I do like that she has improved her blogging by writing

'This article is a theory, based on informed speculation.' on everyone of her blogs. To me, she is acknowledging her reports need to be taken with a grain of salt.

And on another post, she started it as 'This piece is an op-ed. It is not a report. It is based on informed speculation and chatter, but it is not a report, so I’ll keep it short. I wouldn’t call it a theory, either. My theoretical pieces have been analysis of the facts as I saw them.'

I believe all the democrats who have been calling her out on her reports and conspiracies are making a change.

Rep. Green called for impeachment in the House. He was interviewed by Amy Goodman last week, and he said he's holding off on introducing a resolution. As I understand it, that would be when the matter gets referred to the Judiciary Commitee, once there is a formal resolution, and there hasn't been.

I think she's confusing a case for impeachment (where facts are still being gathered) with the process of impeachment (which is nowhere near beginning). I think she's deliberately doing so. This blog post is hopelessly bogged down with vague terminology on the one hand and superfluous but sensational-sounding details, like the Atty General being placed under heavier than usual guard, on the other. I don't follow her every blog post, but from the samples I've seen here on DU, that's her style. Vague and sensationalistic. Also a little testy, now that she's being criticized.

Making a speech on the house floor in which you suggest the president should be impeached no more starts a "case of impeachment" than standing up on the house floor and declaring that the minimum wage should be $15 starts the process for enacting a bill.

Thus Mensch's dramatic "case" for impeachment would have started then. I think people should be parsing her words—her slippery language—a lot more carefully, and maybe they will do from here on out.

to her earlier nonsense. Sort of, anyhow. That's worthy of a visit, I think.

I hadn't checked her twitter feed yet, and this is the first I heard of it. Many thanks.

I's quite interesting speculation. I've always wondered how Schneiderman might be integrated into the overall #FuckTrump effort. Her perspective on the issue is very helpful to me.

First, she claims NY AG Schneiderman "took his case" to the FISA court. But the FISA court's role is to issue surveillance warrants to federal authorities, not state authorities. Schneiderman would know that. He also would know that the FISA court doesn't "hear cases" and doesn't compile evidence -- again, something Schneiderman would know. The fruits of a surveillance warrant issued by FISA might be used by a US Attorney in a grand jury proceeding, but that's not what she described happening.

Second, she continues to make the nonsensical argument that Rep. Green's speech on the House floor calling for Trump's impeachment initiated in some formal way the impeachment process. She even claims it led to the matter being referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Total bullshit. A speech is nothing but a speech. It doesn't trigger anything. If Green had introduced articles of impeachment or a resolution or motion to commence an impeachment inquiry -- something that the House could vote on -- that could and would have been referred to the Judiciary Committee. But a speech? Nope. There would be a record of the "matter" going to the House Judiciary Committee in response to Green's speech if that's what had happened. There is no record. Instead what the record shows is that the Speaker Pro Tem responded to Green's speech as follows: "Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President, such as accusations that he committed an impeachable offense." https://www.congress.gov/crec/2017/05/17/CREC-2017-05-17-house.pdf

Does that sound like an impeachment case has been commenced in the House?

Finally, although she has now corrected it, an earlier version of her blog claimed that the FISA Court and the federal district court for the Eastern District of Virginia met in the same building. Wrong. FISA meets in the E. Barrett Prettyman building Washington DC; the EDVA meets in the Albert Bryan building in Alexandria VA.

at once. Really...

No divisive group attacks or something like that. SOME of us read her blog. We know it is not written in stone. When the Mansch haters come out, it is nothing but a slug fest towards those of us dumb enough to read her blog. Never mind the fact that she has had several items she was right about, you guys dislike her and that is all that matters.
Do carry on though. It keeps you busy and divides the dems.

tweets. If you read it otherwise, you're reading something into what I wrote that was not intended.

However, you can alert on my posts if you wish. If enough people believe that they violate DU's community standards, they will vote to remove the post.

That is your privilege as a DU member, as much as it is my privilege to compose posts on this website.

But I have had my posts deleted for the most ridiculous reasons.

We're simply told she is not to be trusted.

It appears that you didn't.

Is she still saying that Arrests might happen tomorrow, like she did around two weeks ago.

I'm asking because I trust your judgment.