HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » A lawyer for Louise Mensc...

Sun May 14, 2017, 01:05 AM

 

A lawyer for Louise Mensch seems worried that her latest "bombshell" is bullshit.


63 replies, 12465 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 63 replies Author Time Post
Reply A lawyer for Louise Mensch seems worried that her latest "bombshell" is bullshit. (Original post)
jberryhill May 2017 OP
Quixote1818 May 2017 #1
renegade000 May 2017 #19
L. Coyote May 2017 #49
Eyeball_Kid May 2017 #51
hrmjustin May 2017 #2
Quixote1818 May 2017 #7
hvn_nbr_2 May 2017 #16
pnwmom May 2017 #18
welivetotreadonkings May 2017 #3
jberryhill May 2017 #4
OilemFirchen May 2017 #9
jberryhill May 2017 #11
OilemFirchen May 2017 #13
jberryhill May 2017 #14
OilemFirchen May 2017 #15
bathroommonkey76 May 2017 #20
AngryAmish May 2017 #33
Quixote1818 May 2017 #12
jberryhill May 2017 #47
chillfactor May 2017 #5
jberryhill May 2017 #6
LeftInTX May 2017 #8
jberryhill May 2017 #10
BeyondGeography May 2017 #22
Orrex May 2017 #24
moriah May 2017 #31
jberryhill May 2017 #34
leftynyc May 2017 #60
moriah May 2017 #32
jberryhill May 2017 #46
truthaddict247 May 2017 #17
elias7 May 2017 #21
oberliner May 2017 #23
Lee-Lee May 2017 #26
oberliner May 2017 #28
leftynyc May 2017 #61
Lee-Lee May 2017 #25
Denzil_DC May 2017 #27
Lee-Lee May 2017 #29
Denzil_DC May 2017 #30
Loki Liesmith May 2017 #35
jberryhill May 2017 #38
Loki Liesmith May 2017 #40
Denzil_DC May 2017 #41
Loki Liesmith May 2017 #42
Denzil_DC May 2017 #45
SticksnStones May 2017 #54
Denzil_DC May 2017 #62
SticksnStones May 2017 #63
Oneironaut May 2017 #39
Charlotte Little May 2017 #52
jberryhill May 2017 #48
Oneironaut May 2017 #36
WinkyDink May 2017 #37
jberryhill May 2017 #53
SticksnStones May 2017 #55
jberryhill May 2017 #56
SticksnStones May 2017 #57
jberryhill May 2017 #58
SticksnStones May 2017 #59
Madam45for2923 May 2017 #43
L. Coyote May 2017 #44
WoonTars May 2017 #50

Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 01:07 AM

1. Understandable, this is the biggest story in years if true. If false

it will probably ruin Mensch and Taylor's reputation for good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #1)

Sun May 14, 2017, 03:58 AM

19. Yup n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #1)

Sun May 14, 2017, 12:43 PM

49. Same Grand Jury issued subpoenas for Flynn associates hours before Comey was fired.

Everyone reacts so quickly to each development, they seem to be oblivious to the big picture and the context of tweets. I guess that is a hazard of the Twitter restriction on number of characters, but also it is a reflection on the scope of their intellects and, in many cases, evidence of their biases. Not to mention the many forms trolls take and how difficult it is to spot the very best professional trolls.

The USA signing the Flynn Assoc. subpoenas along with Rosenstein briefed Congressional Intel last week and will be briefing all senators this week. Those who are yelling "Fake news" seem to completely ignore that the context and facts indicating something YUUUUGE is actually going on. What mensch and Taylor are telling us fits ever so well with what we know for sure.

Trump's New Impeachable Offenses: Obstruction of Justice, Conspiracy, Abuse of Power

EXCLUSIVE: Sealed Indictment granted against Donald Trump



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #1)

Sun May 14, 2017, 03:40 PM

51. The higher their credibility rises, the more likely

someone like Roger Stone or Karl Rove will perform some of their unethical and dishonest "tricks" to smear either one.
Remember what happened to Dan Rather? That was a Rove operation. Stone has been doing these kinds of operations for a lot longer than Rove.

