Titanic Failure: What The Horowitz Report Actually Says About The Russian Investigation

I previously discussed the bizarre narrative in the media that the main takeaway from the Horowitz report was the debunking of a conspiracy theory. Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on some of the actual findings of the Horowitz report. The report shows that there was not credible evidence to maintain the investigation and that the Steele Dossier was essential to securing the FISA investigation despite repeated media statements to the contrary.

Here is the column:

The analysis of the report by Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz greatly depends, as is often the case, on which cable news channel you watch. Indeed, many people might be excused for concluding that Horowitz spent 476 pages to primarily conclude one thing, which is that the Justice Department acted within its guidelines in starting its investigation into the 2016 campaign of President Trump.

Horowitz did say that the original decision to investigate was within the discretionary standard of the Justice Department. That standard for the predication of an investigation is low, simply requiring “articulable facts.” He said that, since this is a low discretionary standard, he cannot say it was inappropriate to start. United States Attorney John Durham, who is heading the parallel investigation at the Justice Department, took the unusual step to issue a statement that he did not believe the evidence supported that conclusion at the very beginning of the investigation.

Attorney General William Barr also issued a statement disagreeing with the threshold statement. In fact, the Justice Department has a standard that requires the least intrusive means of investigating such entities as presidential campaigns, particularly when it comes to campaigns of the opposing party. That threshold finding is then followed by the remainder of the report, which is highly damaging and unsettling. Horowitz finds a litany of false and even falsified representations used to continue the secret investigation targeting the Trump campaign and its associates.

This is akin to reviewing the Titanic and saying that the captain was not unreasonable in starting the voyage. The question is what occurred when the icebergs began appearing. Horowitz says that investigative icebergs appeared rather early on, and the Justice Department not only failed to report that to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court but removed evidence that its investigation was on a collision course with the facts.

The investigation was largely based on a May 2016 conversation between Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and Australian diplomat Alexander Downer in London. Papadopolous reportedly said he heard that Russia had thousands of emails from Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. That was viewed as revealing possible prior knowledge of the WikiLeaks release two months later, which was then used to open four investigations targeting the campaign and Trump associates.

Notably, Democrats and the media lambasted Trump for saying the Justice Department had been “spying” on his campaign, and many said it was just an investigation into figures like Carter Page. Horowitz describes poorly founded investigations that included undercover FBI agents and a variety of different sources. What they really discovered is the main point of the Horowitz report.

From the outset, the Justice Department failed to interview several key individuals or vet critical information and sources in the Steele dossier. Justice Department officials insisted to Horowitz that they choose not to interview campaign officials because they were unsure if the campaign was compromised and did not want to tip off the Russians. However, the inspector general report says the Russians were directly told about the allegations repeatedly by then CIA Director John Brennan and, ultimately, President Obama. So the Russians were informed, but no one contacted the Trump campaign so as not to inform the Russians?

Meanwhile, the allegations quickly fell apart. Horowitz details how all of the evidence proved exculpatory of any collusion or conspiracy with the Russians. Even worse, another agency that appears to be the CIA told the FBI that Page was actually working for the agency in Russia as an “operational contact” gathering intelligence. The FBI was told this repeatedly, yet it never reported it to the FISA court approving the secret investigation of Page. His claim to have worked with the federal government was widely dismissed.

Worse yet, Horowitz found that investigators and the Justice Department concluded there was no probable cause on Page to support its FISA investigation. That is when there was an intervention from the top of the FBI, ordering investigators to look at the Steele dossier funded by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign instead.

Who told investigators to turn to the dossier? Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. He was fired over his conduct in the investigation after earlier internal investigations. Horowitz contradicts the media claim that the dossier was just a small part of the case presented to the FISA court. He finds that it was essential to seeking FISA warrants. Horowitz also finds no sharing of information with FISA judges that undermined the credibility of the dossier or Christopher Steele himself. Surprisingly little effort was made to fully investigate the dossier when McCabe directed investigators to it, yet investigators soon learned that critical facts reported to the FISA court were false. FISA judges were told that a Yahoo News article was an independent corroboration of the Steele dossier, but Horowitz confirms that Steele was the source of that article. Therefore, Steele was used to corroborate Steele on allegations that were later deemed unfounded.

The report also said that Steele was viewed as reliable and was used as a source in prior cases, yet Horowitz found no support for that and, in fact, found that the past representations of Steele were flagged as unreliable. His veracity was not the only questionable thing unveiled in the report. Steele relied on a character who, Horowitz determined, had a dubious reputation and may have been under investigation as a possible double agent for Russia. Other instances were also clearly misrepresented.

The source relied on by Steele was presented as conveying damaging information on Trump. When this source was interviewed, he said he had no direct information and was conveying bar talk. He denied telling other details to Steele. This was all known to the Justice Department, but it still asked for warrant renewals from the FISA court without correcting the record or revealing exculpatory information discovered by investigators. That included the failure to tell the court that Page was working with the CIA. Finally, Horowitz found that an FBI lawyer doctored a critical email to hide the fact that Page was really working for us and not the Russians.

Despite this shockingly damning report, much of the media is reporting only that Horowitz did not find it unreasonable to start the investigation, and ignoring a litany of false representations and falsifications of evidence to keep the secret investigation going. Nothing was found to support any of those allegations, and special counsel Robert Mueller also confirmed there was no support for collusion and conspiracy allegations repeated continuously for two years by many experts and members of Congress.

In other words, when the Titanic set sail, there was no reason for it not to. Then there was that fateful iceberg. Like the crew of the Titanic, the FBI knew investigative icebergs floated around its Russia investigation, but not only did it not reduce speed, it actively suppressed the countervailing reports. Despite the many conflicts to its FISA application and renewals, the FBI leadership, including McCabe, plowed ahead into the darkness.

