Also fascinating is that Louise Mensch reported on the FISA request at HeatSt.com on November 7, 2016, the day before the election; most likely to undermine Trump. Then, last Friday, in the New York Times, Mensch alluded that Trump’s “wiretapping” Tweets could be an impeachable offense:
This is an issue of the utmost consequence. If Mr. Trump’s tweet alleging that Trump Tower was wiretapped on the orders of President Barack Obama was untrue, Mr. Trump is guilty of a slur. If, however, the president tweeted real news, he revealed the existence of intercepts that cover members of his team in a continuing investigation. That would be obstruction of justice, potentially an impeachable offense.
What a deal! If Trump was wrong, he is a liar who defamed a former president. If Trump was right about the wiretapping, which it now looks like he was, then he could be impeached for obstruction of justice.
Well, well, look here. This is interesting.
First, Louise Mensch reports on the tweet saying “[if] he revealed the existence of intercepts that cover members of his team in a continuing investigation”, that would be “obstruction of justice, potentially an impeachable offense”.
But his tweet is cryptic, ambiguous, the word “wire tapped” in quotes. Plus Obama probably never explicitly gave a written or voiced order to somebody to do this, especially in a way that loses him deniability. And we who understand the normal usage of the English language and the limits of 140 characters in a tweet, understand that Trump probably did not mean it that way. He probably meant it the same way Harry Truman did: “The buck stops here” (at the presidential desk, the desk of boss-man, as chief of the Obama administration).
It’s pretty obvious from the sneaky way the retorts came back that they understood perfectly what Trump meant but rather than object to what they knew he meant, they went after a semantical two-step.
Meantime, it looks to me like this Louise Mensch is shooting herself in the foot, while her foot is in her mouth!
If Trump’s tweet was true, she says, then he was revealing an ongoing FBI criminal investigation, making the tweet an “obstruction of justice”!
But if the Trump tweet was true, we also have HER making a MUCH more direct revealing statement, by revealing the FISA request. If Trump’s tweet was arguably true the way she makes it criminal, then hers is the much more obvious felony crime.
So her report is a confirmation of the bogus FISA request based on what now looks like may have been a CIA “Umbrage” plant meant to prop up the case for the bogus “wiretapping” request to listen in on Trump and his team. She says such a revelation can be used against Trump for revealing an ongoing FBI criminal investigation. She did exactly that, and by her own words, she should turn herself in for the crime.
If she gets to claim reporters’ protection, then she encouraged a felony act by her source.
What did she say about Edward Snowden? Manning?