Claude Taylor has issued a clarification.

[Qutzupalotl]

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

and earlier today:

Link to tweet

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Trump indictment? is that what it says?

This is a credible person, obviously, so what is he saying exactly?

I would be so pleased to see justice.

[Qutzupalotl]

2. Yes. Louise Mensch's sources are different and saying practically the same thing:

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

She too is not a lawyer or constitutional scholar. I think she means the indictment is coming from a state rather than federal grand jury.

[Eliot Rosewater]

3. Not sure about her but this would be great news, what worries me is

Pence is as guilty as Trump, he has to go too.

Ryan will, if succeeds, kill millions of us.

[Qutzupalotl]

6. She says elsewhere that Pence and Ryan are also implicated

and that Hatch has been receiving security briefings. I too hope this is not just wishful thinking, but we will have to wait for any indictments to be unsealed.
https://patribotics.blog/2017/05/13/trumps-presidency-ended-may-9th-hatch-getting-security-briefings/

[Dustlawyer]

16. I don't know the validity of this or even the procedural path it would follow to have so many in

the line of succession, including the leadership of the Republican Party, involved in a criminal conspiracy/enterprise, not my area of specialty by a long shot. I hope it is true because it would be my ultimate wish list. If true and this happens, they all go down, I hope we all demand to get the money out of our politics!

Please be true!Please be true!Please be true!Please be true!Please be true!Please be true!

[jberryhill]

12. Solid bullshit in that blog post:

"While it is understood that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution means that, until Mr. Trump is impeached, he cannot be prosecuted..."

People like using legal phrases they do not have a clue about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

[womanofthehills]

88. People will pressure GOP to impeach I hope

[jberryhill]

89. He has immunity for acts done in his official capacity

Laundering money is not one of the official duties of the President, nor are most of the other idiotic things he's done.

If he walks out into the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoots someone - which, heck, is about the only campaign promise he could actually keep - he would not be immune to criminal prosecution.

[H2O Man]

4. 2/3rds correct

Flynn and Manafort. Not Trump.

[Qutzupalotl]

5. Thank you.

May I ask your source?

[H2O Man]

7. A couple of associates.

[Qutzupalotl]

94. Appreciate the input. If you have a twitter account

please let @LouiseMensch and @truefactsstated know your perspective. The more eyes we have on this, the better.

[H2O Man]

103. Thanks.

I don't have a twitter account. But I have a high opinion of Mensch.

Back in the days of DU's Plame threads, based upon the same associates, I was rather accurate about Fitzgerald's grand jury. A few "mistakes," of course. But accurate on who testified what days, and about what. I still wish they charged Cheney.

[Ligyron]

81. that sounds believable

[H2O Man]

104. Last week, on MSNBC's

show hosted by Rachel Maddow, she provided some interesting information on the pair, and the different reactions they have had to being investigated. I think Flynn is still trying to make a deal. Looking forward to hearing what he has to offer!

[bresue]

8. SKEPTICISM CONCERNING THESE UNVERIFIED CLAIMS

I have been reading the yes/no skepticism debates posted today...whether to believe these preliminary news reports concerning indictments issued and who they were served against. The arguments have been hotly discussed.

A couple of thoughts I wanted to add:

1. If Comey were going to leak, which media personalities would he utilize?

2. What is holding Comey back from leaking? What is holding Comey back from voluntarily offering up more evidence to DOJ to speed up indictments?

3. Why are these supposedly leakers...doing so now? Why make up big kadoos about what may be coming unless it is so big that officials are trying to prepare the public? In order for a smoother transition?

[Madam45for2923]

10. Leaking so Investigation cannot be stopped.

[Charlotte Little]

15. 100% agree

Louise Mensch is a wackadoodledoo and Claude is a relative unknown who've both been correct (if not in details, certainly in overarching themes), while MSM has been nothing but a big wet noodle when it comes to getting the facts out in a timely manner.