Mensch and Taylor have to be very careful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 01:09 AM

2. I find it hard to believe they have an indictment against Trump this early in the investigation.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #2)

Sun May 14, 2017, 01:25 AM

7. Early? They have been investigating this for over a year. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #7)

Sun May 14, 2017, 01:52 AM

16. Yeah, but...

If they've already got an indictment against the guy at the top, why was Comey asking for more resources just this week?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hvn_nbr_2 (Reply #16)

Sun May 14, 2017, 03:19 AM

18. Because there are many more pieces to the puzzle. Often they start with the charges that

are the easiest to prove, and move on from there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 01:18 AM

3. I would take it with a grain of salt.

After all, you can't just trust unverified claims made by questionable sources on Twitter, that would be irresponsible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to welivetotreadonkings (Reply #3)

Sun May 14, 2017, 01:20 AM

4. This is the thing I find fascinating

 


People seem to want to focus on "who said it" rather than critically examining what was said.

When a tweet and associated blog post contain pure legal word salad, then it really doesn't matter what the source was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #4)

Sun May 14, 2017, 01:26 AM

9. Pretty much like you've just done.

So why is an attorney communicating with his client via Twitter? And why on earth would he care what she says about a public figure (threats notwithstanding, of course)?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #9)

Sun May 14, 2017, 01:30 AM

11. I don't know jack about Mensch or her lawyer

 


"So why is an attorney communicating with his client via Twitter?"

Well, that is indeed one of the interesting discussions which has proceeded from that exchange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #11)

Sun May 14, 2017, 01:35 AM

13. And what of the other question?

You saw fit to post a tweet by some whosit suggesting that her lawyer is "worried" about his client.

Worried about what? Do you think her tweets are actionable?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #13)

Sun May 14, 2017, 01:38 AM

14. No I don't think they are actionable

 

If you read the exchange, it seems that her lawyer (on FOIA matters) wants to be sure that his representation of her is not taken as an endorsement by association of other things she says.

It was more of a response to a tweet by "some lawyer on twitter" being used in favor of actually addressing a point. Consider it performance art.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #14)

Sun May 14, 2017, 01:45 AM

15. Then he's not "worried that her latest 'bombshell' is bullshit".

He's worried about his reputation.

Rather petardish, this OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #11)

Sun May 14, 2017, 04:32 AM

20. Libel?

 

Trump's lawyer could have contacted him. Who knows?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #4)

Sun May 14, 2017, 08:41 AM

33. It is easy to demonize truthtellers.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to welivetotreadonkings (Reply #3)

Sun May 14, 2017, 01:31 AM

12. Not sure "questionable" is the right word. The sources have a good track records


It's good to be skeptical and this very well may end up being complete BS but Taylor and Mensch have beat the MSM before breaking news that panned out. They clearly seem to have some connections with some important people when it comes to Grand Jury's having to do with Russia. This is why people are cautiously optimistic. If this falls through Taylor and Mensch will never be quoted here again or if they are they will be ridiculed endlessly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quixote1818 (Reply #12)

Sun May 14, 2017, 12:31 PM

47. Is there a set of numbers on that track record?

 


http://skepdic.com/dixon.html

"The Jeane Dixon effect refers to the tendency of the mass media to hype or exaggerate a few correct predictions by a psychic, guaranteeing that they will be remembered, while forgetting or ignoring the much more numerous incorrect predictions."

I keep hearing that, but I have not seen a count of correct/incorrect predictions.

Two related ways to improve such a record is by including predictions that are so vague that anything can fulfill them, or to use the "close enough" rule of horseshoes, such that squads of law enforcement being dispatched hither and yon from EDVA is sufficient to mean one raid in a Maryland, not a Virginia, jurisdiction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 01:21 AM

5. would you please stop..

You are the most negative person on DU I have ever seen....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chillfactor (Reply #5)

Sun May 14, 2017, 01:22 AM

6. Really, in what way?

 


Would you care to discuss facts instead of people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #6)

Sun May 14, 2017, 01:25 AM

8. You are not negative you are a "concern troll" - LOL



That is what I get called when I don't believe a candidate is going to win an election by a landslide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftInTX (Reply #8)

Sun May 14, 2017, 01:27 AM

10. Ah, good, I already earned by "comrade" badge tonight

 

If I pick up a "sock puppet" accusation, then it'll be a hat trick!

I'm trying to "stifle discussion" with someone who says "will you please stop" on a discussion forum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #6)

Sun May 14, 2017, 06:37 AM

22. In addition

Calling someone with a La Vache Qui Rit avatar "negative" just strikes me as wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #6)

Sun May 14, 2017, 07:21 AM

24. Well for one thing...

When I asked if I could have the last Oreo, you distinctly said "NO."

