Mensch gets backup from CNN analyst:

[Kingofalldems]

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[JHB]

1. We still have jackets

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029094795

[Chemisse]

2. We all thought that back in MARCH!

[Hortensis]

38. Lol. Are you sure you didn't get it from Mensch in March 2016?

Flynn's Russian contacts were already under investigation by all our intelligence services at that time, and of course his highly illegal contacts as Rump's agent to subvert a sitting president's action were known literally as they happened.

The appointment of a special counselor/prosecutor and that ratcheting up of the investigation just might have made this something predicted by...literally millions.

[Kingofalldems]

3. And this:

HUGH!--as they say on free republic.

Link to tweet

[moonscape]

16. Tweet's gone - what did it say? n/t

[Kingofalldems]

18. Pretty much what the OP one said.

[Mr. Ected]

4. There's some legs to this story, to be sure

I read yesterday that he self-reported Trump's message to him to "Stay Strong" to the FBI and others. Sounds like something he would have done in light of the deep shit he finds himself in at the moment. An audience with the FBI could also mean that he's spilling his guts to them in the hopes he'll receive a reduced sentence. The death penalty could await him otherwise.

[emulatorloo]

5. Thanks for posting Seth Abramson's tweet. N/T

[mhw]

6. Thank you.

She has one on Kushner also, from a month ago, that relates to what we see today as to his Real estate business.

Another of her reports we now read today is how Trump, Pence & Ryan are criminally complicit. That of course leaves us Pres Hatch..., but personally, I do think Hatch is compromised as well.

His ties to pharma sales & his son's lobbying on dad's behalf, are worthy of questioning.

Mensch may be a small player with a few key sources & not the million $ budget of some news orgs, but dang if she isn't hanging in there with the rest of them.

Thanks for the post Kingofalldems

[FreepFryer]

7. Hmm, maybe we should focus on the message, rather than messenger, where Mensch et al are concerned!

[mhw]

8. Thanks. You are correct.

I'l have watched her consistantly go after Trump/Putin and point to the players .

I applaud her for whatever efgort or purpose motivates her to continue outing the criminal holed up in our WH and all involved in getting him there.

I know little about her but certainly support her focus on the threat we're all fearing.

[Demit]

10. She has a Wikipedia entry, if you want to know more about her.

All footnoted too, so there's lots to delve into.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. Some people here are oddly obsessed with "discrediting" her

I'm not really sure why.

[Kingofalldems]

11. So true.

[Bradical79]

12. She's just not a reliable journalist

Waaaaay to much unwarranted speculation and guess work. She's a blogger and conspiracy theorist, not a journalist really. Seems she might have a source, but tends to jump to conclusions, sometimes distorting the facts in the process. Other times it looks like she's just wildly speculating (like about false flag terrorist attacks on Russia or Breitbart being assasinated by Putin.)

Then you have stuff like this where an opinion from a lawyer somehow backs her up on something many people just posting on forums speculated on even before Mensch. It's not like this is something that is confirmed to have happened when she first mentioned it, or that she scooped everyone on.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. As I said in a different thread, I don't think anyone here is gonna confuse her with the WaPo.

Take what she says with a grain of salt, but don't have a temper tantrum that people want to discuss it, either. (not directed at you, personally)

[Bradical79]

22. Yeah, that I agree with

Though on the flip side others need to stop loosing their minds when she tweets out something they want to hear. She's not deliberate peddler of fake news, but she's been a 9/11 truther level of conspiracy theorist before her anti-Russian stance put her on the same target as a lot of us Democrats.

[Orrex]

30. You're making several big statements

"don't have a temper tantrum that people want to discuss it, either."

I doubt anyone is "obsessed" with discrediting her, and I haven't seen anyone have a "temper tantrum" about her. What is served by using this mocking, discrediting language?

Further, the issue isn't that people "want to discuss it," but rather that they want to accept her tweets as truth in their own right, and they react very negatively to people calling for independent corroboration.

That, ultimately, is the issue: she is tweeting exactly what people want to hear, so it is at best premature to accept those tweets on faith. Some are apparently comfortable to do so, while others are not.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. Are you kidding, man?

You havent seen all the threads? The ones about "Mensch shouldn't be acceptable on DU" or whatever.

Im not talking about healthy skepticism- that is always a good idea.

I'm talking about the folks on a single minded crusade to do nothing but talk crap about louise mensch, when there are a lot of other people we could be talking crap about, people like.... oh, Donald Trump.

Mind you, I dont have any dog in the louise mensch hunt, I myself find her stuff farfetched. Interesting to think about, but certainly not proven gospel fact.

But when someone is clearly devoting 95% of their energy, or more, on DU trying to shut down people talking about louise mensch's tweets, I admit I wonder what the real deal is, there.

[Orrex]

37. 95% of their energy, or more? Seriously?

I'd be interested to learn who is doing that.

I've seen plenty of Mensch threads, most of which are either regurgitations of her tweets or else links to articles on her blog. These threads often attract critics and skeptics, but that's appropriate and is to be expected.

I've seen far fewer OPs started about her by her skeptics, and several of those have in fact been complaints about her supporters' rejection of her skeptics.

Among her non-supporters, the overwhelming majority that I've seen have simply been calling for corroboration or have been urging readers to "wait and see" before heralding her proclamations as true. Several, with credibly asserted expertise, have identified basic and fundamental errors in some of her claims, and these errors alone should cause us to keep her at arm's length until she's demonstrated a more clearly successful track record.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. Seems a disproportionate amount of energy on the matter.

Believe me, dont believe me, not really something I'm interested in spending a lot of time on, myself.

[Orrex]

42. Fair enough

It was a curiously strong and specific complaint, but fair enough.

[Warren DeMontague]

43. I blame my

curiously strong mints.

[Orrex]

44. Be careful with those things, dammit!

[bigtree]

14. sounds like journalism to me

...not consensus, MSM opinions and speculation wrapped up in a pretty bow, but definitely the kind of muckraking that drives and feeds modern journalism.

Singling Mensch out for criticism for this is absurd.

[Bradical79]

20. Nonsense

Wild speculation is not journalism. It's not muckracking, it's rushing to get out something first without verification, or just flat out pulling things out of her imagination. Mainstream journalists like those working for the Post, Times, and some other outlets are far more reliable and accurate.

[bigtree]

27. Mainstream journalists

...regularly bury, obfuscate, minimize, and ignore news and issues that most of us advocate here.

Funny how the MSM is getting a revival of support here - some deserved, some just plain delusional.

[kwassa]

23. Sounds like advocacy, not journalism.

It might be our cause, but it isn't journalism.

[bigtree]

25. we can pretend advocacy isn't part of journalism

...but it's silly to complain about it on a site that does little else but advocate.

[Demit]

35. The tweet in the OP isn't journalism, and it isn't advocacy. It's rumor.

You can pass a rumor along if you want, you can thrill to the juiciness of it, but you can't treat it as fact.

[bigtree]

39. this is a discussion board

...where we share our observations and opinions.

Our discourse isn't limited to consensus info, so I'm not understanding the hubbub about Mensch's reports being posted here. You have your pov, fine, but others might disagree.

No one here is trying to get her a Pulitzer. We're just observing and commenting. Feel free to join in.

[Demit]

40. Everything you just wrote is exactly what I'm doing.

Observing, commenting, discussing.

I'm not complaining that you and your fellow Mensch devotees are posting your opinions. I'm discussing them. Because, as you note, and as I understood quite well without your reminder, this is a discussion board.

[Chemisse]

15. I'm just so uncomfortable with the cult-like response to her tweets.

I had never heard of her until a week ago, when I read threads on DU about sealed indictments. I was surprised at the way people here were so intensely inclined to believe anything she writes, and so vehemently defended her.

And it continued.

This post, for example, was about a tweet made in March, back when Flynn was trying to get immunity. It was no secret; it was well publicized at the time. We all knew about it. That is no longer the case. Yet it is being used to support an oddball tweet she made about this the other day, on the very day Flynn officially pleaded the fifth.

It's creepy and bizarre that some people here are willing to suspend all skepticism and embrace each utterance with an almost religious fervor.

[bigtree]

19. the 'religious fervor' criticism is bullshit

...and it's absurd to claim that people relating what she's saying are 'willing to suspend all skepticism.'

Funny, really, to find critics making unsupported claims about posters - using inflammatory terms like 'cult' and religious fervor' to knock down the info from Mensch being shared as speculative.

It's a mystery why there's pushback on all of that...

[Orrex]

33. Her track record is not great

"it's absurd to claim that people relating what she's saying are 'willing to suspend all skepticism.'"

I would say that it's not at all absurd, because I have seen considerable hostility directed at those who have called for skepticism or corroboration of her claims.

"Funny, really, to find critics making unsupported claims about posters - using inflammatory terms like 'cult' and religious fervor' to knock down the info from Mensch being shared as speculative."

Equally, Mensch's supporters are quick to throw around accusations like "obsessed" and "devateam" and "troll" when faced with someone who is less receptive to Mensch's tweets. Do you tolerate unsupported claims when they're directed at her critics?

[moonscape]

21. His tweet thread is interesting - what he thinks of

right-wing trolls (calling out Mensch) and how she and the GOP undermine by both under and over selling.

The thread is here:

Link to tweet

[womanofthehills]

24. Mensch calls out Seth - "Then and Now"

Link to tweet

Tom Wellborn? @TomWellborn May 8
Replying to @LouiseMensch @SethAbramson

That's quite a jump for just a month.


Eric Shimmy®? @ShimmyHRC May 8
Replying to @LouiseMensch @SethAbramson

Seth... dude. What side are you on? You shift your position more often than coastal tides.

[bigtree]

28. +1

...she's no snowflake.

[BainsBane]

26. I hope so.

[Orsino]

29. It's a yes or no question, and the word "may" makes this something less than a prediction.

Not sure it does much for Mensch.

[Demit]

32. And the analyst's sources themselves apparently only used the word may!

These are rumors! Nothing more than rumors.

[Orsino]

34. Imagining that a Trump cohort might return Trump's famous lack of loyalty by turning on him...

...is not a great stretch, or much of a scoop. But when it actually happens, it'll be big news.

And I'm sure Mensch will make sure she gets applause for it.

[berksdem]

31. Mensch....

throw stuff at the wall and hope something sticks - told ya so!