The number of people working to dismiss Louise Mensch is growing

[bigtree]

...here at DU, exponentially.

[LonePirate]

1. Did she push out a message about SCOTUS or the Justice Dept. initiating impeachment?

If so, that would explain why people are working to dismiss her today because that's not how impeachment works.

[bigtree]

3. no, she did not

[BzaDem]

43. "Sources have confirmed that the Marshal of the Supreme Court spoke to Mr. Trump."

"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."

Do you believe any of the following?

a) The Marshal of the Supreme Court spoke to Mr. Trump (about anything)
b) Any "sources" have "confirmed" part A
c) Part A is part of the "formal" "process" of impeachment
d) The President can have his pardon power curtailed in any way before he leaves office

[Foamfollower]

85. Dude! She most certainly did!

She's a buffoon making shit up!

[elehhhhna]

28. It's like when you're toddler gets killed by an AK-47 but you call it the wrong name

and all the 2a nutters dismiss the entire event because you got the guns exact product name wrong.

[jberryhill]

2. What does your post contribute to discussion?

[bigtree]

13. lol

[jberryhill]

25. Your post is meant to divide

...and to cast aspersions among people who are unified in their dislike of Trump and desire to see him removed from office as soon as is possible.

[Madam45for2923]

32. ???? I don't see that. I see more like an observation/discussion.

jberryhill
25. Your post is meant to divide


...and to cast aspersions among people who are unified in their dislike of Trump and desire to see him removed from office as soon as is possible.

[jberryhill]

45. Nonsense

Individuals expressing extreme skepticism and caution about things she has claimed are not "people working to discredit" her.

It is a thinly disguised insinuation. And it is a manipulative technique of sowing division and suspicion.

Snowden and Assange were greeted here with open arms. One is now quite comfy with Putin, and the other one clearly has been a tool.

[Madam45for2923]

50. Woah! You still getting a lot from that OP.

I don't agree. But afraid you are going to expound on lots more you get from OP.



jberryhill
45. Nonsense


Individuals expressing extreme skepticism and caution about things she has claimed are not "people working to discredit" her.

It is a thinly disguised insinuation. And it is a manipulative technique of sowing division and suspicion.

[ATL Ebony]

81. Absolutely

I really don't get the purpose of those Mensch "haters" continuously discussing her and vigorously attempting to either persuade others to adopt their view or simply just starting a divisive thread to see how much discord can be achieved. I really question their purpose for being on this site -- as you've stated it contributes nothing to a constructive discussion.

[jberryhill]

82. Still not getting it

This is a discussion forum. People are going to discuss things. Their opinions will differ.

This notion that being critical of Mensch is either telling people what to think, or trying to "shit down discussion" is just plain stupid.

People's opinions will differ. The OP is intended to divide.

[ATL Ebony]

83. But why continue to beat a dead horse unless it's to measure the amount of discord achieved.

So we're clear -- I was not disagreeing with you and have been asking myself why so much Mensch bashing (discussing??, whatever) which serves only to create divisiveness. You don't like her -- fine, ignore her and any threads posting her latest/greatest conspiracy theory.

I'm all for constructive criticisms and discussions but this constant bashing is beyond ridiculous.

[jberryhill]

91. Well that's what people will do

There will continue to be posts promoting her various prophecies and pronouncements, and there will continue to be posts suggesting that she is a charlatan.

These posts will be made by well meaning people whose opinion of her statements differ either way.

But this type of OP does not further any sort of discussion about her reliability or the content of her tweets and blog posts. It is only intended to poison the well.

[mhw]

4. Uncanny isn't it

Why Louise & not Claude I wonder.
They share sources & work hand in hand in outing & troling Putin/Trump.
They cite each others work & have a respectful relationship in doing the work they do.

Why just Louise?
Maybe someone will tell.

[Demit]

11. Don't worry! There's a post under both their names about the Supreme Court's role in

the impeachment process! Which is such a scoop! Until now nobody knew the Supreme Court had a role in the impeachment process! Mainly because it doesn't.

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

[mhw]

17. But that wasn't the question.

Discredit Louise threads: 4
Discredit Claude threads 0

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. I'll start a discredit Claude thread, if you like,

if he's coming up with some of the same daft stuff. The tweet in question came from Louise's account. If it had come from Claude's I'd have said the same thing.

[Demit]

23. Oh, I think they both can share in the discredit.

Neither of them bother to research government processes before they spout off & look foolish.

[elehhhhna]

30. Just like our president! Why should they be held to higher standard than he is

[Sedona]

54. Chief Justice of SCOTUS presides over Senate trial of impeached POTUS

Nt

[Demit]

61. But SCOTUS doesn't notify the president that the impeachment process has begun,

does it? Which is what Mensch & Taylor claimed to have happened.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. Oh, of course it was sexism.

If Claude was responsible for that nonsense then shame on him, too.

[mhw]

19. DU isn't sexist tho. So there is some other reason.

Louise & Claude ref each others reports
I just pointed out an obvious pattern .

[hrmjustin]

36. and what is that "obvious pattern"?

[mhw]

46. What it is, is the many threads started against L Mensch.

While no thread directed against Taylor.

That was my original question.
It just seems obvious & I asked why it is.

Thats it.
K?

[hrmjustin]

60. First of all there have been threads questioning both and she is the more well known of them both.

So there is no pattern.

[mhw]

64. Nope that doesn't fit with what I've seen posted in a few days time.

I think its up to 5 - Louise / 0 - Claude. That's just today.

She has been correct more than not.
But those are ignored in the push to discredit.

Out of the million bloggers & news writers & sleuths online why Louise Mensch?

Its pretty weird.
So back to my question, why just her?

I frankly don't care who follows who online. If they are actively working to expose Putin & Trump & throw us a lead to examine further, from sources they are loyal to protect, then yes I will follow along & see where it leads.
Enjoy your evening.

[AgadorSparticus]

79. +1

[chowder66]

87. I have a problem with Claude too

From his twitter account;

"Remember the death of Seth Rich, the DNC staffer killed in D.C? Intel source says he was killed by Russian Intel for still unknown reasons." Posted May 16, 2017 then abruptly deleted.

http://archive.is/wycec#selection-4081.0-4081.139


My reasoning for focusing on L. Mensch is because I began reading her tweets and her blog. I was reading a lot of the "twitterers" doing their citizen research. I started noticing some challenges to their theories and decided to dig further to know more about who I was wasting my time on. I found enough information for me, to decide not to follow Mensch. Other people I'm following were tweeting her and Taylor. It took a while but I unfollowed those that were retweeting her. When I dug into Taylor I didn't find as much and at least he was quick to correct or clarify and he also didn't seem to be as breathless as Mensch. I'm not following him either. But that post above which has been deleted is concerning and makes me wonder....is that for real? Does he really think that? Has he gotten caught up in the Mensch way of doing things? He's willingly allowing to be linked to Mensch and honestly I think it's a mistake.

I depend on the NYT and Washington Post and various reputable reporters. I really don't need to follow or support independent investigators whether they get a tip or not. I prefer the final result, the facts, the standards of reporting that are far more rigorous than what these guys and gals are presenting.

[mhw]

88. It's clear the Bannon's new alt-right pile-on campaign against Mensch is in force.

As her following grew & she entered the spotlight, she hit a big nerve with Trump's people at the top & Bannon's doing damage control.

Because alt news & nasty name calling worked for him in 2016.
Mensch & her sources are outside the US.
She reports what her sources give her & Bannon can't touch them.

I'll ignore the anti-Mensch chatter & support her even more now.

#"ShutUp"SteveBannon.

[chowder66]

89. And how does that figure into my issue with her? She lives in NY btw.

[pnwmom]

29. We both know why. It's pathetic n/t

[Kentonio]

73. Perhaps because she's a conservative and he's a Democrat.

[kstewart33]

5. Her reputation.

From what I've read, people who've followed her on Twitter say that she's batting .500 on the truth of her 'scoops.'
No more than flipping a coin so I don't follow or pay much attention to her.

[m-lekktor]

6. That number would also include Skinner

from the other day :

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029082086#post1

[MineralMan]

8. Well, Skinner doesn't know EVERYTHING...

[demmiblue]

37. And this:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9081937

I am guessing that he doesn't appreciate DU catering to this line of :ahem: thinking.

[cwydro]

44. He probably isn't too wild about fake news on this site.

We used to be better than this.

It's amazing how many are so gullible here, isn't it?

[m-lekktor]

47. That's what I would assume.

I get annoyed when it is implied that those of us who don't fall for it are trolls.

[cwydro]

65. Yes.

I find that kind of attack amusing...and revealing.

[MineralMan]

7. And so is her coterie of fans.

Hmm...reminds me somehow of YouTube's "Sane" Progressive. She had fans here, too, who posted her videos frequently. Haven't seen that lately, so much.

[bigtree]

16. you mean 'fanatics,' right?