See? Negative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #24)

Sun May 14, 2017, 08:32 AM

31. Thanks for that. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #24)

Sun May 14, 2017, 09:08 AM

34. Because I was positive I had already eaten it

 


Besides, I know what your doctor told you about eating Oreos.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #6)

Mon May 15, 2017, 11:59 AM

60. How about asking yourself

 

what kind of lawyer communicates with his client via twitter?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chillfactor (Reply #5)

Sun May 14, 2017, 08:39 AM

32. Doubtful. I'm negative...

For rH factor and CMV (blood banks love me) and I just got done petting my very fuzzy cat to the point my bangs are standing up.

Seriously, please attack the issue and not the person. It promotes better discourse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moriah (Reply #32)

Sun May 14, 2017, 12:26 PM

46. If you want positive results, you should see Trump's doctor

 


After all, he said all of Trump's lab work was "positive".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 03:10 AM

17. Facts

 

Would be a great place to start and why this speculation is dribble, taking up space here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 06:37 AM

21. Crazy! Right out in the open!

What a world twitter is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 06:40 AM

23. Why is her lawyer talking to her via Twitter?

 

Bizarro world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #23)

Sun May 14, 2017, 07:50 AM

26. Because it's fake as hell

 

No lawyer does that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #26)

Sun May 14, 2017, 08:18 AM

28. My thoughts exactly

 

Ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #23)

Mon May 15, 2017, 12:00 PM

61. I should have read the comments

 

Just asked the same question. It's laughable to think any reputable lawyer would post this on twitter (and get picked up by that right wing slug michelle malkin).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 07:33 AM

25. That's the most obviously staged public "conversation" I've seen in a while

 

No lawyer, anywhere, is going to make statements like that to a client on a public space like Twitter. Not if the client has 2 followers and certainly not if she has millions and everything she posts gets screenshotted and spread everywhere.

Not going to happen.

This is so clearly a staged "conversation" intended to spur discussion or give some sort of cover or make her appear edgy or something.

Anyone who believes this is a real exchange is a bigger fool than any attorney who would publicly tell a client what they are doing is risky.

She has been close to jumping the shark for me for a long while, but seeing this obviously fake exchange has done it for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #25)

Sun May 14, 2017, 08:03 AM

27. That's a fair point.

But Mensch's style is to conduct these sorts of exchanges, which in a newsroom or between other sorts of collaborators on a story would normally be conducted in private before going public with anything. I don't believe all those exchanges are staged.

It's one reason I'm wary of Mensch. She's relentless, and very unguarded about what she posts on Twitter. I've been concerned that this approach might compromise the efforts of others who're working on certain aspects of this.

It's a concern shared by The Jester, who I tend to trust in these matters on the basis of his past record (you'll need to click through and read the tweet threads to see how Mensch has reacted to The Jester's exasperation, including trying to smear him on the basis of someone he follows on Twitter):




Louise Mensch ✔ @LouiseMensch

@jandrew1108 @RLoDallasTX @th3j35t3r you're with us or you are with them.

Allies or enemies.

situation calls for zero shades of gray.

JΞSŦΞR ✪ ΔCŦUΔL @th3j35t3r

@LouiseMensch @jandrew1108 @RLoDallasTX I gotta be honest lady, you're starting to get on my last nerve. You're trying too hard. Also here's all the times I mention you vs you me. pic.twitter.com/TwbxpNBrIN





JΞSŦΞR ✪ ΔCŦUΔL @th3j35t3r

#FLASH - So I'm here wondering what happens when I block someone who subscribes to my blocklist; - do they (cont) http://tl.gd/n_1spq9b4





JΞSŦΞR ✪ ΔCŦUΔL @th3j35t3r

Can someone find me that THIRD tweet where I tried to extract myself from @LouiseMensch crazy?

I really want to reply to myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #27)

Sun May 14, 2017, 08:20 AM

29. There is a world of difference between sources and your legal counsel

 

Imagine if a politician was getting close to shady money deals on funding and their lawyer told them on stage in front of millions "hey this is looking risky" and they blew it off and commuted violations of the law. What do you think the prosecutor would have a field day with in court? The fact that they ignored their own lawyers warnings.


That's why no attorney would ever put something of this nature out in a manner like this. These kinds of conversations are had in private, not written down, to preserve attorney client privilege in case it does end up before the courts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #29)

Sun May 14, 2017, 08:31 AM

30. Well, one attorney just did.

Given Mensch's reaction to The Jester above, maybe Said had already tried other avenues of private communication and not had any success.