I am more inclined to believe the wackadoodledoo and the relative unknown over MSM any day because I am absolutely convinced leaks are now not going to drip, drip, drip but start flooding.

It has become blatantly clear that Trump & his ilk intend to eliminate all checks and balances, all institutions, and, ultimately, our democracy. If Henry Kissinger and Russian spies trolling America in the Oval Office last week didn't cause the hairs on the back of your neck to rise, you aren't paying attention.

Whether Louise & Claude are right is irrelevant - shit is going to happen and happen fast. If it doesn't, mark my words- America, as we've known and loved it, is gone.

[bucolic_frolic]

28. Fast

My reading of it too, based on the lay of the land as these two describe.
Evidence & action, House vote (with more than a handful of members
absent), whammo.

May all remaining loyal patriots of both parties steel their loins and stay true
to our country.

[Nitram]

44. Steel their loins? LOL.

I believe that is "gird their loins," or "steel your mind."

[bucolic_frolic]

76. one is a synonym for the other

though one might not "gird their mind"

[Nitram]

108. Nope. Two different expressions. Not interchangeable. You can't steel your loins.

Just acknowledge your error gracefully or find an example in the literature to prove your point.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

109. nitram is correct. The expressions are related but have different meanings.

"Gird your loins" means to prepare for battle including putting armor on but also strapping a (metaphorical) sword belt on.

"Steel your mind" means to sharpen your mind, harden it, make it more incisive (cutting), more powerful. It is more specific than the other expression, but it is also applicable to a wider range of situations that might not involve "battles". For example you might wish to steel your mind (harden your resolve) when it comes time to end the suffering a beloved pet is enduring.

[bucolic_frolic]

110. Nitpicking phrases vs words

http://www.freethesaurus.com/steel

Loins can be girded or steeled

[Nitram]

111. Nope. You misunderstand the figurative meaning of "steel" in this context.

Find just one example.

[Demonaut]

87. where have they been right?

[Charlotte Little]

93. Where have they been right?

1. Louise on the original FISA warrant (she now claims six, I believe, but I don't know if that's been verified)

2. Claude on the Grand Juries (spot on even though he accidentally tweeted Arlington, VA for Alexandria, VA) - [fixed my mistake!]

I believe Louise is a nutter, trust me. I'm no fan of hers and she's also been flat out wrong (she embarrassed herself on Friday by insinuating Sessions was going to be arrested on "Black Friday&quot .

Claude, on the other hand, is an unknown who did nail the Grand Juries. But he too embarrasses himself because he is such an amateur and spends way too much time blowing spitballs at Naveed Jamali and Seth Abramson. I don't follow Abramson or Jamali but I do follow Malcolm Nance. Nance despises both Mensch & Taylor, so there is that. Then, there is also John Schindler, who I follow but who kind of skeeves me out. The whole lot of them are too melodramatic, if you ask me.

I follow them on Twitter more out of curiosity than some undying belief that they are right. With that said, if, and I do mean IF, they are right about the indictments and arrests, I'm going to be laughing at a lot of folks on Twitter who stalk their timelines just to naysay them and their theories. If you don't dig them, ignore them, is my motto.

[LenaBaby61]

100. Louise & Claude ...

"I am more inclined to believe the wackadoodledoo and the relative unknown over MSM any day because I am absolutely convinced leaks are now not going to drip, drip, drip but start flooding."

I can only speak for me, but Louise Mensch is no more of wackadoodledoo than MSNRNC'S Ms. Greenspan per her daily reports about how "scandalous" and "bad" Hillary Clinton's email situation was over at, when in reality that was a scandal that WASN'T per Comey's testimony in July 2016. THEN, when Comey came out 11 days before the election with his new email "news" that wasn't, Ms. Greenspan's eyes were rolling around in her head like pin balls in a pin ball machine reporting about some possible new emails of Hillary Clinton's found on a laptop Huma Abedin shared with Anthony Weiner. Turns out that those emails were already seen, plus we found out that Comey was sitting on some information about tRumputin/possible ruskie connection/collusion since around the same time in June 2016. Let me let go of that somehow for the moment

Anyway, I'll go with Claude and Louise's reporting anyday over MOST in the so-called legitimate, so-called liberal media.

