Louise Mensch: House Judiciary Committee drawing up Articles of Impeachment

[brooklynite]

Can we finally agree that everything she writes is basically fiction?
- - - -
Multiple sources close to the intelligence, justice and law enforcement communities say that the House Judiciary Committee is considering Articles of Impeachment against the President of the United States.

Sources further say that the Supreme Court notified Mr. Trump that the formal process of a case of impeachment against him was begun, before he departed the country on Air Force One. The notification was given, as part of the formal process of the matter, in order that Mr. Trump knew he was not able to use his powers of pardon against other suspects in Trump-Russia cases. Sources have confirmed that the Marshal of the Supreme Court spoke to Mr. Trump.

It was reported this week that Mr. Trump had texted Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn the message ‘Stay strong’. This might be interpreted as an attempt to intimidate a witness, sources say.

https://patribotics.blog/2017/05/20/exclusive-judiciary-committee-considering-articles-of-impeachment/

[pnwmom]

1. How about not misquoting her?

Saying that the House is "considering" Articles of Impeachment isn't the same as saying they are "drawing up Articles of Impeachment."

A Representative has formally called for Impeachment. This is a fact. So now the House must decide how to respond. They are "considering" articles of impeachment -- they haven't drawn them up or decided on them.

Also, there were reports yesterday that the White House is now studying the rules of impeachment. Just a coincidence? Maybe.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/17/politics/al-green-impeachment-call/

Washington (CNN)Democratic Rep. Al Green of Texas called for the impeachment of President Donald Trump Wednesday morning, the first member of Congress to officially request leveling charges against the President from the House floor.

"This is about my position. This is about what I believe. And this is where I stand. I will not be moved. The President must be impeached," Green said on the floor. "For those who do not know, impeachment does not mean that the President would be found guilty. It simply means that the House of Representatives will bring charges against the President. It's similar to an indictment but not quite the same thing."

Green, who previewed his call with a tweet earlier, said it was the House of Representative's "duty" to take up impeachment.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/19/politics/donald-trump-white-house-lawyers-research-impeachment/

Washington (CNN)White House lawyers have begun researching impeachment procedures in an effort to prepare for what officials still believe is a distant possibility that President Donald Trump could have to fend off attempts to remove him from office, two people briefed on the discussions tell CNN.

White House officials believe the President has the backing of Republican allies in Congress and that impeachment is not in the cards, according to the people briefed on the legal discussions. Even Democrats have tried to calm impeachment talk out of concern it is premature.

But lawyers in the White House counsel's office have consulted experts in impeachment during the past week and have begun collecting information on how such proceedings would work, a person briefed on the matter told CNN.

The White House originally did not comment for this story. After publication, a White House official said "it's not true" that White House lawyers are researching impeachment procedures.

[brooklynite]

19. Sorry, this was dirextly from her blog

[emulatorloo]

27. You're misquoting her still. Mensch:"considering", you:"Drawing up"

Blog: "House Judiciary Committee is considering Articles of Impeachment against the President of the United States."

You: "Louise Mensch: House Judiciary Committee drawing up Articles of Impeachment"

Can you not see that you've mischaracterized what Mench wrote? "Considering" is not the same word/concept as "drawing up."

By all means question her creditibility, but be accurate and not put words in her mouth

Again I'll note this is so not like you. You are always precise. I assume it was an honest mistake. Why not correct it?

[pnwmom]

28. No, it wasn't. YOU used the phrase "drawing up." She said "considering."

Those are two different things. You misquoted her.

[former9thward]

69. No the House is not "considering" impeachment.

She is giving her typical fake news. A House member making a statement does not mean the rest of the House is "considering" the subject matter. Any member of the House can say anything. If a member of the House says they are for single payer does that mean the rest of the House must "consider" it ?

[pnwmom]

72. How do you know they aren't at some stage of considering impeaching him?

Last edited Sat May 20, 2017, 11:02 PM - Edit history (1)

You can "consider" an idea.

"Drawing up" articles is an action, not an idea.

[former9thward]

78. LOL

If that was happening there would be a thousand leaks to the MSM. But continue to believe her tweets. Someone has to.

[grantcart]

29. You are the one that is going off point

You are quoting articles about people studying the back ground of impeachment

Here are some of the hilarious allegations she made quoted from the article

"Sources say that the Supreme Court notified Mr. Trump that the formal process of a case of impeachment against him was begun . . ".

1) No formal process has begun
2) The Supreme Court has no involvement in impeachment
3) There would be no formal process until a vote was taken, in which case it would be the House of Rep.

But why bother with impeachment when he has already been indicted in this hilarious "breaking news"

https://patribotics.blog/2017/05/14/exclusive-sealed-indictment-granted-against-donald-trump/

Perhaps you also agree that Nance didn't write the book that he is famous for?

Personally I think that Nance said it best:

“She’s batshit crazy, OK?” Nance told The Daily Beast. “She is a fruit loop of the highest order.”

Right under every one of her "Exclusive" breaking nonsense is this message

If we only had more money we could prove what we are reporting. If you really believe this con then I guess you must be sending her money to prove what she says that she already knows.

Interesting thing about Mensch: despite being in a corporation that is having breaking news about its own scandals every day she doesn't have any breaking news about her employer Robert Murdoch.

Why would anyone believe someone who works for Murdoch?

[emulatorloo]

34. One can question Mensch's credibility without fabricating quotes

Don't you think?

I've always had an issue with misquotation and quotation out of context. I always will.

Knowing the OP I expect it was an honest mistake.. I hope it gets corrected.

[grantcart]

40. In using "drawing up" the OP understated the meaning of Mensch not over stating it

Read the article again word for word, especially this para

quote

Sources further say that the Supreme Court notified Mr. Trump that the formal process of a case of impeachment against him was begun, before he departed the country on Air Force One. The notification was given, as part of the formal process of the matter, in order that Mr. Trump knew he was not able to use his powers of pardon against other suspects in Trump-Russia cases. Sources have confirmed that the Marshal of the Supreme Court spoke to Mr. Trump

unquote

This is not considering. She is stating as a confirmed fact that Pamela Talkin, the Marshal of the Supreme Court personally met with Mr. Trump to tell him that the formal process of impeachment has "begun".

Not considered, not drawn up but already begun.

Of course this is low grade bs, the Supreme Court has no involvement in Impeachment in the House of Representatives. The Supreme Court's only involvement is after the House has voted for Impeachment the Chief Justice of the SC presides over trial in the Senate.

Considering that the Mensch is stating that the "formal" process has already "begun" I really don't think that the OP has overstated the main focus of the article by his title.

[emulatorloo]

47. Grant I've got a lot of respect for you, but I don't like misquotations.

Obviously the Supreme Court stuff is confused nonsense. And easily attacked. I take Mensch w a big ole boulder of salt and continue to do so.

We spent several months in GDP 2016 hell pushing back on hatchet jobs based on misquotations, out of context quotations, and quotations with key words omitted.

I've found misquotation infuriating since I got old enough to understand it and notice it.

I became especially infuriating when Fox News came to prominence and used this tactic as their bread and butter.

I can't turn that off.

[grantcart]

53. Two Points

1) There is no difference between "considering" and "drawing up". If you are considering articles of impeachment then you would have to draw them up so you could see exactly what you are considering. If you are drawing up articles of impeachment that would mean by definition that you are considering them

I suspect that the word was changed to fit the title

2) Louise Mensch works for Rupert Murdoch.

[emulatorloo]

55. I hope yr not suggesting she's "Pro-Trump" because of point 2.

As to point 1, would it be accurate to claim Lieu is "drawing up" articles of impeachment?

No.

Sounds like he's considering impeachment and doing some research

Link to tweet

/photo/1

[grantcart]

61. She is not a friendly, she is a professional Conservative politician who is looking to cash out.

She helped her mother win a conservative seat from the Liberal Democrats in England

She ran for her own Conservative seat and was elected to Parliament

She works for Rupert Murdoch

For 20 years she has been trying to find a multitude of ways to cash out with different internet ventures, this is simply the latest one.

She has published a dozen wild conspiracy theories including that Putin murdered Brietbart, etc, etc.

She has attacked Malcolm Nance. She promotes herself as a conservative.

Ted Lieu is neither considering nor drawing up articles of impeachment which would be based on facts that have been presented to the committee. Neither the FBI, the Special Prosecutor nor their own investigators have established enough known facts to come even close to it. Identifying Kushner as a person of interest, for example is not an impeachable offense for Trump, a specific misdemeanour or felony would have to be proven.

Ted Lieu is doing general background research so that when facts are presented he can consider/draw up specific Articles of Impeachment.

[emulatorloo]

63. I know Mensch's history. I also know about Schmidt, Frum, Wilson, and other professional

conservatives who are anti-Trump.

Have a great night!

[grantcart]

73. Complete fallacy

A is not B

B is not C

so your conclusion is A = C

Just because you have conservatives that don't like does that equate them with Mensch. Why stop with guys like Frum? What about Bush family etc.

There is a very clear binary line here, you can believe Malcolm Nance or Louise Mensch.