Jonathan Turley is the chair of public interest law at George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel in a Senate impeachment trial. He testified as a Republican witness in House Judiciary Committee hearing in the Trump impeachment inquiry. Follow him @JonathanTurley.

241 thoughts on “Titanic Failure: What The Horowitz Report Actually Says About The Russian Investigation”

      1. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/upshot/your-surgeon-is-probably-a-republican-your-psychiatrist-probably-a-democrat.html
        “Plenty of professionals have commented on his mental state”.
        Leaving aside the issue of whether they agree with Wikipedia Benson’s diagnosis that Trump is psychotic, it’s probably not a good idea to make a long distance diagnosis without meeting and examining a “patient”.
        Especially by those in a profession dominated by and influenced by the groupthink of one political party.
        We saw this play out in 1964 when psychiatrists did the smear job on Goldwater.
        For a time, it seemed that the mental health professionals then became more careful about making McDiagoses of their political opponents.
        But maybe Benson can call in to Frazier Crane, if he’s still is taking phone calls, to get another another opinion to supplement is WikiKnowledge.

        1. Yes, the professionals follow, some of them, a code of ethics which forbids such public pronouncements. However, not all belong to such associations.

          1. They can lose their license if they are reckless enough. It doesn’t matter who they belong to, it is all the same when practicing mental health. When they say “warns against,” a clinician is foolish to continue doing it. The person can even sue them.

      2. American Psychiatric Association warns against diagnosing …
        Jan 10, 2018 · American Psychiatric Association warns against diagnosing ‘public figures’ without examining them. The American Psychiatric Association sent a memo to its members advising them not to diagnose “public figures” with illnesses or certain dispositions without first actually examining them.

        And… Psychiatrists Reminded To Refrain From Armchair Analysis Of Public Figures https://n.pr/2aZnBhh

        Earlier this week the American Psychiatric Association cautioned psychiatrists against taking part in a feverish new national hobby.

        Catching Pokémon wasn’t mentioned. Psychoanalyzing Donald Trump was.

        On the organization’s website, APA President Maria A. Oquendo wrote: “The unique atmosphere of this year’s election cycle may lead some to want to psychoanalyze the candidates, but to do so would not only be unethical, it would be irresponsible.”

        Oquendo was referring to the “Goldwater Rule,” a guideline adopted by the APA after a 1964 survey of psychiatrists found that nearly half of those polled felt that GOP presidential candidate Barry Goldwater was psychologically unfit to be president.

        The rule states that despite the shiny diagnostic T-ball Trump has propped in front of them — his volatility, his grandiosity, his entitlement — professional code holds that if they haven’t performed an in-person evaluation, psychiatrists should keep quiet on the mental character of public figures (unless of course they have that person’s permission to speak out).

          1. What are you talking about? Psychiatrists are medical doctors (MD) who have the same medical school as your internists, but specialize in psychiatry, so have the most studies And practice in psychiatry, but also study and practice neurology. About 2/3 to 1/3 ratio.

        1. Most Presidents have some level of narcissism running through their blood, including leaders of other countries, as well. In fact, it would be delusional and irrational to think that world leaders, including Trump, are not narcissistic on some level, either Overt, or Covert Narky Narcs…or passive-aggressive, or Machiavellian, or Malignant Narcs. Even worse, some leaders have their thumb on something more sinister, Sociopaths, or my all time favorite, Psychopathic, therein not lacking remorse, but simply not having any at all to begin with….a brain disorder via MRI, Yikes!!!

          1. And I am being sarcastic, on the psychopath comment, but we should really ask Kim how his uncle is doing…? Oh wait, that’s right, he blew him up.

            In a much lesser, more facetious tone, we should ask the boy band of the world, how is it going, playing means girls, or perhaps they’re just venting their frustration in camaraderie to one another. I would assume each and every member of the boy band also has narcissistic tendencies, just more covert about it…less overt, like on twitter.

      3. The so-called professionals are about as qualified to comment on POTUS’ mental state without examining him as I am to comment on your mental state based on what you’ve posted here. It’s not only malpractice; it’s ethically corrupt for them to do it.

    1. David, there’s that word again. Do you guys all coordinate on the false accusation you’re going with in any given week? Remember when you guys were adamantly convinced he was an antisemite? Funny. We don’t hear that anymore.

      I will refer you to my earlier post on the unprofessional and unethical psychiatrists who have been rebuked by their governing board for making arm chair diagnosis of public figures they have not met in person.

      The problem is that when these unethical professionals commit such malpractice, their words get repeated by others. It’s terrible harassment, to make a false accusation that someone has a serious mental illness.

    1. David Benson, When And where did you get your doctorate in psychology? Do you know the DSM-V diagnostic criteria for psychosis? Trump is not psychotic, and to say so is not ethical if you have never met him for a formal evaluation.

    2. It might be best for Benson not to bring up distinguishing fantasy from reality.
      This could easily lead into a good deal of speculation about Benson’s own fantasies.

  1. FBI Chief Wray Accepts Report Findings

    Yet Trump Publicly Intimidates Him

    As for Trump, he attacked his own appointee, FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, who said he accepted Horowitz’s conclusions, including criticisms of his own agency. Trump wasn’t happy, tweeting about Wray: “With that kind of attitude, he will never be able to fix the FBI.” This was either a threat to fire Wray or an attempt to pressure the director to think twice about any future steps that might hurt Trump’s image. One way or the other, it was a corrupt effort to, well, put the “fix” in.

    Edited from: “Our Country Is Accepting The Unacceptable”

    This evening’s Washington Post

    The strange thing here is that Wray accepted the report’s findings, including criticisms of the FBI, yet Trump bullies him nevertheless. Apparently Wray should have completely ‘rejected’ the report and put more blame on his own bureau in order to please Trump.

    This strange little subplot illustrates how unhinged Trump really is; which shows the FBI’s investigation was justified all along.

      1. David:

        Let’s discuss your own poor judgement. You have failed to respond to any of the following points. You do not have any high moral ground to stand on. Rather, you are gleefully cheering on an abuse of power that you would be howling about were it perpetrated by Republicans.

        You keep throwing around wild accusations – this time that he’s psychotic. It does’t seem to bother you in the slightest that it’s not accurate. Obviously he hasn’t had a break with reality. “With that kind of attitude, he will never be able to fix the FBI” does not qualify as “psychotic”, but why let the truth stop you? The FBI engaged in malfeasance. For years, Carter Page was portrayed as compromised. As it turns out, he was working with the CIA, and had reported his contact with the Russians to them immediately. The CIA confirmed this in an email to the FBI. In a criminal act, an FBI agent doctored the email, and reversed its meaning, to say that the CIA denied the connection. That led to the improper spying and violation of rights of Carter Page. The entire country has been plunged into a Russia Hoax, with an embarrassing number of Democrats believing that Trump was working with the Russians. Natacha still can’t figure out that this hoax was discarded, or that Russia’s meddling included feeding Hillary Clinton the fake dossier.

        You have failed to address a single one of my points. Please do so.

        In addition, what, exactly, high crimes were committed? Going to the court is not a high crime, nor is it an evil act. Not cooperating with the impeachment process, while the court reviews it, is neither evil nor a crime.

        So…I ask you yet again. What exactly was his high crime or evil act?

        I was chilled to hear your earlier answer that a high crime is whatever the House says it is. That’s straight out of Stalin’s secret police.

        Also answer this. Is a high crime against a Democrat president whatever a Republican House says it is? Will you similarly support an impeachment without any high crime or misdemeanor, and accept whatever a Republican House claims it is?

        Because if this is not OK if a Republican does it, it is not OK if a Democrat does.

        Once again:

        I find it incredibly frustrating that so many people support impeachment, who acknowledge that no high crime was committed. Instead, I hear vapid explanations. Well, a high cream means whatever the House says it means. Going to the courts is obstruction.

        I point out the evidence disproves tying aid to Biden, and there’s no response.

        I ask why Biden should be protected from investigation, merely because he’s running for President, and why Ukraine should not cooperate in an investigation, and it’s ignored.

        I list actual cases of colluding with Russians, lying, destroying evidence, obstruction, etc that was done by prominent Democrats, and there’s silence.

        I point out that if Trump committed a terrible crime, or an evil act, there would be bipartisan support for his impeachment. Therefore, the lack of support from Republicans is not because they refuse to impeach for political reasons, but because it is unjust – crickets.

        Does none of this bother anyone who supports impeachment? This is turning the country into a form of single party state. Sure, a Republican can get elected, but he’ll find no peace. He’ll be hounded by one false allegation after another, and Democrat voters will be serenely untroubled. They won’t even acknowledge that conservatives have a sincere point in their objections. Just…nothing…because it benefits their political team to abuse power. It doesn’t matter what facts or reasoning I present to you. You just ignore what disproves your narrative…which you keep repeating.

        Pelosi was right, but not for the reason she thought. This is a sad day for America.

        1. Karen, sane, rational presidents dont publicly bully top officials. Trump is either nuts or evil.

          1. Shill,
            Which of the following two statements would a reasonable and rational person perceive as a threat (bullying)?

            – With that kind of attitude, he will never be able to fix the FBI.
            – We can’t wait for Congress to do its job, so where they won’t act, I will.

            Which of those two statements did Democrats vociferously approve?

          2. On the contrary, bullying is a common behavior among leaders of large organizations. It’s part of the usual tool kit of “politics” like it or not. That’s just history

            Evil, ha, this coming from relativists is always a laugh. by what authority do you call him this? I learned from diversity and multiculturalism that all religions are basically equally valid. And since they tend to have different measures of what constitutes, evil, I guess the only question would be by what value set do you judge him such?

            By my value set, he’s a great leader, not evil. Apparently, we just don’t share the same values. If you respect my diversity, then you can live with that.

            finally. The DSM endeavors NOT to judge human behavior according to moralistic norms. There is a lot to read on that if you’re interested. I won’t belabor the metadiagnostic approach of the DSM here suffice to say none of these armchair characterizations of Trump from afar have any validity or meaning whatsoever in terms of psychiatry.

          3. Phillip – being quick to criticize people is not evil or nuts.

            Evil is murder or assault or starving someone.

            Why do you believe it is OK to make another false accusation? He’s a republican, and you find him unlikable, so it’s OK to pretend he’s evil or has a mental illness?

            That’s terrible. Why don’t you show better judgement?

        2. Karen, sane, rational presidents dont publicly intimidate top officials that ‘they’ appointed. Trump is either mentally unbalanced or just plain evil. And by making excuses for him, you are enabling the unacceptable.

          1. I apologize for the duplicate reply. There’s sometimes a long pause between the time I post and the time it prints on the blog.

            1. Phillip – I have the same pauses at times when I post, and sometimes they don’t go through. It’s Word Mess.

              You are not using the terms “sane” “mentally unbalanced” or “evil” correctly. You are just throwing them around at someone you oppose politically.

              Winston Churchill insulted people in public all the time. He was not insane, psychotic, or evil. Obviously. That’s because insults are not the definition of any of these very serious words that are getting dumbed down in political trench warfare.

              Trump can be counted upon to return fire when poked. This stands in his way, especially when he Tweets. People did not want a smooth, polished politician who would make false promises to get their votes, and then turn around and do business as usual. He is an antiestablishment character. His bluster has caused any number of kerfuffles. The entire planet Earth knows what he thinks of any topic on any given day. There are pros and cons to this approach

              To call it evil is patently absurd.