[MineralMan]

41. The word "fan" comes from the word "fanatic."

They are quite closely related. What I meant to say is exactly what I wrote. No more; No less. Thanks for taking the time to read it and reply to it.

[bigtree]

62. Fanaticism leads to counterfanaticism

“Fanaticism leads to counterfanaticism, which is just as much to be feared.”

― Dalai Lama XIV

[Madam45for2923]

90. Oh wow! So perfect! Fanaticism leads to counterfanaticism, which is just as much to be feared.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. She has demonstrated her ignorance of the basic procedures

involved in impeachment by stating that a notification to Trump has come from the Supreme Court (no, the Supreme Court is not involved; notification would come from the House Judiciary Committee) and that they did so to prevent Trump from pardoning any of his people who might be charged with federal crimes (no, the Supreme Court can't prevent Trump from issuing any pardons because that power is granted to the president by the Constitution and it can't even be appealed). So, yeah, some of us are questioning how well-sourced her claims are, since what she described is factually incorrect and, in fact, impossible.

We aren't diminishing her; she's diminishing herself by publishing stuff that can't be true and is easily debunked.

[Spider Jerusalem]

10. That's because she keeps making wild and unsupportable claims that are frankly insane.

"Sealed indictments", "articles of impeachment". And she's a right-wing nutter who thinks Black Lives Matter is a Russian front and the Ferguson protests were the work of Russian intelligence. She is a terrible person and should not be taken seriously. I actually knew who she was before all of this because I live in the UK where she was a Tory member of parliament; the reaction of most people in the UK to Americans taking anything Louise Mensch says seriously is "lol".

[wasupaloopa]

12. All the news stories about Trump this week were from leaks to the press

Mensch did not lead with any of those. Instead it was sealed indictments
And some here say she is far out ahead of the media. So when does Rachael report on sealed indictments?

Why did she take down some tweets?

Now today it is articles of impeachment.

I think her stories are click bate for her political web site

[mhw]

24. No. On Claude's site it was pointed out that Rachel & other news sources

"must be following Taylor & Mensch because they seem to run a story within days of Louise & Claude's posting."

Claude & Louise's sources come from outside the Regs of US News.
Their sources cannot be revealed nor do they have to be. .

Perhaps US news stations have to adhere to stricter reporting guidlines, which is why Taylor & Mensch can report online, what theirvsources give them. No more, no less until they have more to offer on the subject.

US news can & does pick up Stories from Mensch & Taylor but cannot know their sources.
So when there is more to report & all has been checked through US regs, then they put the same story out .

Per Claude Taylor.

[wasupaloopa]

67. I can't buy that. I think they are the left's version of wing nut radio

[mhw]

68. Wow. That's not true. I really doubt some here have rarely ever followed, nor really read

enough of her work to even make such statements that I saw here today.
She does a fine job of trolling Putin & Trump and reporting what her sources give her.
And anyone who is willing to put themselves out ther to accomplish that daily can go right ahead & keep doing it.

If it makes them a tiny bit on edge because they know the truth is coming to the surface or just pissing them off, then carry on Louise Mensch.

She laughs in the face of Bannon's trolls who recently have been sent out to disrupt her twitter with name calling & typical bs.
She spoke of this also.

Now why would they be so on edge with one blogger?
Because they can't stop her from outing the bull of the Trump fiasco laid down on the backs of Americans.
Their plot is blowing up & all they can do to stop the chatter is call people like Mensch nasty names.

That's why I prefer her over Murdoch news.
Enjoy your evening

[OKNancy]

15. or maybe people just disagree and are skeptical.. same thing happened with Bev Harris

There have been a series of people who get to be heros at DU who then turn out not to be.


I was the DUer who did some digging about Harris and found out some nasty stuff.
First was her sale of Clinton cigars. She was not a friend to Democrats and it turned out she was a crazy, mean creep.

Skeptics don't have ulterior motives. They are just that... skeptical.

[Mr. Ected]

20. I'm in wait and see mode

It's not like anything she reports is the catalyst for any action. Her sources purportedly have information at their disposal that have yet to find daylight. If all of this is to build her rep and bloat her bank account, if she's dead wrong in her pronouncements, even her fans will wash their hands of her eventually.

We're in the thick of things. We're going to hear rumors. People used to be able to cope with rumors and discern them from known fact. Alt news is dangerous, no doubt about it, but time is the great arbiter of rumor vs. fact.

For all the naysayers, you're jumping the gun. For all those who believe that every Louise Mensch utterance is fact (if such a person truly exists), you too may need to cool your jets.

[hrmjustin]

21. it is not a sin to doubt her credibility.

[chowder66]

22. I'm part of it because she has reported some seriously egregious

things.

I checked her out, about a month or so ago and I saw people debating her information and she started accusing them of being russian agents then her followers piled on. It pissed me off because these people were not being rude, they were simply pointing out issues and even trying to understand her point of view.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/menschs-list?utm_term=.oewNaX5qG3#.nc0MkeAYnz

And here is an example but this person wasn't even conversing with her but was being called out:

I decided to look a little further and see what I could find on her since I didn't know anything about her and I was not pleased with what I found about Ferguson http://www.snopes.com/blm-ferguson-russia/,
...and here cyber bullying a 17 year old > http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/19/louise-mensch-bullying-milifandom-teenager-abby-tomlinson_n_7314590.html

About some of her older mistakes;
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/louise-mensch-adds-another-twitter-gaffe-list/#

Propublica and Democracy Now! are Russian shills;


This was a major turn off - Bomb Russia now!!!



I just can't stand by and say nothing about her. There will be those that can discern enough to parse out what is possible and what is not but there are entirely too many that cannot do this. If they do not take a more discerning eye to her I'm afraid they will end up going down the conspiracy path and that's not good for democrats.

I'm not trying to change your mind but I am giving you the reason why I'm speaking up.

[X_Digger]

69. And not one response to this well-researched and presented post. Shame that. Wish I could rec posts.

n/t

[chowder66]

86. Thank you. nt

[PufPuf23]

26. It is fairly obvious that Mensch in an intelligence asset deliberately influencing

the media and public discourse.

So I am leery about Mensch as a source however interesting and in line with what I like to hear.

[Charlotte Little]

39. But for what purpose?

I'm seriously wondering what she's meant to do. She does work for Murdoch, so is it to create conspiracy nonsense around Trump/Russia to discredit it? Is it to just create disillusionment among Dems once they finally are on to her? What?

[PufPuf23]

42. I do not understand the purpose and your theories are as

good as mine.

The intelligence agencies support the competing agendas of international financial and political controlling classes.

The media is a major tool to influence public discourse and opinion punctuated by events.

Sometimes I think the goals are to kick the can down the road, entertain, groom, and make for mushy thoughts.

Mensch's background is suspicious as is her rapid rise in public exposure.

I have a hard time seeing how Trump got into office in the first place.

Perhaps Trump is a step in getting Pence into office? Pence is more competent and also a religious control freak but would never have been elected on his own merit or public popularity.

Could be in part Mensch is not just riling the common folks but also the source of narratives that confuse and threaten Trump himself (to encourage his resignation as a resignation is preferable to an impeachment regards social control)?

Mensch does not have to be fully cognizant but just a path to feed partial convenient "truths".

[jberryhill]

92. Texas Air National Guard Memo

One is practically inevitable in this fertile environment.

Read, critically evaluate, and use caution.

Or even - discuss with people whose opinions differ from yours.

No one has a monopoly on truth, and critical thinking is not a trade secret.

One is more inclined to believe that things one wants to hear are true. It is also the easiest way to fool people.

[X_Digger]

70. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. n/t

[Kentonio]

74. Mensch and Intelligence are two words that sit together uncomfortably

[elehhhhna]

27. Bots everywhere

[geek tragedy]

31. She is to Trump opponents what HA Goodman was to Bernie supporters nt

[Cattledog]

33. Many on the left are "dupes" for fake news, it's not just the right.

[brooklynite]

34. Would you care to explain why...

...anyone would WANT to discredit a report of hers that was factual? As opposed to, say, being concerned that those who, like us, want Trump gone are being distracted by FOX NEWS type stories that simple play to our biases?

[GliderGuider]

35. Quite the pile-on, isn't it? nt

[Madam45for2923]

38. I don't mind people critical or doubtful of her, I mind what seems obsessive posts/peer pressure for

others to stop reading/following her if they wish to.

My motto is I'll read whoever I damn please, including LM if I wish.

I understand why she can be criticized, but I don't understand the need to be pushy towards fellow DUers to do as you deem "appropriate".

That part is very annoying.

[LenaBaby61]

55. The number of people working to dismiss Louise Mensch is growing.

I don't mind people critical or doubtful of her, I mind what seems obsessive posts/peer pressure for others to stop reading/following her if they wish to.

My motto is I'll read whoever I damn please, including LM if I wish.

I understand why she can be criticized, but I don't understand the need to be pushy towards fellow DUers to do as you deem "appropriate".

That part is very annoying.

[LaydeeBug]

78. This. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. The United Kingdom Group was dismissing her before it was cool to

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10884808
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10881821
https://www.democraticunderground.com/108811250#post20

[mhw]

51. What about Claude Taylor. Anyone dissing him? They work together in

..outing & trolling Putin & Trump.
Cite each other's work & sources

Why the focus on discrediting Louise while no mention of Taylor?
They have seperate blogs & twitter accts.
No headlines dissing Claude's work.
Its curious..

[melman]

58. Plenty of people have mentioned Taylor

You keep saying he's been ignored, but you are wrong. He has not.

[mhw]

66. Out of the 5 or so threads started just today alone how many mentioned his name?

Its a little late to start evening out the score with Taylor pile ons.
Actually plenty of people have credited Taylor.
Not Mensch.

It is that obvious.
Enjoy your evening

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. I'm not aware of Claude Taylor being a former right wing politician who worked for Murdoch

So no, it's not really curious. People do lose credibility when they have a right wing background. But neither am I aware of anything that gives Taylor particular credibility. He worked for Bill Clinton's White House in some capacity, I believe, but I've never heard it was anything to do with intelligence, or diplomacy, or that he had associations with those fields in the following couple of decades.

Why is Taylor's blog important?

[Warren DeMontague]

48. Skepticism is a good thing. Trying to shut down threads containing her assertions, not so much.

I think we all know she's not the Washington Post. Some of her stuff sounds farfetched, to put it mildly, but the shit that we know for a fact has been going down has been farfetched, too.

[GliderGuider]

49. +1

[FreepFryer]

80. +1

[Blue Ridge Virginia]

52. Wow, I'm only the second rec despite 51 replies

not sure what that says but it seems to say more about DU orthodoxy than Mensch credibility

[Worktodo]

53. She's an odd duck

Employed by Fox / Murdoch on and off. Had an interesting role in the phone hacking scandal in UK. A self-described "conservative" (whatever that means). Not clear to me she isn't doing some type of research project on how susceptible left-wing folks are to conspiracy theories. Plus making a buck or two along the way.

[L. Coyote]

56. What do you expect? She's an "Unhinged British witch" and "a textbook succubus"

.... with an attitude!

https://twitter.com/LouiseMensch

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[DefenseLawyer]

57. All I have said about her and similar Twitter posters

Is that if her sources are from the intelligence community or federal law enforcement or the justice department, or really anyone that would be in a position to know anything, they certainly get a lot of basic things wrong about criminal procedure. That gives me pause. But at the end of the day, what happens happens, whether she predicted it or not. So really, I'm ambivalent.

[saidsimplesimon]

59. bigtree, imo

Well, I neither dismiss or endorse Mensch. The only time I see any of her "predictions" is when the links are shared. There is no reason yet that compels me to consider her a credible journalist.

From what little I know, she supported Brexit (a big mistake, imo). She served as a conservative MP. She is reported to be a conservative libertarian, again, not my cuppa tea. She works for Rupert Murdoch and that heinous rag News Corpse. Murdoch has a reputation of tolerating journalists who hack computers and telephones, so, I wonder about her sources and methods.

My bottom line opinion is that she is "much ado about nothing".

[GulfCoast66]

63. It is human nature to believe things that confirm your bias

People on the left are no less susceptible to it than those on the right.

The reason I like DU is that we are not just a sight for those on the left but we are supposed to be a fact based community.

Once someone claims the Supreme Court is preparing to remove a president or that there is a seal indictment on a sitting president facts are out the window they are in conspiracy La La land.

Have a nice evening

[L. Coyote]

71. She is going after the hackers.

That may be why. Which also makes her a DU ally, We have the same political hackers, no doubt.

Link to tweet

[Orrex]

75. Well, it would be nice if one of her bombshells actually went off

Rather than, you know, waiting for the one dirty sock that sticks to the wall.

Until then, it is simply more reasonable to adopt a "wait and see" attitude toward her superfantastic unbelievably awesome amazing revelations until corroborated by an objective source.

[dalton99a]

77. +1

[AgadorSparticus]

76. It is VERY noticeable!!

[alarimer]

84. So is the number of stupid people falling for her bullshit.

Proof positive that some will fall for anything if it is telling them what they WANT to hear.

We need to be more careful about sources that tell us exactly what we want to hear. That is suspicious in an of itself, but the fact that she is so popular on the left speaks to the lack of critical thinking skills on the part of here followers.

Confirmation bias is a thing; look it up.

Read this. Even though it is a cartoon, there is very important information there.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe