.


They are all in danger.

[msanthrope]

38. Octafish would have taken better-sourced jabs. But yeah....the Purity Concerns raised here miss the

point....we have people attempting to bring us information a great danger to themselves. Time will tell us if they were truth-tellers or charlatans. I am very slow to jump on anyone's bandwagon... Which is why I have always been completely and utterly correct about the likes of Greenwald, Assange, Snowden, Etc

[JustAnotherGen]

49. Here's something - Paul Roderick Gregory

He said the Trump Dossier was a complete total fake -

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/01/13/the-trump-dossier-is-false-news-and-heres-why/#2842eb456867

On Forbes.com . . .

The Orbis report spins the tale of Putin insiders, spurred on by Putin himself, engaging in a five-year courtship of Donald Trump in which they offer him lucrative real estate deals that he rejects but leaves himself open to blackmail as a result of sexual escapades with prostitutes in St. Petersburg and Moscow (the famous “golden shower” incident). Despite his reluctance to enter into lucrative business deals, Trump “and his inner circle have accepted regular intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals,” according to the Orbis report.

This story makes no sense. In 2011, when the courtship purportedly begins, Trump was a TV personality and beauty pageant impresario. Neither in the U.S. or Russia would anyone of authority anticipate that Trump would one day become the presidential candidate of a major U.S. political party, making him the target of Russian intelligence.

With Christopher Steele appearing to broadcast journalists yesterday - I guess we'll soon find out how much is fake and how much is not.

Right now - too many roads lead to Moscow. I also don't think the EU would be forcing us to recognize those 5 countries in Putin's cross hairs as members of the EU and thus should not need travel visas to the USA - if their intelligence communities thought this was a big nothing burger.

[msanthrope]

53. Gregor is writing utter, and easily disproveable nonsense....in 2011, Trump was a candidate.....

Is there anyone here who forgot the WHCA roast of Trump that took place at the hands of President Obama?

The next day, Trump was all over the news before the bin Laden story broke..... he was butt hurt, and was openly speaking of his presidential ambitions.

[dem4decades]

54. Adam Khan? His stuff is in depth.

[KittyWampus]

67. Yes, his tweets provide quite a lot to do further research.

[JCannon]

35. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

And my apologies: I should have read that page earlier. He ends his piece with these words:

"Per the old counterspy’s mantra: Admit nothing; deny everything; make counter-accusations."

Yeah. Lot of that going around. Nice that he admits to being in counterintelligence, as opposed to his usual claim of being just a former NSA guy.

I was enthusiastic about Schindler and Mensch at first, but a well-known writer privately warned me to treat them charily. I'm going to follow that writer's advice, although I'll still read Mensch (and I still have her blog prominently displayed on my own blogroll.)

[msanthrope]

40. Who is the well-known writer?

Tell us, and let us judge for ourselves.

[OKNancy]

47. Thomas C. Theiner ?

She says he is a Russian troll, which is weird considering all his work.

Small sample for those who don't know this person: http://euromaidanpress.com/author/thomastheiner/

His twitter: https://twitter.com/noclador

[JCannon]

56. This is the first I've heard of Theiner

If you really need to know more, write to me privately. My email address is on my site. If you're too lazy to write, I can't help you.

[yodermon]

61. Mensch and Schindler i still take with a huge grain of salt given their conservative bona fides

Mensch's love for McCain and Arnold is quite nauseating. However she seemed pro-Hillary during the campaign; she even pitched a campaign commercial to Team hillary, see here from the Podesta emails:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5740

Date: February 14, 2016 at 11:25:16 AM MST

Subject: Hillary ad

Dear Michael,

As you will know from Arnold I am a committed Republican (or would be if I had the vote this year). But I worry no end about Donald Trump becoming our President... much rather have your girl Hillary.

Anyway, the politician in me thinks Lena Dunham and Gloria Steinem are nails on a chalkboard to the average American woman AND I think Hillary is not capitalizing on the yearning that we have to see a woman as President properly.