Louise Mensch says that Nance is lying that he didn't really write his widely acclaimed book.

Malcolm Nance says "“She’s batshit crazy, OK?” Nance told The Daily Beast. “She is a fruit loop of the highest order.”

I prefer Nance but if you want to join Mensch you will have a lot of company at NewsCorp including Rupert Murdoch who hired her to launch his internet site Heat Street and still employs her.

[emulatorloo]

93. I think you missed the point.

You claim Mensch is pretending to be anti-Trump because she is a "Professional Consevative."

I gave you the names of some prominent professional conservatives who are also anti-Trump.

Are they pretending to be anti-Trump? If I apply the arguments you've made about Mensch, they are.

But in reality they aren't.

I've told you I take Mensch's tweets with a huge boulder of salt.

We have a disagreement. It happens.

That being said, I'm really not comfortable with your efforts to paint me as a gullible fool, intellectually deficient, and ignorant about history and right-wing media.

People on DU can have disagreements without insulting each other.

It's been my impression over the years that's not how you roll. I'd like to think your passions have over-ruled your civility in this case.

Take care and carry on.

[grantcart]

95. You defended Mensch by grouping her with conservative critics.

That is a fallacy and labelling it, correctly, is not an insult.

You say that you take Mensch with a huge boulder of salt. She shouldn't be taken with any salt. She should be exposed and ridiculed. She is not our friend and giving her any validation supports the charge that Trump is being assaulted with "false news".

Her reports that Trump has been indicted, that impeachment has already begun formally should be laughed out of DU not defended by misapplied logic that since she is anti Trump that she is harmless and possibly an asset.

She undermines true allegations with ridiculous assertions.

I have said NOTHING to you or about you that is the least bit uncivil, I have simply pointed out factually why Mensch is not our friend and why her actions undermine our efforts and do not contribute to them.

[emulatorloo]

96. I'm done engaging with you on this topic.

Take care and enjoy the rest of your weekend.

[womanofthehills]

67. Ted Lieu is sure talking about impeachment and he's not being subtle

"The first hint came on Thursday, when Ted Lieu tweeted “This is the House Judiciary Committee. Fun fact: If there are impeachment proceedings, this is where it would start. Just sayin'” – along with a photo taken from his seat on the committee (link). But last night he decided to be more direct about it, tweeting that “I am on the House Judiciary Committee. This is what I am going to read this evening” (link) while including an image of this document:"
https://www.palmerreport.com/politics/impeach-ted-lieu-trump/2963/


(Louise Mensch is a conservative who hates Trump and Putin and most of the Republican Congress. She said she only likes a few Republicans - mostly she likes John McCain.)


And as far as the Putin murdered Brietbart:

[grantcart]

71. Let's compare

Ted Lieu "IF" there is impeachment "THIS" is where it would start.

Louise Mensch believes that an indictment has already been delivered (presumably from a grand jury) and that the impeachment is has laready begun formally, picks up a weekly check from Murdoch, thinks Putin killed Brietbart (and lots of other weird conspiratorial bs) makes reckless charges against Nance, has launched about a dozen internet schemes to cash in big and is now running one where she wants you, because you are a big supporter to SEND HER MONEY.

Ted Lieu uses a very carefully worded conditional statement that establishes that he is studying it, but it is conditional on facts not yet submitted, and he wants his followers to be well informed on both the law and the facts

Louise Mensch states that both indictment and impeachment are underway, that the Marshal for the Supreme Court has already met with Trump to advise him that the formal process has begun (something that the Marshal for the Supreme Court would never do, has nothing to do with the Supreme Court), a statement that asserts an absolute fact that we know has not happened, and she wants you to pay her money.

So I see absolutely NOTHING similar between the two except that you are correct that they both used the word "impeachment" although with completely different perspectives.

I googled the Putin killed Breitbart assertion and found this quote on her tweeter thread


quote
I absolutely believe that Andrew Breitbart was murdered by Putin, just as the founder of RT was murdered by Putin.
Feb 24th 2017
unquote

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fgregp-3534%2F2017%2F02%2F24%2Flouise-mensch-thinks-putin-assassinated-andrew-breitbart%2F

But when you are a true believer no amount of factual input will have any impact so take your credit card out and send some dollars to Mensch, that is what she is really all about. If you don't think that she is earnest about establishing some kind of way to monetize herself then look at the nearly dozen times she has tried in the past, from fashion to social media she has been trying to open up a path to make money from an online persona, something that her employer, Rupert Murdoch encourages her to do. Oddly even with all of the big breaking news from News Corp she hasn't single breaking item and she has an office there.

[Me.]

79. Looks Like The Swarm Is Still After Louise

[L. Coyote]

2. That IS NOT what she said. Don't use Fake News to bash her.

Link to tweet

[triron]

14. Thanks L Coyote!

Why the animosity here on DU?? Even one of my posts using Mensch as a source was removed! Why the censorship??

[mhw]

16. She outed someone 's mask.

Some didn't like it.

[L. Coyote]

60. I'd love to see the Admin stats on who alerts for what. MIRT needs a good statistical tool.

And why do people here not accept statistics as a science when it comes to election results. They don't complain about statistics when Trump's favorabilty (I know, what favorability?) is reported using polling!

[FBaggins]

90. It really doesn't matter... Since the actual title is equally damaging to her credibility

Congressional committees can't "consider" something until it is referred to them by the House. Articles of impeachment do not originate in the judiciary committee.

[emulatorloo]

3. See Rep Ted Lieu's tweet and get back to us.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029093941

Link to tweet

/photo/1

I think most DU'ers read Mench's stuff with a degree of skepticism. She's been ahead of the curve quite a few times though.

[sarisataka]

5. 2015...?

[pnwmom]

7. As a model, is how I understood that. nt

[sarisataka]

10. Not so sure about that

And until we can get 238 votes to approve the articles point is moot

We even haven't touched on getting 67 Senators to convect

[pnwmom]

15. It can BOTH be true that a House committee is considering

how to act on the Congressman's call for impeachment AND that, upon consideration, the GOP led committee will simply say no.

[sarisataka]

20. The problem is

IF the committee is willing to consider it I think they will do so once, especially a call for impeachment from a Democrat.

In my opinion all the wild speculation does yes make it easier for Republicans to dismiss it as political grandstanding.

Yet how many people are treating this as a done deal and already asking how do we get rid of Pence? I would think we would have learned something about counting our victories before all the votes are in.

[emulatorloo]

9. Tweet sent May 19th 2017.

Does it surprise you that folks on the committee would do research into existing documents?

Please note OP misquoted Mench. This is what Mench actually tweeted:

"ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT being considered by Judiciary Committee"

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. This is factually flat-out wrong on several points.

(1) If true, it would have leaked to a reliable source by now. (2) An initial investigation would have conducted by the Judiciary Committee or by a select or special committee, to which investigating and reporting duties are delegated by resolution after charges have been presented. This process would be public information; but since nobody seems to know about it, it's safe to conclude it has not happened. (3) The Supreme Court has no involvement in the impeachment process, which is controlled by the House of Representatives, except that the Chief Justice serves as the presiding judge in the Senate trial. Any notification would come from the House of Representatives. Furthermore, the courts have no power to prevent a president from issuing pardons for federal crimes, since this power is conferred by the Constitution.

It's obvious that Mensch doesn't know squat about how the process works. She's either repeating gossip from some other, equally ignorant source, or she's just making shit up and doesn't know enough about how impeachment is done or who does it, to make her story credible.

[womanofthehills]

21. AM Joy - speculating about the probability/possibility of impeachment

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

23. It's fine to speculate. Just get the facts straight about how it works.

Mensch didn't.

[womanofthehills]

26. I believe Mensch said "being considered"

[Foamfollower]

88. She also said the SCOTUS "notified Mr. Trump that the formal process of a case of impeachment"

That's complete utter bullshit. Doesn't happen that way. She flat out lied.

[womanofthehills]

43. FALSE- the Supreme Court can be involved thru the "take care clause"

Thus, a ruling by the Supreme Court that a president violated the “take care clause” could open up the possibility of impeachment proceedings against the president.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-holtzman/the-supreme-court-and-pre_b_10595736.html

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

48. A finding by the Supreme Court that a president has violated the "take care" clause

could be a *basis* for the commencement of impeachment proceedings by the House, but my point was that the Supreme Court has absolutely *no* role in the impeachment *procedure*, which is entirely within the purview of the Congress. The article you cited says this: "Significantly, the framers of the Constitution explicitly considered, but turned down, a role for the Supreme Court in the initiation of presidential impeachment proceedings."

The statement in the tweet that the Supreme Court has issued a "warning" to Trump that impeachment was being considered cannot be true because any notification would come from the House Judiciary Committee (probably via WH counsel); the Supreme Court has no procedural function or jurisdiction at this point. And the alleged reason for this claimed notification - that Trump had to be warned not to pardon anybody - can't be true either, because the Constitution grants the exclusive power to pardon federal crimes to the president; and no court can prevent a pardon and there is no appeal.

