Tag: Claude Taylor

A Note On Patribotics – Louise Mensch

Yesterday, the Guardian published an article about my reporting that was false on the facts. It made the serious allegation, as fact, that I sourced my stories from a hoaxer with whom I have never interacted in any way.

The writer, Jon Swaine, put to me that I had used her as a source. I told him I had not. As far as I can see from emails this story quotes, the hoaxer herself has not even claimed to have interacted with me. Yet the Guardian stated that “lurid allegations” made by me about Donald Trump, Trump Models and Eric Schneiderman’s investigation into Trump for human trafficking came from this hoaxer.

That is categorically untrue.

Mr. Swaine also stated that Claude Taylor was the author of my piece on Orrin Hatch. This is, again, categorically false. Any person may read that piece and see that Taylor’s name is not on it.

The hoaxer, who fed the information to Taylor by email, said she acted out of frustration over the “dissemination of fake news” by Taylor and Mensch. Their false stories about Trump have included a claim that he was already being replaced as president by Senator Orrin Hatch in a process kept secret from the American public.

Swaine’s piece made a number of false allegations about my reporting on Donald Trump and Trump Models. 

Lurid Trump allegations made by Louise Mensch and co-writer came from hoaxer

This, the headline, is false. None of my allegations came from this hoaxer. Not one. I find it illuminating that the Guardian does not even name in the headline the citizen journalist who was indeed deceived. The entire piece seems to be an effort to place his errors in my hands.

  • Mensch and Claude Taylor tweeted details of criminal inquires that didn’t exist

This, the secondary strap, is false. The criminal inquiry that I report – that of AG Schneiderman of New York into Donald Trump and Trump Models does indeed exist. I have not tweeted any ‘detail’ on it, nor reported any, in my work.

Explosive allegations about Donald Trump made by online writers with large followings among Trump critics were based on bogus information from a hoaxer who falsely claimed to work in law enforcement.

This is false. Absolutely none of my reporting was based on any information from this hoaxer. Claude Taylor confirmed that he and I never spoke once about my story .

Claude Taylor tweeted fake details of criminal inquiries into Trump that were invented by a source whose claim to work for the New York attorney general was not checked, according to emails seen by the Guardian. The allegations were endorsed as authentic and retweeted by his co-writer Louise Mensch.

The source’s false tips included an allegation, which has been aggressively circulated by Mensch and Taylor, that Trump’s inactive fashion model agency is under investigation by New York authorities for possible sex trafficking.

This is false. Claude may have tweeted both fake details and tweeted based on a hoaxer. The allegation “that Trump’s inactive fashion model agency is under investigation by New York authorities for possible sex trafficking” is entirely true. The allegations are authentic, they are true, and the case is ongoing. I did not endorse Claude’s view because he tweeted it; I endorsed it because it is true, from my own sources. The record will show that I did not endorse as true things that I do not know myself are true, for example, specific details of cases.

The rest of the article follows the same pattern, with additional embarrassing failures by Swain of basic fact checking.

The hoaxer, who fed the information to Taylor by email, said she acted out of frustration over the “dissemination of fake news” by Taylor and Mensch. Their false stories about Trump have included a claim that he was already being replaced as president by Senator Orrin Hatch in a process kept secret from the American public.

This is false. My story about Senator Hatch is not “by Taylor and Mensch”. It is by me and me alone. Swaine apparently did not even click on the link to check. My story does not state Hatch is replacing Trump as President in a secret process. It states, accurately, that Hatch began to receive the Presidential Daily Briefing after James Comey was fired. “Trump’s Presidency Ended May 9th” is a quote from an intelligence source, obviously being metaphorical, which is clearly marked as a quote in the headline. I write:

“Trump’s presdidency ended May 9th,” said one source, referring to the overtly politicized dismissal of FBI Director James Comey.

The Guardian piece continues:

Taylor and Mensch also repeated an invented claim from the source that former president Bill Clinton knew of criminal wrongdoing by Trump’s model agency and was preparing to testify for the prosecution.

Again, this is wrong. My own sources report that Bill Clinton went to James Comey after he was forced on to Loretta Lynch’s plane by kompromat Russia held, derived from Jeffrey Epstein. My sources are entirely independent of this hoaxer (they include male sources) and they are known to me. Therefore, while Claude may have based his tweets on a demented manufacturer of fake news, my tweets on Bill Clinton and Epstein / Comey are based on sources linked to the intelligence community. I stated what I said based on my own information. Where Claude’s source, the hoaxer, asserted something I did not know, I used the conditional ‘this would be’ and ‘likely‘. I do however report that Clinton will be a witness against Trump on human trafficking via Trump models. That is, according to my independent sources who have knowledge of the crimes on which Trump and his company are being investigated, absolutely true.

Again and again, throughout his piece, Jon Swaine takes the unsustainable and untrue position that if the hoaxer references a thing, it is false, and if I tweet anything referred to by the hoaxer, my tweets are based on the hoaxer’s emails. Let me state again for the record I have never had any contact with her, nor does she claim I did:

After being asked by a follower for more information, Taylor claimed to know even more than the hoaxer had told him. “I have few details but apparently the possibility exists that our president has been a sex trafficker,” he said. Mensch then weighed in, reposting this false claim by Taylor and adding a vague allegation of her own that the full story was even worse.

The claim by Taylor may have been based on a liar, but the claim itself is not false. It is wholly and entirely true. Nor are my allegations “vague”. They are sourced and they are detailed. They were written up in an article. I have further accused Donald Trump of illegal sexual acts with trafficking victims. That too is sourced, to people linked to the intelligence community, known to me, and verified by me, in positions to know of the matter. I stand by both my article and my allegations on social media. They are sourced and they are true. They have been fact-checked by multiple intelligence sources. I resile from none of them, and Swaine and the Guardian will never be able to show that I relied on some hoaxer for the simple reason that I did not do so.

My Reporting Predates the Hoaxer’s References

Finally, Mr. Swaine appears to admit almost at the end of his piece that in point of fact, I had reported on Schneiderman’s investigation before this hoaxer even contacted Claude Taylor.

Mensch had claimed to have knowledge of inquiries by Schneiderman’s office before the hoaxer contacted Taylor.

Yes. That seems relevant, does it not?

In many cases, under the false headline

How the allegations were based on false information

Mr. Swaine and the Guardian reprint dated emails, from this hoaxer, referring to real reporting I have published on Patribotics months prior to her ever contacting Taylor. Swaine then asserts – as with Orrin Hatch and the Presidential Daily Briefing, my story from May 2016, which, without checks, he states Taylor wrote – false conclusions. He asserts that because the hoaxer mentions something I have reported before she contacted Taylor, it is false.

In an email dated July 20th, the hoaxer writes:

As you probably know, the RICO case that moved to FISC started in our state.

This, however, is based on my report of May 29, 2017:

Donald Trump Sealed Indictment Started With Eric Schneiderman

In an email dated July 23rd, she invents details based on my earlier and directly sourced reporting.

In an email dated July 26th, the hoaxer refers to Giuliani seeking a plea deal:

His lawyers are in talks for one. I”m not privy to the terms but I don”t think its even finalized at this point. I suspect he will get a deal.

This is, however, based on my much earlier reporting on Guiliani, based on a FOIA lawsuit I filed with the James Madison project. As far back as May 10th I stated that Giuliani was talking to the Feds and to Schneiderman, who, I reported, had an Enterprise Corruption case against Trump and the Trump Organization.

I repeated that on July 19, before the hoaxer’s email to Taylor ten days later:

Remember folks – despite my reporting predating the hoaxer’s references by months, Mr. Swaine asserts without merit that I base my allegations on her emails. Take this gem, dated July 27th, 2017. The hoaxer writes:

as for the money laundering, there are about 15 Russian nationals involved in that case so far. Some names will be familiar to you, Sater for one. This case is in early development but so far, we know that T kids are involved with some of the shell companies in the money laundering schemes. Fruaiduleng transactions with weird LLCs to hide where the money is coming from and where it is going.

This is quite simply a mash-up of my own sourced and detailed reporting on money laundering for Trump, shell companies and the Trump children’s involvement in shell companies and money-laundering.

I published “Daughtergate” on Ivanka Trump and her brothers, shell companies and money laundering on June 17th, over a month prior to this email.

Yet Swaine and the Guardian insist that my allegations are based on some much later hoaxer, emailing months after my publication?

I published my piece on shell companies and Trump hacking way back on April 23rd. The Sater Bayrock money laundering case being the sealed indictment for RICO, on which I reported May 29th, was, as I said, started in Schneiderman’s state jurisdiction.

I warned repeatedly that – contrary to what the hoaxer was feeding Claude Taylor – there were no sealed indictments based on Trump Models. My sources state this investigation is preliminary. I sent these warnings of mine to the Guardian.

So What Remedy?

My remedies are to make a complaint through the Guardian’s editorial system, which I will do, and if they refuse to correct the factual errors in their piece, to sue the author and the paper. That would be a last resort. It is a great burden on private citizens to have to take on media companies. The Guardian is, however, one of a handful of papers that has not signed up to IPSO, the independent press regulator in the UK, that normally adjudicates complaints from members of the public.

I have made complaints to IPSO’s predecessor body only twice in my career, and been sustained both times. One such paper was the Sunday Times, a respected broadsheet newspaper, and the other was the equally respected New Statesman.

It is better not to complain and to allow yourself to be vindicated by events. But in these cases, the falsehoods were seriously damaging to my reputation, partly because it was serious papers who made them. The corrections were welcome.

I hope very much that the Guardian’s own process will review my complaint fairly. It is always, in my view, worth trusting the ethics of editors before jumping straight to a lawsuit. In this case, as detailed in this piece, I believe facts and dates will bear me out, especially combined with the fact that Taylor denies, and the hoaxer does not claim, that I had any contact with either of them over this story.

In a later piece, I will detail my standards for sourcing and fact checking (spoiler: all my sources are human beings known to me) and list my claims that have been borne out by later mainstream media reports thus far.

 

 

EXCLUSIVE: Marshal of the Supreme Court Warned Trump over ‘Muslim Ban’

By Louise Mensch and Claude Taylor

 

Multiple sources confirm that Pamela Talkin, Marshal of the Supreme Court, was dispatched to the White House by Chief Justice Roberts last Friday. The decision to send her was taken, sources say, when White House Counsel, Don McGahn, did not release Rudy Giuliani’s ‘Muslim memo’, despite an order of the court* to do so by that date.

The White House failed to meet the May 19th deadline to hand over the Giuliani memo, violating this order. The order states, among other things:

The parties must exchange initial disclosures by May 19, 2017. Regarding the discovery requests Plaintiffs served on Defendants on April 6, Defendants must produce the document responsive to document request 1 by May 19, 2017, and they must respond to the remaining discovery requests by June 2, 2017.

A list of current suits in which the ‘Giuliani memo’ is vital evidence include ones at the Eastern District of Virginia, Case #17-cv-00120, Sarsour vs Trump; the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, a case that originated in Maryland, Case #17-1351, International Refugee Assistance Project v Trump; The State of Hawaii v Trump, case #17-cv-00050 at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals; and the case that triggered the decision to send the Marshal of the SCOTUS to Trump, Case #17-10310 at the Eastern District of Michigan, Arab American Civil Rights League et al v Trump.

Violating a court order is colloquially called ‘Contempt of Court’ and this matter falls within the standards of impeachment for a President under the constitution. The Trump Administration had not filed a motion of leave, or availed themselves of any legal mechanism to deny the order to provide the Guiliani memo by the 19th of May.

Chief Justice Roberts was concerned about both the preservation of evidence and Trump’s disregard for legal orders of the courts. He sent Marshal Talkin to the White House on Friday night, in order to tell Donald Trump that he was ordered to keep and preserve all evidence relating to this matter. Marshal Talkin was told by White House staff – brusquely, sources say – that she was too late to deliver the message to Mr. Trump; he had already left for his first trip overseas.

Marshal Talkin was not deterred. Sources report she ordered her escort to drive her straight to Andrews Air Force base. She met Trump on the tarmac, and delivered the message of the Chief Justice. Multiple sources, from law enforcement, to those linked to the intelligence community, sources linked to the military, and those linked to various different parts of the Justice Department and of the judicial system, report that Marshal Talkin informed Trump that if he were not to preserve and protect evidence, in line with orders of the courts, it would constitute a further impeachable offense; that is to say, a separate impeachable offense, additional to the case of impeachment which has already legally begun against him.

More on this breaking story as we receive it.

Patribotics hopes to expand reporting and commission other writers. If you would like to donate, there are buttons around the site, or you could make a contribution here.  

 

 

Whistleblowers are encouraged to get in touch on our secure protonmail email address.

*Correction: I originally attached the wrong court to the order linked in the text; as stated below, the case that triggered the Chief Justice’s decision to send the Marshal to the White House was Case #17-10310 at the Eastern District of Michigan, Arab American Civil Rights League et al v Trump.

EXCLUSIVE: Judiciary Committee Considering Articles of Impeachment

By Louise Mensch and Claude Taylor

Multiple sources close to the intelligence, justice and law enforcement communities say that the House Judiciary Committee is considering Articles of Impeachment against the President of the United States.

Sources further say that the Supreme Court notified Mr. Trump that the formal process of a case of impeachment against him was begun, before he departed the country on Air Force One. The notification was given, as part of the formal process of the matter, in order that Mr. Trump knew he was not able to use his powers of pardon against other suspects in Trump-Russia cases. Sources have confirmed that the Marshal of the Supreme Court spoke to Mr. Trump.

It was reported this week that Mr. Trump had texted Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn the message ‘Stay strong’. This might be interpreted as an attempt to intimidate a witness, sources say.

Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein met with the House Judiciary Committee this week in closed session.

The authors have previously reported exclusively on Patribotics that a sealed indictment exists against Donald Trump.


Editor’s Note: Donations and Whistleblowing

Patribotics hopes to expand reporting and commission other writers. If you would like to donate, there are buttons around the site, or you could make a contribution here.  If whistleblowers wish to contact patribotics they are encouraged to get in touch on Twitter, or via the contact form elsewhere on this site.

 

More of Patribotics journalism:

 

 

 

 

 

EXCLUSIVE: Sealed Indictment granted against Donald Trump

By Louise Mensch and Claude Taylor

Separate sources with links to the intelligence and justice communities have stated that a sealed indictment has been granted against Donald Trump.

Patribotics hopes to expand reporting and commission other writers. If you would like to donate, there are buttons around the site, or you could make a contribution here.  We thank all our readers for their kind support.

While it is understood that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution means that, until Mr. Trump is impeached, he cannot be prosecuted, sources say that the indictment is intended by the FBI and prosecutors in the Justice Department to form the basis of Mr. Trump’s impeachment. The indictment is, perhaps uniquely, not intended or expected to be used for prosecution, sources say, because of the constitutional position of the President.

———————————————————————————————————————————–

 


Read more of Patribotics breaking coverage here:

 

 

 

 

 

EXCLUSIVE: Six FISA Warrants Granted in Trump Russia Cases

Exclusive: Sources close to the intelligence community report that at least six separate FISA warrants were granted in the case of Donald Trump and his team’s collusion with Russia. A separate source confirms that the FISA warrant I reported on November 7th at Heat Street, granted against two Russian banks, was in fact two separate FISA warrants, granted on the same day. These two warrants form part of the six total granted warrants sources report, although, these sources say, there may be further FISA warrants both granted and renewed.

On Jan 11th Paul Wood of the BBC reported exclusively that the exact date of the FISA warrant against these banks – now clarified by sources to have been two separate warrants, one for each bank, Alfa Bank and Silicon Valley Bank – was October 15th. My story designated the date merely as October.

Editor’s Note: Donations and Whistleblowing

Patribotics hopes to expand reporting and commission other writers. If you would like to donate, there are buttons around the site, or you could make a contribution here. 

If whistleblowers wish to contact patribotics they are encouraged to get in touch on Twitter or via the contact form elsewhere on this site.

As the Trump-Russia prosecutions come closer, further details are emerging from varied sources.

Today (Sat, May 6th) on the AM Joy show on MSNBC, Joy Ann Reid became the first national broadcaster to refer to Grand Juries possibly summoned in the case of Donald Trump’s team and its collusion with the Russian government.

She referenced the tweet of Claude Taylor, whose sources had told him exclusively that Federal Grand Juries had almost completed their work. Taylor’s sources had told him that state and federal Grand Juries were convening in the case of the Trump team’s collusion with Russia.

I can add to the story that sources have pointed me at PACER records in both the Eastern District of Virginia and the Southern District of New York, which I have verified independently. In his testimony to the Judiciary Committee this past week, Mr. Comey specified that the FBI was working with ‘two main sets of prosecutors’ – one being the Eastern District of Virginia, popularly known as the ‘rocket docket’.

I have independently verified that these cases do exist. In the Eastern District of Virginia, “Case Name Not on File” was filed on April 17th, with the Movant listed as the U.S. Government.

In the Southern District of New York, also on April 17th a RICO case was filed, with the plaintiff not listed. In the Eastern District of Virginia, the Movant is publicly listed as the US Government – there is less information in the New York Southern District Court.

Both of these cases are, at the time of writing, available on search records without access to the PACER system.

Here is the publicly available information for the Eastern District of Virginia Court:

EDVA 1EDVA 2.jpeg

and here is the information for the RICO case in New York:NY SO.jpeg

There will be more on this developing story as we receive it.