Her competence and intelligence are beyond doubt, her problem is warmth.

If I may, here is an ad I would love to see run;

OUR TIME

A succession of mostly young women, a few old women, one with a baby daughter, multiracial and multi-occupation, to include a nurse and a woman in uniform of some kind where permitted...

one after the other, smiling and looking to camera and saying 'It's our time.'

and the last woman says, 'It's our time. I'm with her.'

fade to banner credit 'Hillary 2016'

----

That would be inspirational, aspirational, and the kind of riff you really need on 'Yes we can'.

Best, Louise

[Ilsa]

24. Has anyone ever believed that

Trump would die in jail vs getting pardoned? Of course Pence, Ryan, etc will get s pardon for him, even if he committed ghe most vile treasonous act.

I haven't followed Shindler, but I have occasionally read Mensch. We should take all of them with a grain of salt. Malcolm Nance is the only one I tend to believe.

"The truth will out, eh?"

[JustAnotherGen]

26. I'm with Louise Mensch on this - n/t

[Bernardo de La Paz]

30. It is sometimes very smart to make COMMON CAUSE against a mutual enemy. . . . . nt

[annabanana]

33. Mensch & Schindler's work has been very beguiling. Surely, though

healthy skepticism is never amiss. It was bait & switch after all that hookwinked so many in the fall from grace of Dan Rather with the Texas Air National Guard story.

[Renew Deal]

39. Schindler and Mensch put their names to their work. Do you?

[JCannon]

46. Of course. Do YOU?

I've written a blog under the name Joseph Cannon for thirteen years. That name is on my driver's license. I've never deleted an older post. One or two long essays a day, or nearly every day. It's as massive an autobiography as anyone can reasonably expect. You want to know who I am, where I live, the names of my dogs, who I've worked for, what I've done, what I think, how my views have evolved over the years? It's all there.

Frankly, I am SICK AND GODDAMNED TIRED of being called "secretive" by people who hide behind pseudonyms like "Renew Deal" and "hlthe2b." Jeez, could you people possible BE more hypocritical?

What more do you want from me? How much more open can I be? Christ, if I invited you to join me in the shower, you creeps would STILL imply that I was hiding something!

[Renew Deal]

58. I want your aunts blood type and a hair from each of your dogs.

Just kidding. Your post is interesting and informative. People are basically asking "why should we believe you?" It's an opportunity for you to make your case. There's a lot of disinformation on the internet. Someone shows up on DU suggesting that two prominent people are working for the enemy. Don't you think people will ask questions? Don't be so personally attached to your message. Just be happy you got the word out. Over time people might begin to believe you. You know you can be trusted. No one else does.

[GliderGuider]

70. You realize that nobody here knows you, right?

If you don't want to be handled roughly, build up a track record here before you start posting things like that. I don't care how long you've published a blog I've never heard of, that doesn't make a DU bona fides.

I would believe Schindler, and especially Mensch, long before I'd believe your attack on them.

[KittyWampus]

80. But they have a BLOG!

[JCannon]

95. My argument speaks for itself

I admit that I keep a low profile. More than a decade ago, I learned that if I did anything -- anything at all -- to promote my writings, people will accuse me of being some kind of glory-hound (or of being "in it for the money" even though there is no money to be had). So I intentionally do none of the things writers normally do to promote themselves. It's an experiment to see if the work will survive on its own merits. So far it has, and a number of people are familiar with it, even if you are not.

The point is that an argument stands or falls on its own merits. I've shown my work; nothing is hidden. Ad hominem is your only counterargument.

But if you would rather place your trust in the hirelings of Rupert Murdoch and Jared Kushner than in someone who, since 2004, has established a pro-liberal record, that's your privilege.

[KittyWampus]

98. your 'argument' is largely a conspiracy around the name "20 Committee" and Schindler himself

explains the name openly.

