Rupert Murdoch’s Louise Mensch a Hillary Supporter

5 Comments

1. 

   esquimaux on March 5, 2017 at 11:32 am

   you appear to think this woman is significant. you do not  make it clear what is significant about her.

   • 

     Marie3 on March 5, 2017 at 2:46 pm

     Yes.  Many of us here don’t spend any time watching, listening, reading the rightwing noise machines.  And only casually keep up with the Democratic Party noise machines and characters.  Just enough on the latter that we can say wtf when Ellen and others embrace the warmonger GWB.

     Never heard of this Mensch person and there doesn’t seem to be any shortage of replacement wannabes for open slots on either side of the MSM aisle.  Wake me when one of those replacements is worth a damn.  

2. 

   Marie3 on March 5, 2017 at 2:38 pm

   emptywheel

   This is Louise Mensch’s crack investigative skills on display.

   bmaz

   Hahahahaha, Louise Mensch is such a complete wackjob.

   Glenn

   And because she spins the most insane tales about Russia – including Putin murdered Breitbart! – she now has a big Democrat fan base

3. 

   Oui on March 5, 2017 at 5:41 pm

   Hahahaha …. You tell me HOW a “whacko”, who was personally close to Rupert Murdoch [!], got the exclusive information from intelligence assets to publish her article in Heat Street on November 7, 2016. THAT makes it interesting with whom Louise Mensch had contacts. I allege it was from someone close to RM himself. Murdoch with close ties to Bibi Netanyahu, Mossad and Unit 8200. THAT’s what’s interesting about Mensch.

   Louise Mensch: the former British MP who scooped US media on Trump’s Russian ties | The Guardian – Feb. 17, 2017 |

   Now 45, the woman born Louise Bagshawe in London who once dominated the chick-lit bestseller lists in the UK has reinvented herself once more: working as an executive for Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp by day …

   On the eve of the November election, Mensch published a sensational story reporting that a special intelligence court in Washington had granted a warrant to allow the FBI to conduct surveillance of “US persons” in an investigation of possible contacts between Russian banks and the Trump organisation.

   At the time, the story did not cause much of a ripple. It was published on Heat Street, a libertarian-leaning website run by News Corp, and an unknown quantity in journalism. So was Mensch, whose recent public profile consisted mainly of a string of angry Twitter spats.

   Meanwhile, the combined investigative forces of the US media had spent months seeking to prove a secret connection between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin and had come up with very little.

   …
   Two months later, however, the BBC put out a story echoing [article by Paul Wood] Mensch’s original report about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Fisa) court warrant issued in October to allow the justice department to look into transfers and communications between the Russian banks and Trump associate – and that US intelligence agencies were investigating the link.

   The Guardian separately confirmed the original request for a Fisa warrant, which had been turned down earlier in the summer, and former officials said they believed that the Mensch and BBC account of the Fisa warrants was correct.

   In mid-January, the McClatchy news agency said one of its sources had also confirmed the report, and the New York Times’ public editor, Liz Spayd, published an assessment of its coverage of the Trump-Moscow link on 20 January, arguing that it had been “too timid”. The Times, Spayd argued, “knew several critical facts: the FBI had a sophisticated investigation under way on Trump’s organization, possibly including Fisa warrants”.

   Furthermore Mensch’s own “explanation” …

   “They gave me one of the most closely guarded secrets in intelligence,” she said in a telephone interview. “People are speculating why someone trusted me with that. Nobody met me in a darkened alley in a fedora, but they saw me as someone who has political experience and is their friend. I am a pro-national security partisan. I don’t have divided loyalties.”

   Mensch said she gained her reputation among intelligence professionals on both sides of the Atlantic as a result of her furious criticism of the Guardian’s handling of the NSA files leaked by Snowden when he walked out of his NSA job in Hawaii and fled to Hong Kong.

   The files included large amounts of information about the UK electronic surveillance agency, GCHQ, and Mensch argued that moving the files around the world constituted trafficking in stolen state secrets that put the lives of British intelligence officials at risk.

   Mensch presented herself as an advocate for intelligence professionals, who were unable to defend themselves because of the secret nature of their work. She frequently uses the hashtag #TeamBond. “I am a patriot in the service of the intelligence community,” she said.

   Most of her earlier tweets have been DELETED! Foreign IC have handed over recordings and transdripts Trump camp colluding with Russia, and info is new. (Mensch tweet today– is factual for Dutch intelligence AIVD which belongs to “Nine Eyes” and have a warm cooperation with the Mossad – see my many previous posts]

   From my original diary about Louise Mensch …

   ○ J’Accuse Rupert Murdoch On Stalinism and Sheeple – His WSJ

   • 

     Marie3 on March 5, 2017 at 6:31 pm

     Why would you believe anything Mensch says?

     However, that wasn’t esquimaux’s and my complaint.  Throwing up diaries that are 90+% excerpts from publications (and often not current) assumes some level of preexisting knowledge and/or interest in the person and/or issue.  If that condition existed, then readers would almost always have already have consumed the latest news/information on it and a diary here would be redundant.

     This one should have started with who Mensche is and why we should care.  In your words.  Then, again mostly in your own words, a fuller profile of who she is including where she came from, who she’s worked for, and known affiliations.  Then offer your speculations as to her agenda or that of those she’s fronting for and why she is potentially more than a blip in the media noise machine.  You should aim for 90% in your own words (with links as appropriate) and 10% in abstracted block quotes.  That’s not a rigid ratio, but when it’s less than 40/60%, be honest in your presentation that you’re recommending Article A (with appropriate link) and that you think it’s related to Article B (with appropriate link) and pad it with single paragraph (or two very short paragraphs) from the articles. If readers are intrigued and want to see more, they’ll go to the source articles.  

     Also recognize that how you mentally link and relate disparate information is unique to you and if it’s not worth your time and effort to explain those relationships, don’t expect others to see it as obvious.