              What is most shocking is that the Horowitz report uncovered a conspiracy by the FBI to spy on the Trump campaign and try to lay a groundwork for impeachment (see the texts.) At least one agent has been referred for criminal charges for doctoring a CIA email, which exonerated Carter Page from the very beginning.

              And in light of this, you’re getting worked up because Trump was publicly critical of someone? If the sun is shining or it’s nighttime, Trump is critical of someone. It’s neither news nor unexpected. It’s like saying, “Guess what! He Tweeted!”

              It will not distract from the truly egregious malfeasance in Horowitz’s report, or from the abuse of power we are witnessing in this impeachment sham. If Trump had committed a high crime or misdemeanor, such as assassinating Trudeau via drone strike for mocking him, then Republicans would support impeachment. Since this is nothing more than a political hit job in order to cheat prior to the 2020 election, it is strictly split along party lines.

              I am grievously disappointed that Democrats in Congress appear to have lost all ethics and moral standards as to participate in this debacle. They should all hang their heads in shame after putting the country through this Russia hoax for so many years, destabilizing our country, and undermining a duly elected President of the United States. For shame.

              Per Turley: “So the Russians were informed, but no one contacted the Trump campaign so as not to inform the Russians?” This was a political hit job.

              “Horowitz details how all of the evidence proved exculpatory of any collusion or conspiracy with the Russians. Even worse, another agency that appears to be the CIA told the FBI that Page was actually working for the agency in Russia as an “operational contact” gathering intelligence. The FBI was told this repeatedly, yet it never reported it to the FISA court approving the secret investigation of Page. His claim to have worked with the federal government was widely dismissed.”

              Yes, indeed, Phillip. One of us should be red faced with shame for excusing and supporting this behavior, and it’s not me.

              1. Karen, it’s not a president’s job to hit back at critics or to publicly Intimidate his appointees. That’s a warped perception of what a president should be.

                1. Says who? It’s called leadership style. Spend any time in the military and you’ll encounter many of them.

                  The movie Twelve O’Clock High is a great example. We used this movie in leadership training to demonstrate how different styles will be necessary at any given time. Here is an excerpt of the plot:

                  Savage takes a harsh approach to restoring the group’s discipline and morale. He begins by reprimanding Lt. Col. Gately, demoting him to aircraft commander and insisting that he henceforth fly every mission. Savage assigns Gately only the most incompetent crewmen, ordering him to paint the name ‘Leper Colony’ on his airplane…The redeemed Ben Gately takes his place as lead pilot and strike commander for the mission.

                  1. OLLY – Twelve O’Clock High is a great movie. I cried when he could not get in his bomber anymore.

                    1. That was such a good movie. It is grim to think of the reality so many of our guys faced in war.

                      I think that scene in, I think, Omaha Beach in Saving Private Ryan gave me chills. It looked like suicide to go out in those boats. Impossible to get ashore. But those brave men just kept pushing in terrifying circumstances, against all odds.

                      We have memorabilia from wars. It’s sobering to think of what everyone went through.

                    2. Karen S – The movie you are thinking of is Saving Ryan’s Privates. The only good part of the movie is the part you are talking about.

                2. Politics is the art of the possible. Arguing fighting war and espionage are all ultimately subordinate to the aims of politics. Hence if bullying is possible to achieve political aims, then it’s perfectly rational method of communication to employ.

                  Moreover, the US is a historic bully of other nations, so bullying is very much part of the American way.

                  Now “philip” If you are done talking like a ten year old then you can grow up and drop the petty moralizing about Trump.

          2. You are incorrect Phillip. He doesn’t need to have a mental disorder in order to be rude to some people. Like many people of his level, he has traits consistent with narcissism, but most graduate students have that to give them confidence to get through the program. You notice I say “traits consistent with,” not that he has all the diagnostic criteria. I would say most of Washington DC, Hollywood, and other millionaires have the same traits. Narcissism is a long standing personality trait, not a mental illness. He is a multimillionaire, a powerful person, with thousands of employees. He acts the way he wants, and what has worked for him in the past.

            1. Cheryl Romano – although I would agree that many of my professors were narcissists, I would posit that graduate students are psychotic.

        3. Karen:

          Morrison, Taylor, Volker, and Sondland all testified under oath that military aid was contingent on Ukraine announcing publicly an investigation into Biden. They were all personally involved in the diplomatic machinations around that effort and Sondland spoke directly to Trump about his wishes. Not only was the aid withheld until the effort became public, but there are texts supporting this fact and a scheduled appearance by Zelensky on Fareed Zacharia’s CNN show for this purpose, cancelled after the WB.

          If you have a believable alternative explanation for this activity that does not include Trump, what is it? Are you saying he knew nothing about this, even though he introduced the idea to Zelensky and according to Sondland directed him in his efforts. Look up Occam-s razor.

          If anyone thinks Biden should be investigated and there is an actionable predicate, there are procedures in place for that and they do not include leaning on foreign governments by a political opponent for a public announcement beneficial to him personally. There is evidence that not only was the public announcement required, but it – absent an actual investigation -was sufficient

          In general we do not want investigations ordered up by political opponents and especially by the president. You get that, right?

          I favor impeaching the president and hope these issues will be fully vetted by the Senate. The allegations are serious and the evidence compelling for those who know it, Karen is doing her best to avoid it.

          1. bythebook:

            “Morrison, Taylor, Volker, and Sondland all testified under oath that military aid was contingent on Ukraine announcing publicly an investigation into Biden.”

            I will post a couple of videos. I ask that you watch them in their entirety (they’re short), and comment again. Let me know if you change your mind when you’ve heard that it turned out that Sondland admitted no one on Earth told him it was tied, and he just presumed, i.e. made it up himself.



            1. I am not avoiding anything.

              As I said before, if the President committed a high crime or misdemeanor, such as assassinating Trudeau via drone strike for mocking him, then there would be universal, bipartisan support. I would support impeaching anyone who really did commit a high crime.

