Like Louise Mensch, I also have a theory about #trumprussia.

[MineralMan]

My theory is that there are a lot of people getting lots of clicks by writing theories about stuff having to do with Trump and Russia. It's a hot topic, so posting blogs and tweets about it is sure to attract at least some attention, whether they're accurate or just wild guesses. In fact, my theory is that wild guesses bring in more traffic than carefully reported actual stories.

My theory also says that putting donation links on your bloggery can result in some random revenue, if you can attract enough visitors. Plus, my theory speculates that if you're very, very active on Twitter and can get lots of followers, some of those will come visit your blog, where you can ask them to donate at the bottom of every blog article.

That's my theory about Trump and Russia. I thought about making it into an op-ed, but those are too long, and I'd have to pad madly to fill enough space to call this an op-ed. So, it's just a theory, I guess.

BTW, multiple sources knowledgeable about such things tell me that this theory will be poorly received by some.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. The real news - the well-sourced stuff coming from the Washington Post,

the New York Times, Reuters and so forth - is getting to be much hotter than Mensch's and Taylor's bits of vague and sometimes absurd gossip about nonexistent FISA grand juries and sealed target letters impossibly delivered to Trump on the tarmac at Andrews AFB by a Supreme Court marshal. Anybody who wants to follow and even believe a couple of bloggers who are not reporters but who claim to have "sources" is welcome to do so. I'm putting my money on the folks who follow good journalistic practices and verify their information using multiple sources before they go public. These guys are dropping the real bombshells.

[MineralMan]

2. So true. Those traditional media sources seem to be getting the real

hot stories first these days. I think I'll keep right on relying on them, rather than random bloggers and Twitter twits.

[Tatiana]

3. Truth here.

I believe the WaPo will be the newspaper that connects most of the dots. Their sourcing is very, very good. I think McMaster or someone else on the inside is one of their sources. NYT publishes too much Trump/Kushner spin, IMO instead of going after the hard facts that will help solve this Russian puzzle.

When indictments drop, I bet WaPo will be the first to report.

[More_Cowbell]

4. There's room for both

The MSM played a large part in Trump's victory. They ignored important events, and the NYT deliberately held back news.

It costs money to do research and write, as WaPo and the NYT remind readers every day.

[MineralMan]

5. I see. Well, then, I think you should use whatever

sources you prefer.

[SonofDonald]

6. Why thank you! We will. N/T

[tableturner]

7. My theory is that you seem to have a fixation with Mensch and Taylor, and with attacking

their credibility. That is your right. But you keep doing what is in effect the same thing over and over. Again, that is your right, and I do not have to read it if I don't like it. We get it. You do not like Mensch and Taylor. You wish we would not pay attention to them. We get it. Maybe you can continue to tell us that multiple times every day until the entire Trump/Russia story is finally figured out. We get it.

[SticksnStones]

8. Hey you kids, get off my lawn!