Again, the point is that Mensch misstated factual information that showed a lack of knowledge of how the process works. Is this because she was just repeating a rumor she heard from an equally ignorant source and didn't try to verify it?

[FBaggins]

91. The part you're missing is that there couldn't have BEEN such a ruling

The Supreme Court lacks the ability to initiate such a decision. There has to be a case brought before them. They can't look out into the world and say "that's a Constitutional violation... we have to put the offender 'on notice'". Even in those rare cases where they have original jurisdiction, someone with standing has to at least bring a suit - which would be part of the public record.

Nor does the spin about the "take care clause" mean anything... because Congress decides what is impeachable (which certainly could include "failure to take care that the laws are faithfully executed&quot - The courts don't need to do anything for that to be true. Congress has all the authority that it needs to make that determination on its own.

[sarisataka]

6. It has become the conditioned response

[kentuck]

8. The reason I doubt this story?

The Judiciary Committee is run by a majority of Republicans. Which would go along with Democrats to push it out of Committee??

[pnwmom]

11. That doesn't mean they couldn't "consider" it. They could then reject the motion.

But there has been a formal call for impeachment, by a Congressman from Texas, so they probably have an obligation to consider it.

[kentuck]

13. But, hasn't that been reported on the news already?

Sort of old news, isn't it?

[pnwmom]

30. His call was in the news. If the House is now considering his call for impeachment,

that would be a different story.

[SaschaHM]

22. No, they're not under any obligation to act on a minority member speech or motion.

That's the thing about the House. The majority rules (almost) absolutely. They control which motions are considered and which things are even brought to a vote. The biggest and only thing the minority party can do is try to force a vote on a discharge petition and that's about it. Al Green's speech was just a speech w/ no binding force behind it. To them it doesn't exist. If Republicans aren't pushing it on the judiciary committee then it's not happening regardless of how many Dems call for it.

[womanofthehills]

68. lawyer Sara Smith

Sarah Smith@SarahLSmith677
impeachment proceedings have begun BC they begin moment a legislator formally calls for it, which occurred from House floor this week

[SaschaHM]

70. They're wrong. The steps are clear and proscribed in official literature that is readily available.

AL Green did not formally call for impeachment because he did not take the correct steps to do it. He called for it in a speech. In order for it to be taken seriously, he has to list charges against the individual under oath or ask for a referral of Articles of Impeachment to the appropriate committee. This isn't something that someone can instigate by using the words "impeachment" in a speech.

[DFW]

12. This cannot happen yet

The Freedom Toast is not yet finished with their four new musical satires on Trump, and the effort cannot go to waste.

[emulatorloo]

18. Lol

[DFW]

31. I mean, consider some of their past classics:

&t=139s

&t=22s

&t=26s

[emulatorloo]

35. Thank you so much! Made my day much brighter!

[DFW]

37. We didn't do many during the Obama years

But we have four planned. Three of the sound tracks are already done. The videos take longer.

[emulatorloo]

39. Exciting! Can not wait!

[DFW]

41. I'll announce them here on the board as they get done.

We are kind of spread out (Europe, Atlanta), so it's difficult to coordinate.

[emulatorloo]

17. You're misquoting Mench.

Just as that person misquoted Pelosi the other day.

Mench wrote this: "ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT being considered by Judiciary Committee"

You wrote this: "Louise Mensch: House Judiciary Committee drawing up Articles of Impeachment"

Which she didn't say.

Kind of hard to make a compelling argument based on a misquotation.

I've read you for a long time, I find this to be pretty uncharacteristic of you.

[onenote]

24. This is absurd on its face. The "Supreme Court" has no role in impeachment proceedings

The CJ presides over the Senate trial. But the Court itself has no role and the idea that notifying the President that impeachment is being considered by the Judiciary Committee is something the 9 member Supreme Court (or even the CJ) does is laughably wrong.

By the way, where are those arrests Mensch predicted were imminent five weeks ago.

She and Taylor are fucking jokes.

[womanofthehills]

42. WRONG-a ruling by the Supreme Court that a president violated the take care clause could open up

the possibility of impeachment proceedings against the president. It could be an invitation to members of the House of Representatives to initiate proceedings, since they would be relying on the highest court’s determination that a ground for impeachment existed. It could create tremendous political pressure on House members to support impeachment, because it would be difficult to disagree with a Supreme Court determination that a violation had occurred.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-holtzman/the-supreme-court-and-pre_b_10595736.html

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

66. You don't seem to understand the difference between what's necessary

to start impeachment proceedings and the substantive bases for those proceedings. Once again, the Supreme Court has NO jurisdiction over impeachment, which is entirely within the purview of the House of Representatives. If they were to decide, in an entirely separate proceeding that involved the constitutionality of an executive order (for example), that a president had violated the take care clause (this has never happened, by the way), that decision theoretically COULD form a basis for articles of impeachment as prepared by the House Judiciary Committee and issued by the full House. But it would not have to, since that decision would not be res judicata as to any action by the House. In any event, none of this has ever happened. There is nothing - NOTHING - the Supreme Court can do to COMPEL the initiation of impeachment proceedings. The House has to do that regardless of what the Supreme Court decides about the take care clause.

And the notion that the Supreme Court has "notified" Trump that impeachment proceedings are commencing and he must not pardon anybody who might be involved in the Russia investigation is pure fantasy because (a) notification would come from the House Judiciary Committee, not the Supreme Court (because they have nothing to do with impeachment proceedings and probably wouldn't know it was happening until they read about it in the paper); and (b) the Supreme Court can't prevent a president from pardoning anybody - the Constitution gives that power solely to the president.

[onenote]

75. thanks. I don't know if i could have responded as politely to you

[SlimJimmy]

81. The "take care" clause of the Constitution, or more formally

the "Take care that the laws are faithfully executed" clause is not really a basis for impeachment. If it were, then the House would have surely taken up impeachment proceedings during President Obama's terms. This is nothing more than idle talk. It sounds good, but it will go nowhere. Try to stay focused, and not look foolish.

[frazzled]

25. Send this loony Brit to a course on American Government

She doesn't know the first thing about how things work, thus making her posts laughable. FISA courts don't hand out indictments; impeachment does not originate in the Supreme Court.

Anyone who follows this tommyrot is either foolish or in on the conspiracy.

[womanofthehills]

50. Wrong about impeachment and Supreme Court and Louise

1. Impeachment can originate in the Supreme Court - "take care clause"

2. Claude corrected FISA court tweet right away and said because he is not a lawyer, he got it wrong - he apologized and said the indictments were out the the Eastern District of Virginia.

"Taylor would later issue a tweet thread retracting that statement, explaining that he had been mistaken over the details of which court issued the indictment.

He followed that apology up with a more detailed claim that indictments were prepared against “Trump, Manafort and Flynn—among others” by US Attorney Dana Boente out of the Eastern District of Virginia, a court frequently referred to as the “rocket docket” because of the speed with which cases typically move through its system.

Many skeptics have been crying foul because of the FISA court issue, but it should be noted that Mensch and Taylor’s original report does not mention FISA court, or any issuing court at all."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/5/14/1662319/-About-that-Trump-indictment-story

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

52. The "take care" clause does *not* constitute procedural origination in the Supreme Court.

It only provides a legal basis for the House Judiciary Committee to investigate and possibly commence impeachment proceedings (though this has never actually happened). The Supreme Court has *no* procedural function in impeachment except that the Chief Justice will act as the presiding judge if the matter goes to the Senate for trial. The Constitution grants the power of impeachment entirely to the House of Representatives. "Significantly, the framers of the Constitution explicitly considered, but turned down, a role for the Supreme Court in the initiation of presidential impeachment proceedings." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-holtzman/the-supreme-court-and-pre_b_10595736.html

[onenote]

76. As pointed out above, I'm afraid you are the one that's mistaken about the Court's role

in the impeachment process or, more precisely, lack of any such role.

Mensch's claim that the Supreme Court has notified Trump about activities relating to impeachment allegedly occurring in the House Judiciary Committee as part of the formal process of starting impeachment proceedings is utter bullshit.

[mackdaddy]

83. But a member of The House of Representative HAS made a formal call for Impeachment.

Representative Al Green made a formal call for Impeachment on the house floor on the grounds of Obstruction of Justice. He has been getting death threats since.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/politics/rep-al-green-heads-to-house-floor-to-call-for-impeachment-of-president-trump

This may have more weight that just the bloviating of the Repubs about Obamacare for the last 6 years. This was a formal, on the record call for impeachment. This may have triggered a more formal "have to" inquiry by the Judicial Committee. Rep Ted Lieu tweeted a document he is reviewing about impeachment procedures this weekend. https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029093941

This is all after the Assistant Attorney General gave a private presentation to each house of Congress. Trump in his own words has absolutely and publicly admitted to committing impeachable offenses!

Has all of this formally started the wheels moving that will result in a formal bill of impeachment. I do not understand the law and the process enough to be sure, but it seems like this is real and moving in the initial stages.

[onenote]

86. A speech on the House floor is nothing more than a speech on the House floor

Green's speech is no more a "formal" calll for impeachment than a newspaper interview or an idle comment to the person next to him in the House cafeteria.

The only "formal" way to start an impeachment effort is to introduce a resolution which would then get referred to committee. This has happened on several occasions over the years. For example, Rep Gonzalez introduced multiple impeachment resolutions against Bush. The were referred to committee where they died without being considered.

The notion that the House is considering impeaching Trump is utterly without legal or factual basis.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

57. Which makes me wonder whether she's passing on rumors

from someone who is equally ignorant about these things, or whether she's just pulling stuff out of her butt and making obvious mistakes because she doesn't know what she's talking about.

[MineralMan]

32. And the Marshal of the Supreme Court spoke to Trump!

That's big. But, wait, that's not part of her job description, unless the SCOTUS ordered that, and all SCOTUS orders are published.

So, maybe the Marshal didn't actually do that. Maybe that isn't precisely true. Oh...hmm...maybe there was no "notification" given to Trump. I mean, he doesn't look scared or anything...maybe she's wrong about some of the stuff she said. Wait...maybe she's just talking smack....

[brooklynite]

33. FYI: I copied this VERBATIM from her website

Perhaps, given the implausibility of the story, she decided to change the title.

[Cal Carpenter]

36. Even the wording in the link address says "considering"

and when I google the title you gave it, the only thing that comes up (verbatim) is this thread.

For the record, I'm not a particular Mensch follower and don't feel strongly one way or another about her - I don't think I've ever even posted in a thread about her articles or tweets. I'm just saying what I'm seeing.

[emulatorloo]

38. FYI the wording in the tweet and the blog is "considering". Please correct your title

And as Cal Carpenter notes, the HTML link also says considering.

Questioning Mencsh's credibility is probably a good thing to do.

Your case will be stronger if you don't misrepresent what she said.

[Charlotte Little]

45. Just a heads up

I saw several folks calling her out on Twitter for editing her blog in real time. She's been asked numerous times to put date stamps on her blog posts, but she won't. I don't know if she edited it or not, but there were some murmurings in threads beneath posts about her doing so that makes me think she did.

And yes, I wasted time today reading threads - between the true believers of the Mensch and naysayers, it's a drama all of its own.

[geek tragedy]

44. "Marshal of the Supreme Court."

[ucrdem]

65. She meant the Thurgood Marshal, come on, it was a typo

He's the guy that checks the FISA warranties.

[geek tragedy]

80. I thought that was

Frederick Douglass.

[ucrdem]

85. She meant the exchequer of the circuit court of chancery

I just got the tweet . . .

[anneboleyn]

46. CNN reported Friday that WH lawyers were researching impeachment procedures. I have no

idea what to think of Mensch. It seems that every single weekend here on DU, not during the week for whatever reason, that a series of anti-Mensch posts are left by a few posters. CNN actually reported that WH lawyers, so lawyers that would be representing Trump etc, were researching impeachment procedures. CNN wasn't citing Mensch as a source. Just something to keep in mind. Maybe none of it is true but the Mensch stuff seems over the top to me. DUers can decide for themselves, can they not?

[oberliner]

49. Can't we just not post her stuff?

That would help clear out the BS.

[womanofthehills]

51. If we don't post her stuff, we will not know what will be on MSM next week

You can decide not to read these threads but many of us want to.

[oberliner]

56. The OP wrote that her stuff is "basically fiction"

So I just don't get what the point is of posting something if the poster thinks it is fiction.

[wryter2000]

54. I can agree

The idea a Republican controlled committee is getting ready to impeach is pure fantasy

[brettdale]

58. shes having a laugh

Alex Jones got nothing on her.

Shes not even a good fiction writer.

[Hamlette]

59. has she been right about anything?

I keep hearing of arrests, indictments, and now impeachment and I've not seen anything yet.

I admit I don't pay close attention and am not keeping score but I'm skeptical.

[GliderGuider]

64. Yes.

[onenote]

77. Has she been right about more things than she's been wrong about?

April 13: First arrests may be early as next week.

Link to tweet

?lang=en

Okay, technically not wrong since "as early as" leaves open that arrests could come later than "next week" -- maybe on the first of never.

But that's her deal. Maybes and considering and this that and the other, mixed in with misstatements of the law and fact that anyone with the slightest familiarity of the processes she is describing could debunk.

[Orrex]

89. Funny

When that question is asked, "Has Mensch been right about anything?" her true believers invariably respond with that one-word reply. Not a list of examples (such as should be easy to compile) but rather the pure insistence of her truthiness.

[grantcart]

74. Of course

Read Le Carre and the first step in a political con is to establish credibility with a few well placed leaks. Insert the hook and then you can pull the gullible anywhere you want.

[Voltaire2]

84. Hmmmm.... so if a source has been wrong about

anything then we should consider the source to be an agent of disinformation?

The problem of credibility is serious and difficult. What I do is to basically take it all in, consider plausibility, note trends, assess what the "official narrative - the party line" is, look for what isn't being said, and make my own determination about what is likely going on.

[grantcart]

94. It is serious but not difficult

It is not a question of her being wrong and being considered an agent of disinformation. That point is simply to demolish the most frequent and ardently stated virtue of Mensch by her adoring fans, she was right once.

I don't think she is an agent of disinformation, her latest ramblings are far too wild to fit into disinformation. I As for the question of to know who to trust and who not to, you have 3 alternatives.

1) Enthusiastically agree with what she says because it matches what you want the evidence to be. This is how the people who watch FOX decide what to watch. It is also how most right wing people decide what part of the bible to read.

2) Apply well known "criticisms" which have been used and taught for decades to discern the truth of something. In this case textual criticism and literary criticism is not needed and that leaves us with contextual criticism and redaction criticism.

Contextually we see that in the matter of the FISA warrant the following

quote
In November 2016, Heat Street published an article titled "EXCLUSIVE: FBI 'Granted FISA Warrant' Covering Trump Camp's Ties To Russia", written by Mensch. This article claimed that the alleged FISA warrant giving permission to investigate the Trump campaign, was granted in October 2016, in "connection with the investigation of suspected activity between the server [in Trump Tower] and two banks, SVB Bank and Alfa Bank." The article also alleged that "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."[54][55] The BBC and the Guardian later separately published similar stories corroborating Mensch's scoop, with the Guardian stating it confirmed that "the Mensch and BBC account of the Fisa warrants was correct."[56]
unquote

This validates her source and her method. This conforms to what is happening every day. An intelligence or law enforcement source wants to get some valuable information out so they leak it to a source. Then they follow it up with confirming leaks to other reporters so that people aren't questioning the information but weighing the value of it.

Yesterday all of the bombshell leaks conformed to this context. The WP reported and CNN confirmed, etc.

The problem with Mensch is that virtually everything after her first couple revelations DON'T conform to this model and have become more and more outlandish. The allegation that Trump has been indicted and that formal impeachment has already begun has not only not been confirmed but is laughable.

The other contextual problem for Mensch is that she has a long history of trying to monetize her activity on the internet. She has moved her "reporting" to a site that has aggressive ads for her cyber begging.

On the redaction side we can simply look at similar actions happening in contemporary circumstances and we see that what she is reporting isn't possible. Grand Juries don't indict Presidents and the Marshal of the Supreme Court has nothing to do with impeachment. In a similar vein we see that other people are making money for publishing outlandish nonsense. If she can get a monthly $10 from 5% of the 200,000 followers she would be able to make a million dollars a year.

3) The third choice is safe and easy. Trust those who are trusted sources, distrust those who live with those we distrust.

Malcolm Nance, who demonstrates the highest level of professionalism every night on sources that we trust, says

“She’s batshit crazy, OK?” Nance told The Daily Beast. “She is a fruit loop of the highest order.”

On the distrust side, she works for Rupert Murdoch at a senior level. I find it fascinating that while there are daily leaks about misdeeds at Fox and NewsCorp she doesn't report on any of the misdeeds of her employer.


think it is quite clear that she sees the money that Breitbart made from his site and she is trying to match that. That, for example, is why she purports the silly idea that Putin murdered Breitbart.

[Bleacher Creature]

62. She's bonkers (and being a little dishonest as well).

Based on the responses above, I assume she is basing her statement on the fact that individual members of the committee are "considering" impeachment. That's a major distortion of how things work.

Until you hear something from the Chair, the actions of a couple of members on the minority's side are meaningless. Hell, she's not even basing her claims on Conyers (who hasn't pulled the trigger on this yet).

[OldSchoolLiberal]

82. I agree this is most likely fiction.

But consider this: former Australian PM Abbott was removed from office in Sep 15, after only two years. The first 'fiction' about him being removed appeared just over one year earlier.
Early talk increases the likelihood of something eventually happening.

[Foamfollower]

87. Well, she obviously has no clue whatsoever how our government works, so there's that.

For example, there is no role whatsoever for the SCOTUS in the impeachment process. Should a president be impeached, the CJ resides over the trial in the Senate, but the SCOTUS would NEVER have "notified Mr. Trump that the formal process of a case of impeachment against him was begun".

So she's definitely just making up shit again.

[womanofthehills]

92. TSUNAMI SOON

Link to tweet