              The reason why I disagree with this impeachment is based on the evidence of the case.

              This is on top of the Horowitz report, which showed serious misconduct on the part of the FBI to target Trump.

              1. Then please offer an explanation of the evidence which makes sense. Proposing it was all a misunderstanding does not make sense.

            2. Karen, I am reposting my response to Mespo on the Sondland clip. Please explain how all these members of the administration somehow got the wrong idea from the President, who by the way was part of the effort, including personally asking for the “favor” and putting a hold on the military aid. You know that makes no sense, right? Here’s that post.

              “I’m sorry Mespo, that is not an alternative explanation of how these actions transpired without Trumps direction and approval, it’s a weak sowing of doubt to what is obvious. Do you truly assert all these things went on, including Trump’s own facilitating behavior without his knowledge and direction? How and who?

              As to the cute attorney’s trick you dug up, Sondland interacted with the President numerous times and acted with the Ukraine as he read his wishes. There is no evidence of Trump’s displeasure with what he was doing, unless you take the “no QPQ” statement for the record after being caught. He immediately followed that statement with a detailed QPQ he wanted Sondland to execute. We can only reasonably conclude that Sondland accurately “assumed” his bosses wishes. Further, Sondland did not hold up the military aid. Only Trump had that authority.”

  2. Demigogery in the age of the smartphone, which amplifies stupidity, not intelligence.

      1. Is “psychotic” your new false accusation du jour? Just throw it on the pile in a few days and move on to another?

      2. You are incorrect and looking more stupid the more you say Trump is psychotic or stupid.

        1. I know exactly what I am saying,.. where did you get your psychology or psychiatry doctorate David…. ??? Do say, since you throw around clinical words like beach balls…

          1. So where did you obtain the qualifications to state that Trump is not psychotic?

            Mere baseless opinion…

            1. Loma Linda University class of 2006… and I have been doing clinical work since 1996 and teaching graduate classes since 1999. Baseless David? Foolish…

            2. Your opinion is baseless here Benson.

              1- logic demands that the proponent of an assertion provide the proof. You bear the burden of proof. And you have none.

              2- are you a psyciatrist? no i dont think so. post your CV if you are

              3– even if you were a psychiatrist, then, you would not have examined Trump, and could not offer a proper diagnostic opinion, isnt that right?

              4– your obfuscating “evil” and “psychotic” is not the metadiagnostic approach of the DSM which avoids moralisms in favor of evaluating a persons relative to their own viable community standards, isnt that right? Or do you say otherwise? If so explain the metadiagnostic approach of the DSM which would allow you to blend “evil” with “psychotic”

              Answer plainly or we can just admit together that your opinion is just as baseless as those you disagree with Benson. and pursuant to principle 1 even worse.

              1. Mr Kurtz – According to Benson he is/was an electrical engineer who got into computing in the early days.

      3. So. Do you think Chinggis Khan was psychotic?

        This petty moralizing from you guys may work on students locked up in universities and other suchlike captive people but not on me nor the legions of other faceless peasants like me out here in flyover who could care less about petty moralizing and armchair psychiatrist insults.

    1. Who is a demigod, or who is stupid?. It isn’t Trump. I would say he has a very high IQ, probably in the superior range.

  3. The Titanic Failure is the American response to the Obama Coup D’eta In America.

    “As of 20 July 2016, the purge already had seen over 45,000 military officials, police officers, judges, governors and civil servants arrested or suspended, including 2,700 judges, 15,000 teachers, and every university dean in the country.”

    2016 Turkish coup d’état attempt

    Arrests and purges
    Main article: 2016 Turkish purges
    General Akın Öztürk, former Commander of the Turkish Air Force, was reported as being the leader of the coup attempt.

    An extensive purge of the Turkish civil service began in the wake of the coup attempt, with President Erdoğan warning his opponents that “they will pay a heavy price for this.”[173] The New York Times along with some other Western media such as The Economist,[174][175] described the purges as a “counter-coup”, with the Times expecting the president to “become more vengeful and obsessed with control than ever, exploiting the crisis not just to punish mutinous soldiers but to further quash whatever dissent is left in Turkey,”.[173] As of 20 July 2016, the purge already had seen over 45,000 military officials, police officers, judges, governors and civil servants arrested or suspended, including 2,700 judges, 15,000 teachers, and every university dean in the country.[176]

    163 generals and admirals were detained, around 45% of the Turkish military’s total.[177]

    On 18 July 2016, United States State Secretary John Kerry urged Turkish authorities to halt the increasing crackdown on its citizens, indicating that the crackdown was meant to “suppress dissent”. French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault voiced concern, warning against a “political system which turns away from democracy” in response to the purges.[178]

    On 17 August 2016, Turkey started releasing what was expected to eventually amount to about 38,000 prison inmates, to make more space in the penal system for detainees, numbering about 35,000, who were arrested or detained after being involved in or suspected of association, with the 2016 failed coup.[179][180]

    On 28 September 2016, Turkish justice minister Bekir Bozdağ said 70,000 people had been processed and 32,000 were formally arrested.[181]

    Major General Cahit Bakir, who commanded Turkish forces under NATO in Afghanistan, and Brigadier General Sener Topuc, responsible for education and aid in Afghanistan, were detained by authorities in Dubai in connection with the failed coup.[182]

    General Akın Öztürk, former Commander of the Turkish Air Force, was the Turkish military attaché to Israel. He was arrested on charges of having played a leading role in the failed coup.[183] Öztürk has denied the charges.

    General Adem Huduti, the commander of the Second Army, positioned along the southern borders with Syria and Iraq, and General Erdal Öztürk, the commander of the Third Army, were also arrested.[184]

    Rear Admiral Mustafa Zeki Ugurlu, who had been stationed at NATO’s Allied Command Transformation in Norfolk, Virginia, sought asylum in the United States after being recalled by the Turkish government.[185]

    In July 2018, Istanbul’s 25th Criminal Court sentenced 72 former soldiers involved in the coup attempt to life in prison.[186][187]

    On 20 June 2019, a terrorism court in Turkey sentenced 151 people to life in prison, including General Akin Ozturk, former commander of Turkish Air Force, and the most senior officer involved in the coup. 128 people received “aggravated life” sentences, which indicates harsh conditions without parole, for their role in the coup, with another 23 receiving standard life sentences.[188]

    – Wikipedia

  4. America is in a condition of hysteria, incoherence, chaos, anarchy and rebellion.

    President Abraham Lincoln seized power, neutralized the legislative and judicial branches and ruled by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Union.”

    President Donald Trump must now seize power, neutralize the legislative and judicial branches and rule by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Republic.”

    1. Yeah, George, we would have been much better off had the Confederates won the Civil War. Our cities wouldn’t have so many ‘undesirables’. Those people would all be working in the South.

      1. The entire American welfare state is unconstitutional. The republic is gone; replaced by the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Most of the freedoms, rights, immunities and privileges of Americans have been nullified.

        1. Gee, I didn’t know that… it isn’t my experience. What type of terrible place do you life in?

      2. Do you do law? Secession is constitutional.

        Lincoln had no authority to attack a sovereign foreign nation with his military, to suspend Habeas Corpus, destroy printing presses and publishing facilities, confiscate private property, commandeer the 1864 election through brute military force, etc. You support criminal acts against American fundamental law – the Constitution. You have no concept of American freedom – you can’t handle the truth that Americans are free and government is severely limited and restricted and government exists only to facilitate the freedom of individuals. Slavery should have evolved out of existence through employment of the political and economic tools of advocacy, boycotts and divestiture. There is always a free market solution; always. That’s what America is: Free with Free Markets.

  5. Horrowitz sets the standard for starting an investigation.

    The standard to ask for one is even lower.

    Trump met the threshold needed to ask Zelensky to investigate.

    1. Trump asked that a public announcement about investigating Biden be made by Zelensky. If he wanted a true investigation he would have followed procedures involving the FBI and foreign counterparts and he would have kept it secret until after the election, just like Comey did.

      1. If he wanted a true investigation he would have

        Thanks for the a** pull. Been an education.

  6. Republican Fury At I G Report Lacking Basis

    Despite the FBI probe, the American public had no idea Trump was being investigated. Yet James Comey sent a well-publicized letter to Congress warning that Hillary Clinton was under a new investigation less than 2 weeks before the election. Clinton’s polling numbers dropped dramatically after that and Trump managed to to win an Electoral College victory.

    So one has to ask what damages Trump suffered as a result of the FBI probe. He and his supporters would undoubtedly cite The Mueller Probe. But Trump has only his stupid mouth to blame for said probe.

    Had Trump acknowledged election interference as soon as it became a national news story, he could have gotten ahead of the issue. Trump’s first act as president should have been a bipartisan commission to investigate the interference.

    But instead Trump kept dismissing the interference as ‘fake news’ while continuing to make statements beneficial to Russia. No president ever tried harder to get a Special Counsel probe.

    1. Comey is a pompous self righteous moron who has zero clue about ethics.

      Nothing he did in either investigation was right.

      His faux exoneration was legal garbage. His subsequent actions were troubling.

      His handling of the Trump/Russia probe was appalling, and his firing was fully justified for inumerable reasons.

      As to your election nonsense.

      Many things happen in elections – had the SC not indicted Weinberger just before the 92 election – Bush likely would have beat Clinton.

      Had the NBC tape not come out – Trump likely would have won the popular vote.

      Absolutely the FBI did not leak to the press they were investigating Trump.

      But the evidence they were using was a fabrication produced by the DNC and HFA.

      Hillary was free to go to the press at any time.

      Trump had bad luck and good luck in the campaign. Clinton had bad luck and good luck.

      Absolutley if EVERYTHING had gone Clinton’s way and NOTHING had gone Trump’s way – Clinton would likely have won.

      Or the links between Bill Clinton and Epstein could have gotten the press they deserved and Clinton would have been obliterated.

      Regardless, you do not get a do over simply because things outside your control did not go as you wished.

      Nor are you entitled to some kind of FBI/Mueller SC revenge through Trump’s presidency because you to not like ONE of James Comey’s many corrupt choices.

    2. Peter is whining that Comey didn’t lie to a congressional committee (after supervising a fraudulent pseudo-investigation of Peter’s preferred candidate).

      1. Tabby, everyone knew that Hillary was being investigated. Trump was unburdened by public awareness. So he’s the one who’s whining.

          1. Tabby-cat has had many names over the years. S/he finally settled on the TIA series, but there were many before…

            1. You are posting under the name “Anonymous.” Who are you to criticize? Why not pick an avatar? Were you removed?

              1. Karen S.,
                No, I was not removed.
                Once we got up to 5 or 6 people here posting as anonymous, I decided that we could use another anonymous.
                That is one reason why I post as anonymous. I won’t go into the other reasons at this point, any more than I’d ask you why you post as Karen S.
                I don’t use sock puppets, but I have considered it since that appears to be fair game here.
                If you pay attention to content, it’s fairly easy to see the differences between those who post as anonymous.

                1. I wish that people would pick a recognizable avatar and stay with it, or if they change it, stick with that. It’s hard to continue a thread of conversation, when you can’t tell which Anonymous you’re speaking with.

                  One of them is a bit excitable. I can tell you’re not him or her, and that you know the blog well. I just wish I had a tag to associate you with so I can have a continuous idea of where you’re coming from.

                  C’est la vie. My phone never rings with the White House wondering what to do, or with blog commentators asking me if they should pick an avatar.