Unless we have Mark Said join in this thread to explain himself or find somebody online who's questioned him about it and had him answer, why he did it is pure guesswork.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #30)

Sun May 14, 2017, 09:14 AM

35. He's just interacting as a twitter friend

She and the lawyers from that For interact on twitter all the time. Just talking. It means nothing.

(I know Mensch on a sort-of personal level and have done work for her in the past).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Reply #35)

Sun May 14, 2017, 09:20 AM

38. Here's something lawyers are taught for the multi state ethics exam

 


Many states require, in addition to the regular bar exam, a separate standardized test on professional ethics.

The most common way that people screw up that test is when the question is posed in a way to suggest they "weren't a lawyer" when they were doing something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #38)

Sun May 14, 2017, 09:28 AM

40. All I can tell you is that I know Louise and

I know how these two interact on twitter.

His concern is for her credibility if she's wrong, and not be able to nail Trump.

Zaid's main interest (along with his employee Brad Moss) is using FOIA requests to try and get at the Trump administration. Nailing Trump is his main concern.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Reply #40)

Sun May 14, 2017, 10:29 AM

41. Well, if you know Mensch, you'll know that she describes herself as having ADHD

(I don't know whether it's been formally diagnosed).

That doesn't in itself invalidate any information she may have, but may explain why she comes across as hyperactive on social media.

My concern is similar to the one you attribute to Zaid (I also think highly of Moss).

There seems to be little sign of strategy behind her tweets etc. She shows her working publicly, which is all very well in terms of crowdsourcing, but others may be following similar leads, and she regularly posts information and supposition - the line between the two frequently blurred, and she has been known to disappear down rabbit holes - that could tip off those under investigation (formally or via Twitter inquisitions).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #41)

Sun May 14, 2017, 10:35 AM

42. Yes we've discussed her ADHD and my Asperger's

And the relative advantages and disadvantages they confer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Loki Liesmith (Reply #42)

Sun May 14, 2017, 11:27 AM

45. That's why I described Mensch

as reporting herself as "having" ADHD rather than "suffering from" ADHD.

I can identify aspects of my makeup that could be classed as mild ADHD or OCD, but I've never sought diagnosis. As a book editor, whatver it is isn't necessarily negative as long as I'm aware of it and keep it in check when necessary!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #27)

Mon May 15, 2017, 10:39 AM

54. But Jester is someone we should believe is exactly who he says he is?

It's the Wild West of information out there. Why the OP has his undies in bundle over Mensch mentions is just as curious.

DU is a discussion forum, a messaging center. We're not the department of Justice. We're people paying attention and posting about it.

Believe her, don't believe her...whatever ~

But almost every square inch of the vast open internet and all of its musings is filled with someone looking to gain attention for their message. Determining motives is virtually impossible.

That goes for Mensch, Jester, you, me and the OP ~

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SticksnStones (Reply #54)

Mon May 15, 2017, 05:29 PM

62. I've followed The Jester on social media for a long time, way before most here had heard of him.

I've seen nothing to cast doubt on who he claims to be, and many have tried to doxx him and cast doubt on his bona fides because he rubs a certain class of people (who I doubt either you or I would have much time for) up the wrong way. All have failed.

Yes, caution is exactly what I've advised above, if you bother to read what I actually wrote rather than railing at me for what others have posted.

The Jester comes into the equation because he's a gray-hat hacker of quite some renown (e.g. you don't get your laptop exhibited in the International Spy Museum in Washington, DC if you're a fraud).

If you read his objections to Mensch's online conduct, he's not discounting what she says or claims wholesale, he just has his own approach and a lot more experience in this field than her, and he doesn't want the sort of close association she assumed existed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denzil_DC (Reply #62)

Mon May 15, 2017, 07:03 PM

63. Wasn't railing...I would have chosen stronger words if I was railing

I'm just posting my thoughts just as you post yours.

You assumed I didn't read your post. I did. I disagreed with your conclusion.

You offered reasons to consider Jester to be who he says he is by citing he's an experienced hacker and had a laptop in the Spy Museum. My understanding of spies and hackers is that deception is their tradecraft so I don't find that those particular claims support your assertion that Jester is exactly who Jester says he is with motives that are obvious because he's been around for awhile.

I'll reiterate my point and leave it at that: every noteable online presence seeks in some way or another to amplify their own message for reasons and motivations one can assume but never truly know.

(And he did manage to call her crazy Louise Mensch. So there's some kind of something there. Some kind of competition or misogyny or alpha dog barking or who knows what. Who knows what. It was the descriptor "crazy" which was part of his tweet that you posted that got my goat.)

In the end, though, I'd like to think we're all on the same side...that is, we, who see the need for 45 to go against those who still support this travesty of a presidency.

Peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #25)

Sun May 14, 2017, 09:26 AM

39. lol This is all bizarre and funny.

She jumped the shark for me on day one. She's another fake news peddler craving for attention. She's no different from Alex Jones. She wants people to spread her bull crap around and visit her blog. DU is being suckered by a con-artist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oneironaut (Reply #39)

Sun May 14, 2017, 04:01 PM

52. And you just jumped the shark

Louise Mensch is no Alex Jones. Not in the least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #25)

Sun May 14, 2017, 12:35 PM

48. To be fair

 


The lawyer who worked on your traffic tickets is free to publicly opine about your crack dealing arrest.

My understanding is that he worked with her on some FOIA matter or other, unrelated to the subject of this public conversation.

So, if I filed a patent application for your combination shoe horn and can opener, and you were arrested for being a murderer, I'd be as free to comment on your murder arrest as anyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 09:17 AM

36. It's bull crap. I wish people would stop believing this hack.

She's about as credible as Alex Jones. Watch - she'll try to claim that this was all her "opinion," or that "Trump used dirty tricks to destroy the indictments at the last minute." It's always the same garbage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 09:20 AM

37. The proverbial Time will tell, no? It's not like LM is disputing some point in the ancient past that

 

can no longer be proven or disproven.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #37)

Mon May 15, 2017, 10:23 AM

53. Well I guess the jury is still out on her claim that Russians were funding BLM protests in Ferguson

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/4/9/1651782/-Louise-Mensch-thinks-Ferguson-was-a-Russian-conspiracy

Louise Mensch thinks Ferguson was a Russian conspiracy

------

And, remember, "she's been right about everything."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #53)

Mon May 15, 2017, 10:43 AM

55. That's out of context


She went in to say that violent protestors are and have infiltrated progressive, civil rights demonstrations in order to sit up trouble and blame it on the original protestors.

That's not fiction.

Or don't you believe that concept either?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SticksnStones (Reply #55)

Mon May 15, 2017, 10:46 AM

56. Pull my other leg, it's got bells on it

 


How one takes a complete tweet "out of context" is an interesting thought.

But please explain to me how a riot needs funding, and her basis for claiming that it came from Russians.

She has her own snopes page for that one:

http://www.snopes.com/blm-ferguson-russia/

How many of these paid Russian Ferguson rioters were arrested?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #56)

Mon May 15, 2017, 11:00 AM

57. Well there's also a Snopes page for Obama's

If you like your insurance you can keep your insurance.....and we all know what he meant by that.

But yes he said it. So let's call him a liar, right?

But back to Louise ~

Mensch went on to clarify and post Twitter threads of a particlaur group - the one, in fact, that got violent at Berkeley, as they sent out a call to gather and stir up trouble at other events. The violent actors are out there. Why wouldn't BLM be a target for infiltration? Its very existence is a pushback against the status quo.

How does a riot need funding? Really? The idea that paid operatives can cause a chain reaction of violence? That doesn't seem plausible?

And if you are of the mindset that arrests are what will validate the occurance of illegal behavior, well then, I've got some yellow cake from Nigeria to sell you ~


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SticksnStones (Reply #57)

Mon May 15, 2017, 11:01 AM

58. So all of the paid instigators got away

 

Is that it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #58)

Mon May 15, 2017, 11:24 AM

59. Can I verify? No. Plausible? Yes.


Peace.

#resist



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 10:42 AM

43. The lawyer is telling her to be careful and she is telling him she understands.

 

He is not saying it is bullshit. He does not know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 10:48 AM

44. This has been a very busy weekend for the #TrumpTrollArmy, lots of overtime in Moscow.

I especially enjoyed the Saturday Night Massacre. Brilliant, so nice of Taylor and Mensch to have notably historical timing.

EXCLUSIVE: Sealed Indictment granted against Donald Trump, Manafort, Flynn




Trump's New Impeachable Offenses: Obstruction of Justice, Conspiracy, Abuse of Power

Anyone wanting to track and identify trolls, make a large pot of coffee, they are still working overtime.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Original post)

Sun May 14, 2017, 01:17 PM

50. Thatcherite bullshit artist says what?

...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread