Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
106 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Can we now, FINALLY, all agree that Louise Mensch is either a troll or an idiot? (Original Post) brooklynite Jul 2017 OP
but, but, she was right about that one thing that one time! (nt) TacoD Jul 2017 #1
There is a reason why she labels herself "Agent of Chaos, PSYOP division" L. Coyote Jul 2017 #18
odd coincidence? Swagman Jul 2017 #61
That's not a coincidence. Trump fits right in with the Birchers. L. Coyote Jul 2017 #83
The Rosenbergs were convicted of espionage, not treason. The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2017 #102
With that tweet in evidence, I vote for both. MineralMan Jul 2017 #2
Well, being a self-aggrandizing charlatan doesn't rule out either. Hortensis Jul 2017 #65
Since when are pro-lifers against the death penalty? That's the nuttiest thing she said. LonePirate Jul 2017 #3
++++++A trillion lunasun Jul 2017 #6
True pro-lifers Proud liberal 80 Jul 2017 #58
Not so leftynyc Jul 2017 #64
She's British PatSeg Jul 2017 #72
The Catholic Church has been opposed to the death penalty for decades. former9thward Jul 2017 #74
Lol. cwydro Jul 2017 #4
and the gullible seem to be in the majority here. m-lekktor Jul 2017 #8
Exactly. That's what bothers me. People seem not to care how loony this site can look at times. cwydro Jul 2017 #10
When did you start shaking your head? After the trolls attacked her for going after Trump? L. Coyote Jul 2017 #26
I'll keep shaking my head. cwydro Jul 2017 #66
I believe she is a troll having fun and privately having a good laugh about it all. nt m-lekktor Jul 2017 #5
She is a serious journalist and a vocal Anti-Trumper conservative. L. Coyote Jul 2017 #47
No, she's not a serious journalist onenote Jul 2017 #68
Let me know when you fit that into a tweet. L. Coyote Jul 2017 #84
Check out Meghan McCains tweet today about her dad. Several long paragraphs stevenleser Jul 2017 #105
I agree that Mensch's peggysue2 Jul 2017 #73
Claude Taylor has not worked for "various WH administrations" onenote Jul 2017 #77
Fine, don't read him peggysue2 Jul 2017 #81
Thank you for your permission. I trust now you'll stop spreading misinformation about him onenote Jul 2017 #87
Claude is a veteran of three presidential campaigns. He is a serious independent journalist. L. Coyote Jul 2017 #85
You know how many people are "veterans" of presidential campaigns? onenote Jul 2017 #88
Both. Agschmid Jul 2017 #7
Is that Tweet for real? Because there is no DP anymore for treason. WinkyDink Jul 2017 #9
No?... PoliticAverse Jul 2017 #28
I trusted a source that I didn't follow up on. My mistake! WinkyDink Jul 2017 #71
Not only Bannon but Trump himself facing DEATH PENALTY according to Mensch TacoD Jul 2017 #11
I went to check this tweet and am blocked Not Ruth Jul 2017 #12
and who is implicitly determining charges? salin Jul 2017 #20
Mueller is now the person working with the grand juries. He is the special counsel. L. Coyote Jul 2017 #27
Thanks for the clarification salin Jul 2017 #50
The Trump Jr meeting was known in April, so you can count on Mueller knowing too. L. Coyote Jul 2017 #82
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while njhoneybadger Jul 2017 #13
"I am pro-life and take no pleasure in reporting this." NCTraveler Jul 2017 #14
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2017 #35
A "pro-lifer" can dream. lol. nt. NCTraveler Jul 2017 #59
She's a clever witch that one, better burn her at the stake in the public square before L. Coyote Jul 2017 #15
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2017 #24
Thanks, and welcome to DU. L. Coyote Jul 2017 #37
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2017 #42
Just another in a long line of scammers that a certain segment of DU can't help but fall in love tritsofme Jul 2017 #16
*cough* bev harris *cough* salin Jul 2017 #21
Same here. Bleacher Creature Jul 2017 #30
or maybe got back into salin Jul 2017 #51
Bev Harris continues to do great work on the election integrity front. L. Coyote Jul 2017 #33
Her behavior here, and her treatment of Andy salin Jul 2017 #52
LOL... tritsofme Jul 2017 #57
And Snowden and wikileaks jberryhill Jul 2017 #79
I do not support the death penalty for any crime or criminal Not Ruth Jul 2017 #17
I vote for psychologically troubled. kstewart33 Jul 2017 #19
She is neither. The_jackalope Jul 2017 #22
Part of the problem is all these so-called leaks must be taken with a grain of salt. jmg257 Jul 2017 #55
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2017 #23
Welcome to DU alcibiades_mystery Jul 2017 #25
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2017 #29
Queen of the passive voice, definitely. Demit Jul 2017 #32
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2017 #38
Do you really not know what passive voice is? Demit Jul 2017 #48
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2017 #49
Apparently it means posters who like to change the subject. Demit Jul 2017 #53
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2017 #60
Learned long ago - "don't believe anything you hear, and only 1/2 of what you see"..eom asiliveandbreathe Jul 2017 #31
As I have said before, I take ANYTHING that she posts or says with a block of salt. Kleveland Jul 2017 #34
Or a very large crystal of salt, like the ones below: MineralMan Jul 2017 #54
Very nice! Quite stunning actually.... Kleveland Jul 2017 #96
I'm not that familiar with her--has she been right about anything that she tweets? Mrs. Overall Jul 2017 #36
She has great sources eh? awesomerwb1 Jul 2017 #39
Can we vote both...she needs to be sectioned? HipChick Jul 2017 #40
She "needs to be sectioned"? Eyeball_Kid Jul 2017 #44
Military term. Section 8. Where the mental cases go. n/t Stand and Fight Jul 2017 #104
Sectioned is what they say in UK melman Jul 2017 #106
No, I can not agree to that. Raastan Jul 2017 #41
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2017 #46
Mensch is a fascinating read. Eyeball_Kid Jul 2017 #43
She's the dark queen of impeachment porn....n/t PasadenaTrudy Jul 2017 #45
That is a magnificent description! LonePirate Jul 2017 #63
Yes we can!!! nt jmg257 Jul 2017 #56
"death penalty, for espionage, being considered" MGKrebs Jul 2017 #62
it's the Fox News mentality NewJeffCT Jul 2017 #86
Her sources may be telling her that, but if so, her sources are for shit. onenote Jul 2017 #67
You would think so... but of course we can't agree on that at all. FBaggins Jul 2017 #69
I've been in her corner quite a bit....but she seems to really be putting the cart before the horse cbdo2007 Jul 2017 #70
Lol, what happened to that thread throwing shade on this one cwydro Jul 2017 #75
Chelsea Manning was found guilty of espionage for her leaking. pnwmom Jul 2017 #76
And was the death penalty sought against her? onenote Jul 2017 #89
No, because of the nature of her offense. Are you certain Bannon hasn't done anything much worse? pnwmom Jul 2017 #90
The Law is Clear. onenote Jul 2017 #91
No, the law applies even outside of war time. pnwmom Jul 2017 #92
I quoted the language you seem to think I didn't know about onenote Jul 2017 #93
I said "no" to your comment about war time. I never claimed we were in war time, so that pnwmom Jul 2017 #94
Again, the issue isn't whether a prosecutor COULD seek the death penalty for espionage onenote Jul 2017 #97
How can you know what Mueller might consider without knowing what Bannon might have done? pnwmom Jul 2017 #99
What is it that you can imagine Bannon did that would give rise to an espionage claim onenote Jul 2017 #100
I'm not IMAGINING Bannon did something that could give rise to an espionage charge. pnwmom Jul 2017 #103
We should, but it won't happen. Foamfollower Jul 2017 #78
Shark. Jumped. mcar Jul 2017 #80
With 2500 views and only 7 recs, I'd say that's a NO. Glad you asked though L. Coyote Jul 2017 #95
. Dem2 Jul 2017 #98
Con Lady. Hoyt Jul 2017 #101

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
18. There is a reason why she labels herself "Agent of Chaos, PSYOP division"
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 10:26 AM
Jul 2017

but that may be a bit too much for some people to figure out ... ... there's an eight letter word mixed in there and a damn acronym.

Whar really matters here is how the Russian boot lickers react, not the DU'ers.
Glenn Greenwald is having a tantrum, so she must be doing something right.






Swagman

(1,934 posts)
61. odd coincidence?
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 12:08 PM
Jul 2017

The Rosenbergs were executed after a vicious campaign by the crooked lawyer Roy Cohn who...was also Donald Trump's lawyer.

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
83. That's not a coincidence. Trump fits right in with the Birchers.
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 03:06 PM
Jul 2017

What will be "interesting" is the irony of Trump being brought down by the thieves and mafia who brought down the USSR, or the irony of the thieves and mafia that finally brought down the USSR the Birchers couldn't destroy also breaking up the USA and stealing everything here too. We better stop them first, and bravo for every patriot on the bandwagon that understands what is at risk now.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,669 posts)
102. The Rosenbergs were convicted of espionage, not treason.
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 10:56 PM
Jul 2017

Nobody has been convicted of treason since 1952.

MineralMan

(146,286 posts)
2. With that tweet in evidence, I vote for both.
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 09:32 AM
Jul 2017

I hear from my sources that she's considering a podcast show called, "Shark-Jumping for Idiots."

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
65. Well, being a self-aggrandizing charlatan doesn't rule out either.
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 12:46 PM
Jul 2017

I wish people would remember that she's politically conservative and no friend to Democrats. But, exactly like Trump, she's learned she can create juicy lies to attract a following and "they will come."

LonePirate

(13,416 posts)
3. Since when are pro-lifers against the death penalty? That's the nuttiest thing she said.
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 09:32 AM
Jul 2017

Every so-called pro-lifer I know of is fully supportive of the death penalty.

Proud liberal 80

(4,167 posts)
58. True pro-lifers
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 11:59 AM
Jul 2017

Would be against the death penalty, would be for everyone having healthcare, for everyone having food, for everyone having an education, etc....

Most people calling themselves "pro-lifers" really aren't pro-life. They are pro-birth, anti-choice and anti-abortion. They could give a damn about life after birth. They have high jacked that term because it gives a positive and righteous spin to their agenda.

But there are truly some people who are pro-life. Meaning they are against abortion. But also against the death penalty. And for all the things I mentioned in the first paragraph.

m-lekktor

(3,675 posts)
8. and the gullible seem to be in the majority here.
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 09:38 AM
Jul 2017

they will try to shift the discussion to how ODD it is that we who think she is a loon are so obsessed with her. if we don't like her don't read her etc etc. Apparently her apologists don't care what it does to the credibility reputation of DU.

 

cwydro

(51,308 posts)
10. Exactly. That's what bothers me. People seem not to care how loony this site can look at times.
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 09:43 AM
Jul 2017

The fake news, the facebook "feel good stories", the utter nonsense posted by Mensch and those like her.

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
26. When did you start shaking your head? After the trolls attacked her for going after Trump?
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 10:53 AM
Jul 2017

And how many hot tips have you sent to the IC?



 

cwydro

(51,308 posts)
66. I'll keep shaking my head.
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 12:52 PM
Jul 2017

Glad she hates the Orange Stain, but otherwise I think she's a nut.

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
47. She is a serious journalist and a vocal Anti-Trumper conservative.
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 11:27 AM
Jul 2017

I don't agree with her conservatism, but I love her rabid opposition to Trump and her great IC sources from her time in the British parliament.

I also like who she is allied with on Twitter.







And how the Russian boot lickers hate her on Twitter.



onenote

(42,690 posts)
68. No, she's not a serious journalist
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 01:19 PM
Jul 2017

A serious journalist would have noted that while her "sources" are saying the death penalty is being "considered," capital punishment has only been used in an espionage case once in the nation's history (the Rosenbergs more than 60 years ago) and since that time has been sought only one other time (in 2002 and the jury refused to impose the death penalty, choosing life imprisonment instead).

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
105. Check out Meghan McCains tweet today about her dad. Several long paragraphs
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 11:04 PM
Jul 2017

She did it by posting a picture. No reason why Mensch couldn't do that too

peggysue2

(10,828 posts)
73. I agree that Mensch's
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 01:48 PM
Jul 2017

opposition appears genuine. I don't consider her a troll but I don't take her as a bona fide journalist, rather a citizen journalist who offers her own research and source material along with a number of others. Malcolm Nance, for instance, comes with an intelligence/military background. Or Claude Taylor who you mentioned has political experience working for various WH Administrations. Susan Hennessey brings a legal perspective. Etc., etc., etc.

I'm all for getting as much information as possible. If I get to peek around a few corners, so much the better. The difference with the citizen journalist is they do not have an editor hanging over their shoulders, so when they shoot from the hip there are no brakes, other than their own sense of doubling down on verification or pushing back for a deep breath before hitting the 'send' key.

Still, I'm not understanding why so many people are irate at a Louise Mensch or a John Schindler when they're only one aspect of reporting being done out there. And they've been right on more than one occasion. In fact, a number of the 'Big' stories from Wapo & the NYT, I read originally on their twitter feeds. That being said, I'd suggest always reading with a critical eye. Regardless of where the material comes from or the venue.

So, it's up to the individual reader, to read or not to read. I'll just keep doing what I'm doing--reading widely.

onenote

(42,690 posts)
77. Claude Taylor has not worked for "various WH administrations"
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 02:29 PM
Jul 2017

He worked for one - the Clinton administration -- in a low-paying job co-managing the volunteer program. He was paid less than a lot of White House "executive assistants" -- secretaries.

He's a joke.

peggysue2

(10,828 posts)
81. Fine, don't read him
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 02:54 PM
Jul 2017

You can dismiss whoever you like. I'm not selling any of these people. Or damning them for that matter.

To read or not to read. Because we're all adults, yes?

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
85. Claude is a veteran of three presidential campaigns. He is a serious independent journalist.
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 03:13 PM
Jul 2017

And, anything but a joke. But hey, who am I to counter a flame like that. I love jokes.




onenote

(42,690 posts)
88. You know how many people are "veterans" of presidential campaigns?
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 03:24 PM
Jul 2017

Literally hundreds of thousands when you consider unpaid volunteers. Do you have any information of what his position or experience in those campaigns was? I doubt it.

And he's not a serious journalist. He's a failed owner of a photographs store.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
28. No?...
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 10:59 AM
Jul 2017
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

salin

(48,955 posts)
20. and who is implicitly determining charges?
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 10:29 AM
Jul 2017

I don't follow her. But she sounds as unhinged as the pizza gate folks.

She seem to be implying that some mysterious, ominous tribunal that no one knows about is planning charges? Some super-duper intel court? And only she and her sources know about this? And she is letting her followers in on this secret? *insert eye roll*

Totally bizarre.

Thanks for posting the follow up tweet. Went from strange to stranger.

If one wants a good read on late breaking reporting and commentary on Twitter, I suggest following Laura Rozen. It's very good, and she is very sane.

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
27. Mueller is now the person working with the grand juries. He is the special counsel.
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 10:58 AM
Jul 2017

Those who read Louise Mensch's Twitter feed know this.






salin

(48,955 posts)
50. Thanks for the clarification
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 11:45 AM
Jul 2017

It reads highly speculative and specious per how far the Meuller investigation has gone in a relatively short period of time. For example, last week the indications are that they had not yet zeroed in on the meeting in Trump Tower when the Trump Jr started that ball rolling. They had the disclosure form (amended) from Kushner, but hadn't yet focused on it. Now they are.

I do think Meuller will get to a lot of dirt. Who knows how far towards criminal conduct the investigation will reach. I just believe such investigations take a lot of pain staking time to put together, not a matter of a couple of months. Thus the level of speculation of specific charges let alone throwing the death penalty in there are wildly off base at this moment in time - especially at this point in the investigation - it reads as dubious (in terms of having an inside scoop) and reads as if it is meant to titilate/sensationalize.

Have at it. I am glad to get peeks into that groups speculations from time to time. If they get it right - I am all for it in terms of getting to charges. Personally, I will just keep to hard sources and if eventually those start reporting the same thing - then we'll be reading and sharing the same thing. To each her/his own.

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
82. The Trump Jr meeting was known in April, so you can count on Mueller knowing too.
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 02:59 PM
Jul 2017

Of course, people who don't follow the anti-Trump Twitterverse might not have known, but thankfully the universe is not defined by what the know-nothings know.

The reason this leaked I'm thinking is because it is already fully investigated and will be indicted. The leaks are preparing the public for the criminal charges to come. There still is a gaping chasm between the investigations of the last year and what the public knows, and much of that gap will always remain due to the classified nature of espionage-related inquiries. Interesting thing right now is how the primary press investigations are getting the same leaks as our Twitter anti-Trump independent journalist group, so we are already getting the same material. The NYT and WaP don't print it all though.

Response to NCTraveler (Reply #14)

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
15. She's a clever witch that one, better burn her at the stake in the public square before
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 10:07 AM
Jul 2017

other women begin to raise their voices in public.

Seriously, she is my favorite "Agent of Chaos, PSYOP division" operative. And she has great sources.

Response to L. Coyote (Reply #15)

Response to L. Coyote (Reply #37)

tritsofme

(17,376 posts)
16. Just another in a long line of scammers that a certain segment of DU can't help but fall in love
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 10:11 AM
Jul 2017

with...

It's the same phenomenon that keeps people like Alex Jones in business...

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
33. Bev Harris continues to do great work on the election integrity front.
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 11:02 AM
Jul 2017

Which is why people keep attacking her also.

Black Box Voting, founded in 2003, is a nonpartisan investigative reporting and public education organization for elections.

Please list your election integrity accomplishments so we can see the basis of your knowledge and experience for criticizing her.

salin

(48,955 posts)
52. Her behavior here, and her treatment of Andy
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 11:51 AM
Jul 2017

are all I need to know/remember. I appreciate that she was one of a number of voices raising the issue at the time. But it was fundraising appeal for the next breathless breakthrough (that wouldn't come) after the appeal for the next one (that wouldn't come). Then there was something about acknowledging collecting information about posters here at DU and keeping information about them on a spreadsheet. No thank you.

The_jackalope

(1,660 posts)
22. She is neither.
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 10:39 AM
Jul 2017

But it doesn't make any damn difference, really. The real game will be played out in Congress and the courts.

Ever wonder why there are so many leaks suddenly over the last two weeks, with the tempo and seriousness increasing monotonically as time goes on? Ever wonder where all the leaks (not just to Mensch, but to Schindler, Taylor, WaPo, NYT, CNN and MSNBC) are coming from, and why?

It looks to me like the American public is being prepared for some serious legal action, while at the same time the GOP is being undermined. It feels like a counter-coup.

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
55. Part of the problem is all these so-called leaks must be taken with a grain of salt.
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 11:56 AM
Jul 2017

So-called "sources" can say just about anything - how trustworthy, or real in her case, is the issue here.

Response to brooklynite (Original post)

Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #25)

Response to Demit (Reply #32)

 

Demit

(11,238 posts)
48. Do you really not know what passive voice is?
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 11:29 AM
Jul 2017

People use it when they want to be evasive and vague. When they want to be suggestive, and plant ideas without having to be direct. Like Louise Mensch.

Response to Demit (Reply #48)

Response to Demit (Reply #53)

Kleveland

(1,257 posts)
34. As I have said before, I take ANYTHING that she posts or says with a block of salt.
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 11:02 AM
Jul 2017

I can only take any of it seriously purely for entertainment value, kind of like Alien vs. Predator.

I also wonder why she can't find anything better to do..... what am I missing?

Mrs. Overall

(6,839 posts)
36. I'm not that familiar with her--has she been right about anything that she tweets?
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 11:04 AM
Jul 2017

I'm wondering if she has has multiple sources, some of which are correct and others that are not correct and she simply reports everything.

OR, does she purposefully put out disinformation to create chaos and distract.

awesomerwb1

(4,267 posts)
39. She has great sources eh?
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 11:11 AM
Jul 2017

Who in their right mind would trust his/her identity to this lunatic while leaking information to her???

If I were in a position to provide confidential info. about Russia/anything she would definitely not be the person I would give it to.

She's considered a joke in Britain. WATCH HER INTERVIEWS.

 

melman

(7,681 posts)
106. Sectioned is what they say in UK
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 11:16 PM
Jul 2017


"Being sectioned means being admitted to hospital whether or not you agree to it. The legal authority for your admission to hospital comes from the Mental Health Act rather than from your consent. This is usually because you are unable or unwilling to consent.

The term ‘sectioned’ just means using a ‘section’ or paragraph from the Mental Health Act as the authority for your detention. A better word is 'detained'. You are detained under the Mental Health Act. The paragraph or ‘section’ number is often used so a patient may be told they are on a section 2 or section 3."

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/problemsdisorders/beingsectionedengland.aspx

Raastan

(266 posts)
41. No, I can not agree to that.
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 11:14 AM
Jul 2017

What good does it do to be rude and hateful? What makes you feel so right and she is so wrong?

Response to Raastan (Reply #41)

Eyeball_Kid

(7,430 posts)
43. Mensch is a fascinating read.
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 11:16 AM
Jul 2017

The leap of faith that it takes to lend credibility to her reporting isn't very long. She follows standard journalistic practices of carefully defining the context of her tweets and articles. Reading the archived articles that she's published since November of 2016 shows that her sources are fairly reliable and prescient. Yes, she describes herself as a psyops agent, and that's a good description. But her rhetoric along these lines is consistently defined by her as "non-fact." And that, IMO, is okay, as well as her highly dramatic writing style. Mensch is bright and displays a moral clarity in her articles and tweets that's refreshing and patriotic.

If she's telling us that her sources are informing her that Mueller's office is considering a recommendation of the death penalty for Bannon's treasonous work with the Russians dating back to 2010, I take that as a message that Mueller's work is significant and very serious, the White House ought to take notice and Bannon ought to be changing his underwear at regular intervals. That Mueller's office is "considering" that recommendation as a literal interpretation means LESS than the overall tone of the message.

MGKrebs

(8,138 posts)
62. "death penalty, for espionage, being considered"
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 12:23 PM
Jul 2017

Why is this even worth repeating? It's a rumor about an alleged conversation. There is nothing definitive or notable about this at all. I really am curious about the psychology of why anyone would respond to a tweet like this. People here on DU have probably openly mused about the death penalty for Bannon. She could be referring to that for all anyone knows.

What is the point???

NewJeffCT

(56,828 posts)
86. it's the Fox News mentality
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 03:14 PM
Jul 2017

get your followers all excited and they're more likely to see what you have to say tomorrow and the day after that as well. She's got 264K followers on Twitter - maybe she can get a TV job if she gets to 500K or more?

onenote

(42,690 posts)
67. Her sources may be telling her that, but if so, her sources are for shit.
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 01:10 PM
Jul 2017

Espionage has been on the books as a federal crime for 100 years. Do you know how often anyone has been executed for espionage? Twice - Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, 64 years ago. There have been numerous espionage prosecutions before and since where the death penalty wasn't sought. One reason is that the chances of getting a conviction when the death penalty is on the table go down. It is unimaginable that Mueller would hamstring any case he brought against Bannon by taking the virtually unprecedented action of seeking the death penalty.

Plus, any recommendation that capital punishment be sought must be approved by the Attorney General (or in this case the Acting Attorney General if we assume Sessions sticks to his recusal). And if anyone who thinks that's going to happen is hopelessly naïve.

FBaggins

(26,727 posts)
69. You would think so... but of course we can't agree on that at all.
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 01:27 PM
Jul 2017

2% of us are rabidly defending her regardless of evidence contradicting our positions... so they won't agree.

Of course the other 98% of DUers are Russian plants. So of course we would agree... but can be dismissed without engaging reality.

cbdo2007

(9,213 posts)
70. I've been in her corner quite a bit....but she seems to really be putting the cart before the horse
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 01:38 PM
Jul 2017

here. She needs to dial it back a few notches and focus on how to stop Trump as soon as possible, not grandstanding something that is probably 2+ years away as some sort of breaking news.

pnwmom

(108,974 posts)
76. Chelsea Manning was found guilty of espionage for her leaking.
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 02:28 PM
Jul 2017

Are we all confident that Bannon hasn't leaked critical defense information to Russia, or taken any other action that could be prosecuted under the Espionage Act?

Depending on the nature of the offense, the penalty for espionage can be death. The death penalty hasn't been imposed in a case of espionage since the Rosenbergs, but that part of Mensch's claim isn't impossible, either -- it would all depend on what Bannon was alleged to have done. If he didn't take the action himself, but merely conspired with someone else, he would still be guilty of the espionage charge.


http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/espionage.html

Ultimately, Manning was convicted on 21 federal charges related to the massive leak, including six counts of violating the federal Espionage Act (found in chapter 37 of the U.S. Code). The federal crime of espionage is generally intended to punish those who share sensitive information that would be harmful to U.S. interests, but violations of the law can take many forms.

SNIP

Generally, an espionage conviction requires U.S. prosecutors to prove the following elements:

Information transmitted is classified government information or relates to national defense ; and
The accused acted with the intent or reason to believe the information will harm the United States or help a foreign nation (not necessarily an "enemy" of the United States); and
There was a willful communication, transfer, or receipt of the information; or
There was an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy to commit espionage.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/794

18 USC 174

(a) Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the offense resulted in the identification by a foreign power (as defined in section 101(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) of an individual acting as an agent of the United States and consequently in the death of that individual, or directly concerned nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic information; or any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy.

SNIP

(c) If two or more persons conspire to violate this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

pnwmom

(108,974 posts)
90. No, because of the nature of her offense. Are you certain Bannon hasn't done anything much worse?
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 03:30 PM
Jul 2017

Or conspired with someone who did something much worse? I don't know why anyone here would jump to his defense.

onenote

(42,690 posts)
91. The Law is Clear.
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 03:43 PM
Jul 2017

First, Manning potentially faced the death penalty not because of the charge of espionage, but because of a charge of "aiding the enemy" -- a charge that is brought under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and is not applicable to a civilian such as Bannon.

Second, the death penalty is only narrowly applicable to espionage cases. Specifically, it applies to espionage committed "in a time of war" -- and we're not in a time of war with Russia. We have diplomatic relations, we have civilian travel and trade between the countries, etc. In cases of espionage to help a foreign government outside of "a time of war", the law expressly states that "the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the offense resulted in the identification by a foreign power (as defined in section 101(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) of an individual acting as an agent of the United States and consequently in the death of that individual, or directly concerned nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic information; or any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy.

Now if you want to speculate that Bannon engaged in action that resulted in the exposure and death of an agent of the US or the disclosure of information "directly" concerning nuclear weaponry, military satellites, early warning systems or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack, war plans, communications intelligence or cryptographic information, or any other "major" weapons system or "major" element of defense strategy, go ahead and speculate. But you might want to consider that none of the many individuals against whom espionage claims have been brought over the years -- individuals who gave pretty significant secrets to the Russians during the Cold War -- ever were the targets of a death penalty prosecution.

pnwmom

(108,974 posts)
92. No, the law applies even outside of war time.
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 03:58 PM
Jul 2017

Part (b) is related to war time. Part (a) is not.

With regard to part (a) and a possible death penalty, it is not inconceivable to me that Bannon could have been conspiring with others to share war plans, communications intelligence, or "other major element of defense strategy," etc. with the Russians.

There has been a death penalty prosecution for espionage (since the Rosenbergs) -- against Brian Regan. (The prosecutor sought the death penalty but the jury imposed a life sentence without parole.) And there is an ongoing prosecution in Virginia for espionage that could involve the death penalty. (See below).

But there has never been an administration like the current one. I don't put anything past Bannon or most of the people in it. I don't give any of them the benefit of the doubt.



https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/794

18 USC 174

(a) Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the offense resulted in the identification by a foreign power (as defined in section 101(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) of an individual acting as an agent of the United States and consequently in the death of that individual, or directly concerned nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic information; or any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy.

(b) Whoever, in time of war, with intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy, collects, records, publishes, or communicates, or attempts to elicit any information with respect to the movement, numbers, description, condition, or disposition of any of the Armed Forces, ships, aircraft, or war materials of the United States, or with respect to the plans or conduct, or supposed plans or conduct of any naval or military operations, or with respect to any works or measures undertaken for or connected with, or intended for the fortification or defense of any place, or any other information relating to the public defense, which might be useful to the enemy, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.
(c) If two or more persons conspire to violate this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
(d)


http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130183

A federal judge on Thursday rejected attempts by defense lawyers to prevent the government from seeking the death penalty for accused spy Brian Regan.

Regan, a retired Air Force sergeant, is charged with trying to sell military satellite secrets to Iraq, Libya and China. He is a former intelligence analyst who worked at the National Reconnaissance Office, which runs the nation's spy satellites.

The government says Regan took 800 pages of classified information and may have buried even more. He allegedly offered secret data to Iraq and Libya for $13 million. He was arrested a year ago as he tried to board a flight to Switzerland.

In April, federal prosecutors filed court documents declaring their intention to seek the death penalty. It is the first time in decades that the government has sought the death penalty in an espionage case. No U.S. citizen has been executed for spying since Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in the 1950s.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/22/virginia-man-charged-with-espionage-for-giving-top-secret-documents-to-china.html

A Virginia man has been charged with espionage for transmitting top-secret documents to Chinese officials.

Kevin Patrick Mallory, 60, was arrested Thursday at his home in Leesburg, Virginia, and appeared in U.S. District Court in Alexandria.

Mallory, a self-employed consultant and Army veteran, was charged with gathering or delivering defense information to aid a foreign government and for making material false statements under the federal Espionage Act.

SNIP

He could face life in prison and the charges, if certain conditions are met, could make Mallory eligible for the death penalty, according to prosecutor John Gibbs.

onenote

(42,690 posts)
93. I quoted the language you seem to think I didn't know about
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 05:23 PM
Jul 2017

So I'm not sure why you started your response with "No" unless, of course, you didn't bother to read my comment which made clear that there were limited circumstances in which the death penalty was applicable to espionage outside a time of war.

Anyway, to address your points:

First, the Rosenbergs were found guilty of giving away atomic secrets both during wartime (they began during WWII) as well as thereafter. Consequently, the death penalty provisions of both (a) and (b) were applicable (assuming they really were guilty)

Second, the decision to seek the death penalty against Brian Regan was criticized at the time and given that the jury refused to go along it hardly is a ringing endorsement for any future attempt to seek the death penalty absent very clear evidence that the narrow conditions in which the death penalty can be sought for espionage outside a time of war apply.

Third, the statement by prosecutor Gibbs that Mallory could face the death penalty if certain conditions are met is a tautology. Anyone could face the death penalty for espionage if the narrow conditions under which the death penalty can be sought can be met. What's more notable is that the criminal complaint sworn out against Mallory only cites the first part of Section 794 and expressly states that Mallory faces imprisonment for a term or years or life. No attempt is made to cite to the conditions necessary to apply the death penalty or to allege any facts that would support the application of the death penalty. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3872932-17-06-22-Mallory-Criminal-Complaint.html
Moreover, the DOJ's own statement announcing the prosecution of Mallory describes the potential penalty he faces as "life in prison" and goes on to note that the actual sentence typically imposed for federal crimes is typically less than the maximum. Again, not a sparkling example for you to be citing.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/leesburg-man-arrested-and-charged-espionage

Finally, I agree wholeheartedly that this administration is like no other. But that raises the question why you think this administration would approve a death penalty prosecution against Bannon. Under DOJ guidelines, the Attorney General has to approve any prosecution that seeks the death penalty. In this case, even assuming Sessions honors his recusal (which is hardly a given), do you really think that an acting attorney general serving at the pleasure of Trump is going to approve a virtually unprecedented death penalty prosecution against Bannon? That simply makes no sense at all.

pnwmom

(108,974 posts)
94. I said "no" to your comment about war time. I never claimed we were in war time, so that
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 05:40 PM
Jul 2017

seemed irrelevant.

And it also doesn't matter that Regan wasn't, in the end, sentenced to death. The only issue is whether a prosecutor could seek a death penalty under the espionage law -- not whether a jury would go along with it. And a prosecutor could and has sought a death penalty outside of war time.

Also, I didn't say that Sessions would approve such a prosecution. That's not the claim. The claim is that the death penalty is "being considered" -- not that Sessions is considering it. How do we know Mueller isn't considering making that recommendation? Without knowing the underlying facts, I don't see how anyone here could completely rule that out.

onenote

(42,690 posts)
97. Again, the issue isn't whether a prosecutor COULD seek the death penalty for espionage
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 09:08 PM
Jul 2017

it's what the circumstances would have to be both legally and practically for a prosecutor to make the decision.

There is nothing that I've seen that suggests that the legal standard for seeking the death penalty in an espionage case could be made in a case against Bannon. That is, of course, because we have no idea what Bannon might be accused of doing.

And there's the rub. Mensch claims sources tell her that the death penalty is being considered (by whom?) against Bannon. But someone else could just as easily post that their sources tell us that consideration is being given to clearing Bannon of any wrongdoing.

That claim would (and should be mocked here). Why? Because is no reason to think it is true. But the same can be said about Mensch's claim.

We know that Mueller has an established reputation as a deliberate, straight-laced prosecutor. The idea that he would even bother considering going against decades of established precedent in which espionage cases were brought against the likes of Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen etc. is simply silly. As is the idea that he would seek to have the AG's office accept a death penalty prosecution that he knows would be unwindable and might well make achieving a conviction more difficult.

pnwmom

(108,974 posts)
99. How can you know what Mueller might consider without knowing what Bannon might have done?
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 09:21 PM
Jul 2017

No one can. And DT and Bannon seem capable of almost anything. That's why I don't dismiss the possibility out of hand.

onenote

(42,690 posts)
100. What is it that you can imagine Bannon did that would give rise to an espionage claim
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 10:49 PM
Jul 2017

Seriously. Speculate away. There have been reports of his being involved in obstruction of justice. In voter fraud. But anything involving Russia or other foreign governments? Nuclear information? Major war plans? Nada.

And again, that's the problem with Mensch. She can say anything because no one can no for sure. But one can calculate the odds based on what is known. And nothing that it is known lends support to her wacky claim.

But you're going to believe what you want to. And when it inevitably turns out to have been a bunch of BS, you can figure out how to deal with your gullibility.

pnwmom

(108,974 posts)
103. I'm not IMAGINING Bannon did something that could give rise to an espionage charge.
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 11:01 PM
Jul 2017

I'm saying I'm not dismissing out of hand the idea that he could have done something for which the penalty could be death, i.e.:

". . or directly concerned nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic information; or any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy. "


Of those items, the one that seems most likely to me is Bannon conspiring to help transfer "communications intelligence or cyrptographic information."

 

Foamfollower

(1,097 posts)
78. We should, but it won't happen.
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 02:30 PM
Jul 2017

People who get into the CT nonsense from the likes of Mensch invest a great deal of personal self worth into those things and can never admit they were duped by a con artist.

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
95. With 2500 views and only 7 recs, I'd say that's a NO. Glad you asked though
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 05:48 PM
Jul 2017

so I'd have somewhere to post some great tweets.


Dem2

(8,168 posts)
98. .
Wed Jul 19, 2017, 09:09 PM
Jul 2017


Obviously she thinks we'll like the idea and believe it. I like the idea but I don't believe it, it's laughable.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Can we now, FINALLY, all ...