[GliderGuider]

100. Yes, that is my privilege.

And I feel quite privileged to have that privilege, thankyouverymuch.

I'm not hung up on peoples liberal credentials. I read their arguments. Their arguments make sense to me, and actually address the topic of Trump/Russia - as do those of Malcolm Nance, Adam Khan, Rachel Maddow and others, in virtually identical terms. You have presented nothing of substance on that topic. Do you even know who Aleksandr Dugin, Vladislav Surkov and Valery Gerasimov are, and why they may be critically important to this event?

Now, let's talk about ad-hominem, shall we?

Your post amounts to a personal smear of those two based largely on their socio-political leanings and who they have worked for. That's a classic example of ad hominem. You then compound the error with your inability to find out what "XX Committee" represents to John Schindler - by simply reading this page of his blog. By doing so you might also have figured out that Schindler is not part of some mysterious group named "XX Committee", it's the name he gave his own personal blog.

With accuracy like that on display, you're double-damned right that I take the word of those people over yours.

Now, what have you done to help pierce the veil of mystery surrounding Trump's connections to Russia? Because that's the only measure that matters at the moment. If you can't show THAT work, you're just another blogger with an attitude problem, no matter how long you've been at it.

[Mr. Ected]

44. As long as their allegations continue to be proven later by fact

I will continue to trust in Schindler and Mensch's reporting.

Trust, but verify. (ick, I know)

Rachel relies on these two heavily, and I trust Rachel's adherence to truthful reporting.

[annabanana]

59. this . . .n/t

[wishstar]

48. Schindler has been fierce critic of Assange/Wikileaks for years and defender of NSA

It isn't any new revelation about John Schindler's blog name and fact he was favorite of conservatives because he was highly critical of Hillary and her email server and his articles have been published in Jared Kushner's Observer.

National Review article from Sept 2015:

" On his blog, XX Committee — named for the British committee that created the Double-Cross System, one of the most successful counter-espionage operations of World War II — Schindler gives an excruciatingly detailed account of the ways in which Clinton’s private server compromised international security. "

"Schindler has amassed a loyal following, particularly among conservatives, for his blunt missives on cyber-security, foreign policy, and intelligence. His experience as an NSA analyst has made him a unique player in debates over the NSA metadata program laid bare by Edward Snowden, the Chinese hacking of the Office of Personnel Management’s database, and the Clinton scandal known in the Twittersphere as “#EmailGate.” His contribution comes in translating intelligence- and security-speak — often an impenetrable argot — for the uninitiated."

In Observer July 2016 article Schindler is quoted :

I’m anything but a Hillary fan..... However, I am far more troubled by the naked interference of the Kremlin and its spy agencies in American democracy, which is a threat to our freedoms beyond anything the Clintons might do. Every American should demand thorough investigation of the DNC leak and it’s well past time for the mainstream media to examine closely what Wikileaks really is—as I’ve been doing for years. It’s satisfying to see my reality-based counterintelligence analysis of Wikileaks finally being endorsed by the media, but I would have preferred if they had paid attention earlier and the current election-year disaster with DNC emails had been avoided."

Schindler has been consistent about his conviction that Assange/Wikileaks/Snowden/Putin have colluded and are serious threats to America- he has been sounding this alarm for years so it makes sense that his focus is now anti-Trump & Co instead of Hillary, now that it seems clear Wikileaks and Russians interfered in our election to benefit Trump and it is also indisputable that Trump & Co. have been lying and trying to cover up their Russian contacts.

DUers can look at his and Mensch's past and reach conclusions about why they are sounding alarms now, without accepting all of their past or present hunches and claims unquestioningly. But it isn't too puzzling to understand why some conservatives who were anti-Hillary are now anti-Trump since Trump has thrown his support behind Putin and Wikileaks that undermined US election and US intelligence services.

https://twitter.com/20committee

[kpete]

50. Please do not tell ME

where to get info

I LOOK everywhere

I try to SEE

[Denzil_DC]

51. I'm reccing this because of the note of caution it sounds about Schindler and Mensch,

the need for which I've brought up here before on a few threads, though I don't agree with all Joe's conclusions in this OP (one of which he's revised as a result of discussions above).

Disclosure: In a previous online life of mine, Joe and I found ourselves on nominally opposing sides, in 2008 or so, though barely locked horns. His online persona is no stranger to me, and I think I can vouch for his Democratic bona fides, FWIW.

Similarly, I encountered Schindler and his online associates a few years ago in the context of other security issues, and being a Brit, I'm well acquainted with Louise Mensch, and hence very cautious about her.

I take what Schindler and Mensch post with a pinch of salt, but they're worth taking into account. I just wouldn't take what they say as gospel, just like any other online pundits (including me and Joe!).

Add them to the jigsaw where they fit, but allow for the fact you may have to disassemble it at a later stage in the light of new information.

[Ilsa]

60. So, the long game is simply to

get trump in, then create the appearance of treachery to start a civil war in the US, at which time Russia invades the Baltic nations, Poland, etc? I'll happily admit to not being able to comprehend enough about espionage and geopolitics. But I'm hard-pressed to see my way through to another conclusion. Please help me.

[ananda]

63. No matter what I read or hear ..

.. if I keep my eye on the Russian-45 ball, I will be fine.

The Russian agenda is to destabilize our democracy, to undermine
democratic ideas and processes.

They have done that. They don't really care who is in office as long
as our democracy is destroyed and they can get what they want ..
which is riches beyond belief and hegemony over eastern Europe..
and oil in the Middle East.

45, his family and cohorts, are all part of this process because of
the internecine business interests involved.

Rachel Maddow is a good show to watch for that right now.

There are other good sources too. Twitter is NOT the only source.

[KittyWampus]

64. A newcomer trying to discredit two people who have actually been fairly accurate exposing Trump

While Russian-bots are doing the exact same thing trying to discredit Mensch and Schindler at this very moment.

Mensch and Schindler are human beings and thus, not infallible and also entitled to their bias just as anyone else is.

And other political, intelligence figures I trust link posts to Mensch and Schindler's tweets.

[nolabels]

66. Makes plausible sense and given the track record.......

Double and triple cross could be in the cards. After watching the enigma that unfolded with 9/11 to which has many contradictory clues with hard evidence that cannot be explained in the synopsis. Many people have been told what to think and that is just what they do and only or mostly because it is easier for them. Yea, I would say don't be sold on any of it, especially if there is unexplained evidence that points the other way.

After fourteen years hanging out at DU I would say a lot of things are spooked filled and not the way they seem to ordinary people. Think about the investments that would be lost if the majority of the people in the world trusted one another. And they felt that things were being done for posterity. It would be a whole different kind of world for people who thought hoarding was best.

[Koinos]

68. Wow! Only 24 posts and full of Russian and Wikileaks talking points!

John Schindler and Louise Mensch are imperfect, but their narratives are logical and "make sense" to this very informed DU member.

The OP curiously follows the Putin-operated Wikileaks propaganda position and almost totally ignores the pervasive influence of the Russians in this cabal.

The CIA and FBI are quite flawed, but they are practically all we have to defeat this cyber invasion by a hostile foreign power. Putin is not our friend, and the CIA and FBI are not our enemies ... yet.

I advise everyone to pay attention to Rachel Maddow, Louise Mensch, John Schindler, Malcolm Nance, Gary Kasparov, Scott Dworkin, Adam Khan, Laurence Tribe, Eric Eichenwald, David Corn, Juan Cole, Evan McMullin, Keith Olbermann, and many other brave souls who are helping us dispel the cloud of Trump/Russian/Wikileaks obfuscation and propaganda. Follow their tweets, their publications, and their interviews.

And don't forget Christopher Steele, whose dossier becomes more and more credible every day.

Here we have 24 posts and almost nothing about the Russian threat that faces us all. I write this "to sound a note of caution" (in the words of the poster).

We must read everything, but with critical intelligence. There is a blizzard of Russian propaganda in social media, including DU.

[GliderGuider]

71. Well said.

And a very good list of names to follow.

[Koinos]

76. Thank you.

Louise Mensch and John Schindler must be doing something right, since they are undergoing concentrated and blistering attacks by Russian-backed keyboards.

Everyone needs to focus. There is one big elephant in the room right now -- the Trump-Russia collusion. We'll worry about fixing the FBI, CIA, and all the rest later. Right now, Democrats and like-minded Republicans have got to work together to rid our country of anti-democratic foreign and domestic tyrannical forces.

[GliderGuider]

79. 100%

I've been watching the troll army mount their assault on twitter. Their activity seems oddly proportional to Trump's mounting panic.

I have done a complete about-face on the Intel Community in the last 4 months. Now instead of seeing it as a core threat to democracy, I see it as the last dike between us and the raging sea.

As Schindler and Mensch are saying, "Keep your eye on the ball." Compared to Trump/Russia everything else is irrelevant at the moment. If we win Trump/Russia we can deal with all the other stuff. If we lose, none of it will matter.

[Koinos]

83. I agree with everything you say.

The stakes are high. If we are foolish and miss the point, we lose everything. November 8, 2016 will go down in history as the expiration date of our fragile democracy.

It is unbelievably hard sometimes to filter out all the lies and diversions. They are coming from everywhere, even from a few so-called "liberals." Jill Stein, who dined with Putin and Flynn, is one such obfuscator.

In general, if Trump or any of his co-conspirators or Russian-fed organizations (like Wikileaks or RT) attack someone, I assume (until proven otherwise) that that person being attacked is a friend to democracy and is speaking the truth, no matter what party affiliation that person may have.

Dictators hate and fear the truth, and people who speak the truth are their enemies.

[pkdu]

86. THIS... nt

[PaulaFarrell]

72. Louise mensch is a laughingstock in the UK

Will never trust her, even if once in a blue moon she hates the same person I do. She is still a rabid FAILED conservative ex-MP. Here she is in all her glory:

Whatever she's doing at the moment, she is no friend to leftists. Not sure she's bright enough to pull off a double cross though...

[GliderGuider]

84. As was said above,

I really don't care what she is like or does outside of this reporting. I already know she's quite conservative, and I pass over a lot of her Twitter feed because of that. But on Trump/Russia she has been right on the mark. I have had no previous exposure to her, so my view isn't flavoured with personal distaste.

If she turns out to have a hidden agenda I'll dump her in the same wheelie bin that now holds Assange, Snowden and Greenwald. However, from the nature of the attacks against her, I'm of the opinion that her only agenda in this case is defeating Putin and Trump by an investigation of the truth.

he has enough independent corroboration at this point (e.g. on her FISA warrant scoop) to make her stories look pretty golden.

[PaulaFarrell]

90. Her only agenda is herself

She is Sarah Palin with an expensive boarding school education. And to trust someone who is fundamentally against your principles just because they're saying something you want to hear is not a good idea,,in my opinion,

[MineralMan]

73. One blogger, casting asparagus on a couple of other bloggers.

How novel...

[msanthrope]

103. It's hugh. Series, even. nt

[flamingdem]

74. Excellent and important info

Will have to review some of these bloggers older posts.

I don't think they're presenting fake news though - they just like getting attention and having scoops.

[bigtree]

75. hokey net journalism

...calling other net journalism hokey.

[saidsimplesimon]

82. Sorry, Milo

is a bit actor given a place on the national stage for no rational reason, imo. I have always said that Assange and WikiLeaks do not reflect my values or that of the majority. They are bit players in a manufactured drama. Wikileaks is a vulnerable mouthpiece, Czar Putin understands this.

