I posted it because even if they're not that credible, it's still relevant. They've been wrong a lot, but right a few times.
It's a bad source from a bad person. Stop posting it.I posted it because even if they're not that credible, it's still relevant. They've been wrong a lot, but right a few times.
Looney Mensch says arrests are imminent.
https://patribotics.blog/2017/05/16...dying-plan-approved-by-justice-dept-official/
Merrick Garland doesn't want to lead FBI, sources tell @Arianedevogue
https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/864496853026574336
These Republicans know that accepting the role of Director of the FBI would likely involve them actively performing obstruction of justice, so they don't wanna touch that position with a 10' pole.
They want the investigation shut down, they just don't wanna be the one to do it, with all that potentially entails.
Trump playing 6D chess.They should offer Sally Yates the position, just to confuse us more.
I posted it because even if they're not that credible, it's still relevant. They've been wrong a lot, but right a few times.
You're ridiculous and you don't seem to have any idea what an ad hominem attack really is. Whether she's spreading disinformation via her blog or via Twitter, she's still spreading disinformation. I've seen her tweets, they don't come with any disclaimers, they're heavily shared as if they're factual, it's all bullshit, and she often claims that her wildest claims or retweets of fantasy garbage from obviously-fake "Rogue ____ Staffer" cosplay gimmick accounts and stuff are backed up with sources. And it's not like she doesn't post wild speculation on her blog, too: https://patribotics.blog/2017/03/28...at-secret-trump-tower-meetings-with-russians/
The ad hominem claims are especially stupid since that's her tactic, just calling anyone who challenges her bullshit a Russian bot or troll without evidence. Her spreading bad information is directly relevant to her credibility. A real ad hominem would be something like "She's British, so she can't possibly know anything about the American political scene, what a fraud!" or something like that.
I know what ad hominem attacks are. It makes up the majority of the critiques on Mensch. Are attacks on her actual reporting ad hominem attacks? Nope. But those are not the attacks that are usually slung her way. I ask for examples of her reporting being wrong and I get as a response "SHES JUST A CRAZY NUTTER FAKE LIBERAL", thats ad hominem.
And yes there's a difference between Twitter thoughts, Factual Reporting based on sources, and Informed Speculation like the post you linked. It's speculation and labeled as such, just like her Carolina Conspiracy. Whereas, Grand Juries convened and FBI warrants granted and executed are factual reports and lo and behold CONFIRMED. Also under the factual reporting header is the FISA warrant and the as of yet unconfirmed Trump indictment. Twitter thoughts are for example when she says "I BELEIVE Putin killed Breitbart." Journalists can have thoughts about matters too, they usually don't tweet them like Mensch does though.
Mate.... Why?It's not unlikely Trump wasn't trying to get Flynn not investigated because of Russia but because that ni- I mean former president Obama told him not to do it and he's dump enough to do the opposite. Unfortunately, it would appear he's mostly just really dumb, it's just that being dumb got him into bed with Russia at some point. Then again, being clearly very happy while giving out highly classified information is pretty damning.
It's not unlikely Trump wasn't trying to get Flynn not investigated because of Russia but because that ni- I mean former president Obama told him not to do it and he's dump enough to do the opposite. Unfortunately, it would appear he's mostly just really dumb, it's just that being dumb got him into bed with Russia at some point. Then again, being clearly very happy while giving out highly classified information is pretty damning.
It's not unlikely Trump wasn't trying to get Flynn not investigated because of Russia but because that ni- I mean former president Obama told him not to do it and he's dump enough to do the opposite. Unfortunately, it would appear he's mostly just really dumb, it's just that being dumb got him into bed with Russia at some point. Then again, being clearly very happy while giving out highly classified information is pretty damning.
Mate.... Why?
Sorry, not at all.You're referring to that n-bomb right? Obama's twitter feed + Trump's sheer hatred for him. It's exactly what he would call his (now former) president behind his back.
I thought it would be obvious that was in reference to them, not me.
She's an unreliable source. C'mon, we all know it. People get lucky sometimes, but you're defending her for seemingly no reason, for the sake of adding extra drama (because there's not enough well sourced drama already?)I know what ad hominem attacks are. It makes up the majority of the critiques on Mensch. Are attacks on her actual reporting ad hominem attacks? Nope. But those are not the attacks that are usually slung her way. I ask for examples of her reporting being wrong and I get as a response "SHES JUST A CRAZY NUTTER FAKE LIBERAL", thats ad hominem.
And yes there's a difference between Twitter thoughts, Factual Reporting based on sources, and Informed Speculation like the post you linked. It's speculation and labeled as such, just like her Carolina Conspiracy. Whereas, Grand Juries convened and FBI warrants granted and executed are factual reports and lo and behold CONFIRMED. Also under the factual reporting header is the FISA warrant and the as of yet unconfirmed Trump indictment. Twitter thoughts are for example when she says "I BELEIVE Putin killed Breitbart." Journalists can have thoughts about matters too, they usually don't tweet them like Mensch does though.