    3. Except for the fact that the FBI director is supposed to be independent of the president, Wray probably would have resigned. Trump referred to agents as scrum last night and is successfully sliming an organization with mostly dedicated agents, some of whom risk their lives in their work. Our new enemies are European democracies and the FBI and our new friends Russia, NK, SA, RR is spinning in his grave.

    4. What damages did Trump suffer?

      He’s been accused in the media, Hollywood, and by millions of people of colluding with the Russians for 3 years when they had the evidence that it wasn’t true. It literally was fake news.

      This destabilized his presidency.

      This divided the country.

      Naive people thought a Russian asset was in the White House.

      This weakened our country on the global scale.

  7. If the investigation met the low threshold needed to start, but subsequently fell below that threshold – which is Horrowitz’s finding

    Then the Mueller investigation NEVER met the threshold to start.

    Those appointing Mueller are culpable for starting an investigation they KNEW had no foundation, and Mueller is culpable for not stopping once he realized that.

    It is evident that sometime between October 2016 and July 2017 that the FBI and Mueller knew the Steele Dossier was garbage, and there was nothing left to support the investigation.

    Yet FBI continued, and so did Mueller.

    While Horrowitz does not undercut Mueller for accepting the SC role.

    He destroys any basis for appoint him. and he makes it clear that Mueller had to have realized he did not have the justification to continue very shortly after starting.

  8. From the I.G. report:

    The Steele dossier played “a central and essential role…for FISA surveillance targeting Carter Page.”

    The FBI “drew almost entirely” from the Steele dossier to prove a “well-developed conspiracy” between Russians and the Trump campaign.

    There you have it folks. An investigation started because of the mutterings of Popodopolous in a bar somewhere continued well beyond the preliminary phase because of a “well-developed” theory based on the Steele dossier.

    An F.B.I. director who oversees this kind of thing ought to be fired. Oh wait………….

  9. a liberal news columnist skewers the liberal news media and Democrats

    Corroboration Zero’: An Inspector General’s Report Reveals the Steele Dossier Was Always a Joke

    Horowitz describes at great length an FBI whose “serious” procedural problems and omissions of “significant information” in pursuit of surveillance authority all fell in the direction of expanding the unprecedented investigation of a presidential candidate (later, a president)…Officials on the “Crossfire Hurricane” Trump-Russia investigators went to extraordinary, almost comical lengths to seek surveillance authority of figures like Trump aide Carter Page…Likewise, the use of reports by ex-spy/campaign researcher Christopher Steele in pursuit of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authority had far-reaching ramifications. Not only did obtaining a FISA warrant allow authorities a window into other Trump figures with whom Page communicated, they led to a slew of leaked “bombshell” news stories that advanced many public misconceptions, including that a court had ruled there was “probable cause” that a Trump figure was an “agent of a foreign power.” There are too many to list in one column, but the Horowitz report show years of breathless headlines were wrong.

    Matt Taibbi

  10. Turley’s argument is with Horowitz, not the “news media” which has mostly accurately reported his findings. He has repeated them without change in this hearing, which is that the investigation was legitimate and without political motive, though some individuals within the investigation acted so, and it involved no “spying” on Trump’s campaign – the investigation was strictly limited to the suspected interactions with Russia, not campaign strategy, actions, or any behavior outside that scope.

    Finally, he noted the failure of Barr, or even Durham, to comment constructively or otherwise on the report, which he provided them before it’s release – it is SOP to add those comments to the report. He further related that nothing those 2 spoke to him about directly changed his conclusions. He described Durham’s objections to be limited to whether the investigation should have been labelled “preliminary” or “full” though he stated that it was directed in a manner consistent with preliminary investigations. I.e., Durham’s objection was mute.

    1. There’s nothing that indicates something other than a preliminary investigation should have taken place — something that should have taken a couple of weeks tops. There was no basis on which to proceed beyond that. The Trump Russia collusion Conspiracy Theory is debunked by the Horowitz report. So the entire sham for the past 3 years has been confirmed as such.

      I am open to the notion that the F.B.I. overdoes it on many occasions. For example, while I acknowledge the State Department I.G. report regarding H. Clintons server, it did not require a multi-month investigation by the F.B.I. You had people in the Bureau that got too carried away — actually thought they had something with regard to the Espionage Act. If there is any thing that can be regarded as justice in this whole debacle, it is that the “lock her up” crowd got a dose of their own medicine and then some.

      1. oh you mean that investigation where they let hillary’s info system contractor feed them conclusory reports and they took them at face value without physically taking custody of servers like they usually would do in a computer forensic examination?

        and then came up with a bogus conclusion that it was a hack and not a leak when a hack was physically impossible?

        some investigation

        and we keep on hearing that it’s all a debunked conspiracy theory

        even as it gets less and less debunked all the time

        some conspiracy theories are like other valid theories, well supported in fact.

        the ones they don’t like are called “debunked” regardless of fact. that’s how the media operates.
        why we call it “fake news.”

        1. I take it that your argument is that they do not do complete investigations at times. That hardly means they don’t overdue it at other times, which is all I said.