[TNLib]

87. Nah Schindler seems very anti-Russian, anti-Snowden and anti-wiki leaks

and very pro CI and NSA. I don't think he's political unless you think being pro deep state as political. Right now he's fighting the good fight next administration we'll probably hate him.

[blogslut]

89. Thank you

I have brought up before that Schindler works for Kushner and that I think that's weird. Schindler may be correct in his assessments but it's still weird. AFAIK, Kushner still owns observer.com.

As for Ms. Mensch, when she swore up and down that the tall blonde man playing golf with BLOTUS during the Abe visit was the Russian dude with the plane - it wasn't. It was a German pro-golfer. I don't think she has ever corrected this. I think she jumps to conclusions somewhat carelessly.

I'm not saying the BLOTUS isn't in cahoots with Vlad. I'm not saying that both Schindler and Mensch are agents of disinfo. But I do know that I've been burned before.

I'm not ready to accept everything the OP says but I'm not going to join the pile-on either.

[KittyWampus]

93. The OP made a conspiracy out of the name "20 Committee" and it was explained by someone posting

Schindler's own words.

And Mensch may have made an erroneous comment about some golfer... but she was the first person I saw doing the Plane Spotting several weeks ago. Well before anyone else was doing the same.

[GliderGuider]

97. Not to mention her FISA warrant scoop

Two months ahead of the UK Independent.

All reporters get a detail wrong now and again, but the core thrust of her argument is, IMO, correct. I think she's right about Sessions, and I am personally convinced that she's right about Comey and his glomar. The catfishing story fits the events and makes sense out of things that are otherwise pretty inexplicable, like the Red Notice issued for Nikulin. And as you note, there's her plane spotting work.

I quite like her attitude - not so much "can do" as "fuck you."

[peggysue2]

94. Caution is the point

Think Joe Cannon's main point is simply a reminder: use caution while reading anyone, even the current popular reads like Schindler and Mensch. The 20 Committee theory? It's an interesting tidbit, something I wouldn't have picked up. To my knowledge, Joe C has no on-the-ground intelligence experience. Rather, he's been interested in the subject over a lifetime--lots of reading and research.

To be honest, I was really disturbed (and surprised) reading Schindler's comments about Hillary Clinton, quotes dating to last September about her ties to Russian banks and accusing the Clinton Foundation of major foul play. Now, he's all negative about Trump? Maybe he's doing a reverse Mikey routine: he hates everyone of the political class. Don't know. But Schindler and Mensch appear to be buddy-buddies, which gives me pause. I plan on taking Joe's advice:check out backgrounds and earlier publications before following the herd.

That being said, I've found most of Schindler/Mensch's comments about Trump and his cabal fitting nicely into my own view. Is this confirmation bias? What I'm certain about is that this Administration is incompetent and dreadful and seemingly bent on self-destruction. I don't want to see the whole country go down with them. Putin may but I do not.

The other thing that worries me is having the waters muddied to the point where we cannot tell fact from fiction. In my mind that's what disinformation is all about: utter confusion. It fits nicely into the Trump/Bannon spin--believe only them. It makes the job of investigators, researchers and reporters all the more difficult, requiring every i dotted and t crossed. Because even small errors will be used to crush the credibility of the press. And Lord knows, we need them right now!

[riverwalker]

96. We are all cautious now

I follow Mensch and Schindler, they have been right on so many things regarding Trump/Russia.
Schindler has a keen sense of humor and does not tolerate fools lightly. He has human imperfections, but his patriotism is unquestionable, he says this is no longer about politics.
So many of us gave money to Jill Steins "Recount Fund" after the election, because our hearts were broken and we were so vulnerable. She took advantage of that and I feel so dumb giving her money.

[hatrack]

101. Yeah, grain of salt. No, shit, we get it.

Thanks for the Pro Tip, Jason Bourne.