[L. Coyote]

22. Grand Jury leaks can annul the process, actually.

[The Blue Flower]

9. In yesterday's discussion, someone here said indictments against drumpf would stay sealed

They'd stay sealed until articles of impeachment are drawn up. But it seems to me there'd be no such constraints re: Flynn and Manafort. Once they start talking, it will be drumpf's undoing and should speed the process of impeachment.

[Madam45for2923]

11. I think timing is important because cannot have Trump around to pardon people

I think it's like a circular situation.

Like playing chess, you need to get the appropriate moves at the right times. Get timing wrong & you lose.

If you are going for the King you got one shot. You better get it right.

[Foamfollower]

13. The lying liar is backpedaling to cover his ass.

Why am I not surprised?

[Madam45for2923]

17. ???

Last edited Sun May 14, 2017, 03:44 PM - Edit history (2)

Foamfollower
13. The lying liar is backpedaling to cover his ass.

Why am I not surprised?

Not sure why you have such strong reaction against him?

FYI: He is a DEM. He has sources. He wrote what sources told him. He trusts his sources.

His & Louise's article: they have not backpedaled.

He misspoke in a tweet last night and now correcting the tweet info.

He is not a lawyer.

They are not backpedaling from article and all its 90 something words.

EOM>

[Foamfollower]

19. He's spouting made up bullshit.

There's nothing to it.

It's hokum.

[Madam45for2923]

20. I think you can criticize someone without being extreme about it especially a DEM who is on our side

Foamfollower
19. He's spouting made up bullshit.

There's nothing to it.

It's hokum.

He has anonymous sources. Is all anonymous sourced info hokum?

Was "deep throat" hokum or bullshit?

He is on our side fighting the Trump/Russia Mess, or is that hokum to you too?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

25. Some info for you, or not, as the case may be

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9059151
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9058890
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9058717
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9059255

[Foamfollower]

31. I've visited every link you posted.

The man is full of bullshit.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

34. That all you have to say and you never back it up. . . nt

[Foamfollower]

35. You demand proof of a negative.

Believe what you will. CT nonsense is still CT nonsense.

Hucksters pull this shit all the time and thousands line up to believe it.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

37. Nope. You have made two assertions (Mensch, CTaylor) that you are unable to back up.

When you make assertions, the ball is in your court when you are called out on them.

You have nothing.

Your assertions are therefore meaningless.

[Foamfollower]

61. Mensch and Taylor are making the assertions.

They are under the burden of proof.

I cal bullshit on their idiocy.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

62. They aren't making them here. You are making assertions HERE. You are being called on it. . . . nt

[Foamfollower]

63. And I will continue to call bullshit when their bullshit is posted here

Because it is all bullshit.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

64. Repetition of that word makes your (non-existent) case weaker. . . nt

[Foamfollower]

67. Repetition of Mensch and Carter bullshit makes it even bullshittier

[truthaddict247]

59. No

We're making a calculated decision to believe them when they are BOTH putting their reputation and credibility on the line AND that calculated decision is based on their TRACK RECORD of being the ones to break the trump-russia stories and Fisa story well before the MSM. so, there's the data backing up our thought process. How about you? How do you arrive where you stand which by the looks of it seems only to be character assassination and ad hominem attacks. When do you have to provide a coherent argument for your stance?
Waiting....

[Bernardo de La Paz]

66. +1. Well stated. . . nt

[Madam45for2923]

68. What CT? Is Trump/Russia collusion a CT? or Hokum? as you like to say?

Foamfollower
35. You demand proof of a negative.
View profile
Believe what you will. CT nonsense is still CT nonsense.

Hucksters pull this shit all the time and thousands line up to believe it.

Now you are calling a DEM trying to help with the Trump/Russia Mess a huckster?

[Foamfollower]

70. Claiming there are "selaled indictments for Donld Trump" is pure hokum.

I'll wait for facts, thankyouverymuch.

[Madam45for2923]

71. Is Trump/Russia collusion hokum?

In your book?

[Foamfollower]

74. In my book? Here is the most likely scenario...

Most likely, members of Trump's campaign team colluded with the Russians on the election hacks and the release of hacked documents through the Russian puppet, Wikileaks. The people at the top of the potential list are Flynn, Manafort, and Page. Others were likely involved, possibly including Jared Kushner.

Most likely, Trump was never directly involved with said collusion, just as Nixon was never involved with the Watergate break in.

Most likely Trump found out about the collusion either late in the campaign (probably in August of 2016 given the timing of events) or shortly after the election, and began his participation in the coverup.

To me, that is the most likely scenario. I'll wait for facts to come out before drawing absolute conclusions.

Furthermore, if Mensch and Carter claim there are sealed indictments, most likely a grand jury has yet to be seated.

[Qutzupalotl]

96. You have a lot of faith in Trump as an innocent naif

pure as the driven snow. Who likes to hang out with and rent space to known mobsters and money launderers. I say that's bullshit.

[Foamfollower]

97. You have an interesting way of inventing things I allegedly say out of whole cloth.

Nice.

[Qutzupalotl]

98. You bent over backwards to say you believe Trump has no knowledge

of what went on IN HIS OWN CAMPAIGN.

Impressive.

[Foamfollower]

99. And again, you invent shit out of whole cloth.

I suggest you re-read my post.

[Qutzupalotl]

101. You think people would commit treason on Trump's behalf

and not tell him until after the fact? No I don't buy that at all. That does not seem likely at all. For one thing, Trump's Russian connections go back a lot farther than this campaign.

Then there's the plain fact that Trump HIRED Manafort given his background and HIRED a foreign agent as National Security Advisor despite being warned (then fired one of the whistleblowers and kept Flynn on for weeks!). Hired Carter Page. All deliberate decisions on Trump's part. Each one has troubling ties to Russia.

Uninvolved my ass.

[Foamfollower]

102. Maybe you should educate yourself on past scandals, especially Watergate.

[Qutzupalotl]

105. There's only one Capo in this WH, and it's Mafia Don.

[Foamfollower]

106. He's a fucking moron.

[Eyeball_Kid]

27. If only we were more emphatic about the lies emanating from the Trumpy WH...

Trumpy is constantly lying. If you're so certain that Taylor is lying, where do you go for any iota of truth? You can't go to the GOP. They're all lying.

Taylor and Mensch are very careful with their framing of their tweets and articles. They clearly state when what they're writing is speculation or opinion, or when it's a statement coming from a source. Yes, there has to be a modicum of trust, but that possibility is far more plausible than trying to get facts from Trumpy or his White House of lunatics.

[Foamfollower]

36. OF course Trump is lying all the time.

The media is actually using the "L" word with him and his administration.

That does not detract from the fact that Taylor and Mensch are con artists.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

38. You never supply any evidence about Taylor and Mensch, even when asked. You have nothing. nt

[Foamfollower]

40. None of it is true.

They are preying on your wishes and dreams, like any con artist.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

46. You wish. You have nothing to back up what you say. . nt

[Foamfollower]

47. Wrong, Mensch and Carter have nothing to back up what they claim!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

48. They do. But the ball is in your court. You are the one making the baseless assertion HERE on DU. nt

[Foamfollower]

49. Then present the fucking indictment

You can't because it's pure bullshit.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

51. Just because you are impatient does not make sealed indictments bullshit. . . nt

[Foamfollower]

52. Yes, it does, because presidents are never indicted.

IF an indictment were to happen it could only come after impeachment or completion of term of office.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

54. The world does not revolve around you. Your impatience blinds you so you don't see that Manafort and

Manafort and Flynn are not Presidents and do not hold office.

Further, if you weren't so impatient and furiously posting content-free posts, you might be able to pause to reflect that sealed indictments against a sitting President can be held until he/she leaves office.

This is the last year of the tRump Presidency.

[Foamfollower]

55. OFFS!

Believe what you will, it's all complete bullshit.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

57. Repetition of that word does not make it more true. . . . nt

[Qutzupalotl]

75. Here's what Mensch said.

https://patribotics.blog/2017/05/14/exclusive-sealed-indictment-granted-against-donald-trump/
until Mr. Trump is impeached, he cannot be prosecuted, sources say that the indictment is intended by the FBI and prosecutors in the Justice Department to form the basis of Mr. Trump’s impeachment. The indictment is, perhaps uniquely, not intended or expected to be used for prosecution, sources say, because of the constitutional position of the President.

[Foamfollower]

77. No, that's not what she said. She claimed he was indicted.

Even in what you posted, she claims he was indicted.

Sitting presidents CANNOT BE INDICTED. They must first be impeached or complete their term.

There is no indictment.

[Qutzupalotl]

79. Can you post a link to that statute

or decision that says presidents cannot be indicted for past miscionduct? tia

[jberryhill]

91. Why not back up what you are saying

You have made a claim that is subject to proof, namely to the effect of - nothing they have ever said has ever happened in the manner predicted.

Proof of that proposition is not "proving a negative".

Simply list their past predictions and show that none of them have happened.

If you were interested in a reasoned discussion, you do have the burden of proving your claim.

[denbot]

53. Foamfollower I was on the jury that alerted on your first OP reply

He only reason I voted no is that I did not consider Taylor a Democratic Public Figure.
Now that I've read the OP, I regret my mistake.

[BannonsLiver]

42. It's fan fiction.

[Foamfollower]

43. Exactly!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

21. No. You can't point to any lies he's posted. You couldn't when asked about Mensch.

You can't credibly point to any lies he's posted. Being wrong on a small detail does not count, especially like here where he corrects it. Events that have not yet happened or not yet revealed but might yet happen or be revealed are not lies.

[L. Coyote]

23. Don't peddle right-wing talking points, smears, or sources

Don't bash Dem public figures either.

And enjoy your stay.

[Foamfollower]

32. He's making shit up!

It's not true.

Same shit happens every administration. Somebody peddles bullshit that some people wants to hear.

Come back when you have factual information.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

41. It is laughable when the person with no information says "come back when you have information"! . nt

[Foamfollower]

50. Wishes aren't information and all Mensch and Carter are peddling are wishes.

[Qutzupalotl]

95. All you're peddling are ad hominems.

Back up what you say or go away.

[truthaddict247]

65. Foamfollower

Why do you get to repeat baseless personal speculation about the legitimacy of reports from mensch and Taylor without a shred of evidence to back it up? Isn't this what we deal with on the other side with the republicans "tax cuts payfor themselves because they do" bs that we have to fight tooth and nail against 365 days a year. You are just attacking then personally without addressing anything of substance

[pnwmom]

30. Yes, Donald Trump is always backpedaling to cover his ass. You've got that right. n/t

[Feathery Scout]

14. I'll believe Flynn...and Manafort too. Think Trump is a big dose of Hopium right now.

[calimary]

18. Hopium!

I think we all have a stash of that hidden away, or maybe not so hidden away.

[Feathery Scout]

39. Yep! I have no doubt he is a traitor. But did he leave proof? And will the Reps allow it to

be uncovered and exposed to the world, destroying Trump and their Party?


That's a big leap of faith.

Especially when the first step hasn't even been taken yet. Formal acknowledgement that Trump himself is under investigation.

[TheDebbieDee]

24. Does anyone mention what the indictments are for? I'm betting that the indictments

are related to financial crimes rather than treason or collusion with the Russians...

[Bernardo de La Paz]

26. There was an FBI raid in Alexandria, Virginia, on Thursday at a Republican fundraising company. . nt

[Leghorn21]

69. Do you mean the raid in Annapolis, MD, Bernardo?

I was thrilled with the news, and of course, first heard of it via a Claude tweet!

bathroomonkey posted on it a bit later:

Cuccinelli said Wednesday in a statement to The Associated Press that he'd not spoken to any federal law enforcement officials about Strategic Campaign Group but is "curious" to see where the case goes.

"It was my hope when we brought our lawsuit to cast light on the dark practices of scam PACs. I think we did that successfully," Cuccinelli said. "Any cleaning up of these practices would be good for our political system.


http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2017/The-FBI-has-raided-the-office-of-a-Republican-consulting-firm-with-an-office-on-Main-Street-in-Maryland-s-capital-in-connection-with-an-investigation-into-the-2013-Virginia-governor-s-ra/id-894e0f85a2be449a9129d94f8933b6b7

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9056518

[Bernardo de La Paz]

72. Oops, yes, you got it. Thanks for correcting me! . . nt

[former9thward]

73. It was about a case from 2013.

Interesting you left that out....

[Madam45for2923]

78. The owner of the place said that. It's like taking the suspect's word. FBI was mute.

[former9thward]

80. The owner of the place read the search warrant.

A search warrant has to be specific.

[Qutzupalotl]

82. That was what they knew was there.

I belive they expected to find more, and did. Quite a treasure trove.

[Madam45for2923]

84. Is it public the warrant?

Besides the owner who else can corroborate?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

85. Search warrants specify places & causes (reason). This one probably sealed because of bigger issues

... much bigger issues.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

83. If you think a major FBI op that size is about a CIVIL case that was SETTLED, go ahead.

The firm was sued by Cuccinelli but it was settled for about $75,000, I think was the amount.

The FBI is not in the habit of sending so many agents about settled civil lawsuits.

The owner/founder of the company tried to put a brave face on it by referring to the suit, but it was misdirection. Nothing to see here, move along?

[former9thward]

90. Always good to know we have an expert in FBI operations on DU.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

92. I'm not. Do you care to debate my points or do you wish to attack me again?

You couldn't debate the message so you shoot the messenger. Uh huh.

[DefenseLawyer]

29. I get that he's not an attorney, but presumably his "sources" are.

Or at least they are law enforcement or at very very least an intern at the justice department. In any case, if he is just reporting what he is being told, and his sources have things that wrong about basic criminal procedure, then his sources can't possibly be in a position to really know anything.

[Foamfollower]

33. I'm pretty sure his "sources" are his fevered mind

I like facts, not wishes.

[BannonsLiver]

45. +1

[Takket]

56. +1

[GliderGuider]

58. And I'm pretty sure they're not.

But it doesn't matter what either of us are "pretty sure" of, does it?

[Foamfollower]

60. That's your right.

[LovingA2andMI]

107. +Another 1

This Speculation is just that until FACTS are brought to the table. Also, you're right. A President CANNOT be indicted until after they are impeached and removed from office. That's 8th Grade Government 101.

[Madam45for2923]

86. I will keep reading LM and CT and make up my own mind. Thank You very much!

LM is a conservative putting country above party.
CT is a DEM sharing what sources have told him.

People calling them liars are either saying that LM & CT are lying, period.
Or their sources are lying to them.

From what I see I don't believe they are lying types.
I don't know yet about their sources. We shall see.

If you don't like that their sources are anonymous that's the nature of the beast at our present moment when we got a dangerous administration in place.

I believe that the Trump/Russia collusion is real. NOT a CT but a REAL CONSPIRACY. If you don't that is your opinion.

The truth needs to come out.

Being authoritative and calling people lying liars is not enough of a point in my book. Everyone here is anonymous.

LM and CT are not anonymous. They are helping uncover what the malicious administration wants to hide and lie about. We will see how their reports pan out.

(Dear OP this post is meant in general, not you!)
Dear OP thanks for posting.