          1. my point was just that they didn’t follow SOP for a physical seizure of the hardware involved and a proper forensic examination by their own experts

            they just relied on whatever Crowdstrike told them.

            which is pretty close to NEVER how they handle things when they are serious

            they weren’t serious

            it suggests there is another covert explanation and that their conclusions were a whitewash or perhaps deliberate disinformation

            if you think that FBI does not ever deliberately misinform the public, wake up folks

            they can and they do exactly that whenever they deem it expedient

            sometimes expedient is probably really good reasons like ongoing investigations

            sometimes expedient means they’re covering the fannies of their own cherished idols like yeah you got it, Hillary, darling of the “deep state”

        2. we keep on hearing that it’s all a debunked conspiracy theory

          It would be so much more efficacious if the Left stopped breathlessly evangelizing their beliefs to everyone and simply uploaded a video on Youtube showing us the way

      2. see i am just a regular peasant nobody lawyer who knows that when the FBI does a criminal forensic examination they usually- like pretty much always, SOP, take the computer box OUT of a location, into an FBI forensic lab, where the FBI makes mirror image duplicates of the storage devices, that can be used to do more extensive investigations over time, while preserving the original physical evidence.

        which never happened. they took third party, interested, biased reports at face value instead

        which is why dumbkoffs like me keep on believing the “Conspiracy theory” that says the FBI conclusions were in fact not only wrong but also intentionally flawed —

        because we know how the FBI normally does its procedures

        of course most people dont know that

        I’ve been saying this for a couple years now, and people a lot more credible than me, but you guys always ignore it. which shows how totally fake this whole discussion has become.

        now why did they not do this?

        In part because there was a network of connected computers and servers and so forth

        some they had here in the US and they could have seized them. why didn’t they?

        and….. some of which were overseas

        some of which were: In Ukraine. like Trump said. …… yeah.

        1. Unless I’m mistaken, didn’t Horowitz say multiple times that the Russians hacked the DNC server? Has anybody asked him how he knows that? Has anyone asked him to do a procedural post-mortem on the alleged investigation that miraculously produced that convenient conclusion seemingly out of thin air? Wouldn’t you like to see the 600 page IG report on that one?

      3. Well you got at least one thing partially right-that the Trump collusion investigation gave the ‘lock up crowd’ (by this I assume you mean Trump supporters) a ‘dose of their own medicine’-that is all true PLUS it gave the ENTIRE COUNTRY the impression (FOR THREE (3) YEARS) that their government was compromised and corrupt. IMO, that is a BAD thing (a ‘bug’ NOT A FEATURE)
        The investigation derailed the entire country, just like Putin wanted (that ostensibly was the reason for the investigation-to prevent election interference)
        Your ‘philosophy’ that it was OK to burn down the village in order to ‘save’ it is remarkable-a remarkably stupid comment.
        I would like to think the previous CIA head (Brennan) and DNI head (Clappor) will be soon cooling their heels in a federal lockup.

        1. From the I.G. report:

          The Steele dossier played “a central and essential role…for FISA surveillance targeting Carter Page.”

          The FBI “drew almost entirely” from the Steele dossier to prove a “well-developed conspiracy” between Russians and the Trump campaign.

          There you have it folks. An investigation started because of the mutterings of Popodopolous in a bar somewhere continued well beyond the preliminary phase because of a “well-developed” theory based on the Steele dossier.

          An F.B.I. director who oversees this kind of thing ought to be fired. Oh wait………….

        2. Our government is compromised and corrupt.

          Understanding that is not a bad thing.

          Whether it is the VA letting people die, or Clinton’s bathroom email server or the afghan papers, or the Bush WMD’s or the missed collapse of the USSR or missing 9/11 or the pentagon papers or ……

          Our government is corrupt.

          Our politicians are politically corrupt – we have known that for a long time.

          Some of us – libertarians, have understood that “power corrupts”. ALWAYS
          It corrupts our elected officials, it also corrupts the Comey’s and Mueller’s and Yavonovitch’s who beleive they are serving the great unwashed by thwarting their elected representatives.

          Adam Schiff and Donald Trump can politically duke it out at 40 paces.
          They are each free – within the constraints of the law and constitution to do as they please.

          James Comey, Yavonovitch, Kent, …. are NOT.

          They owe their suppriors their best advice.
          Like MacArthur – if the their supperiors do not take it and they can not do as demanded they must resign.

      4. Sorry Steve – but the Clinton Email server was a HUGE problem, and it warranted a far larger investigation.

        John Deutch was convicted for Less – and Bill Clinton pardoned him on the way out of office.

        Nor is this simply about classified information.

        Numorous laws including records keeping and FOIA laws were broken.

        National security was compromised and atleast one foreign power (china) was reading the US Sec States private (classified and unclassified) correspondence in real time.

        The left whigged out when Trumap as president KNOWINGLY provided information he received from Israel to Russia to thwart a terrorist attack.

        Hillary unwittingly let the Chinese know much of US foreign policy – including what we were NOT telling other countries. That is like chosing a seat at a poker table with a mirror behind you.

        Nor is this a Hillary specific crime – more than a dozen people at the state department participated in both enabling and covering this up.

        The democratic party knew enough that Hillary should have been asked to bow out of the race early on.

    2. Turley’s argument is with Horowitz, not the “news media” which has mostly accurately reported his findings.

      Peter what are you babbling about? Only a shilling paid troll like you would lie incessantly lying about anything that damages your religious left wing cult establishing yet again how bizarre, unhinged and dumb you are

      – Washington Compost

    3. Have you listened to anything Horowitz said or even read the executive summary ?

      The ONLY part you have correct is that Horrowitz said the investigation met the low threshold necescary to start an investigation.

      That should not thrill you because it SHOULD mean the end of FAUX Impeachment, if you were not drowning in hypocracy.

      Past that Horrowitz DOCUMENTED numerous instances of SPYING.
      Including senior Trump Campaign staff.

      I think Horrowitz is naive regarding motive. But I could care less.

      Misconduct, crimes, are all CONDUCT – we ask WHY in the hopes of understanding them. But a crime is a crime – even if there is no reason. And a legitimate action remains legitimate even if you have political motives.

      Any other standard would be nonsense.

      Horowitz PROPERLY did NOT say that as a opposing political candidate Trump was immune from investigation. Guess what Neither is Biden, or 2016 DNC.

      1. IG Horowitz only has a certain purview. “Motive” speculation is above his pay grade.

        He’s like an accountant. An accountant gathers info but a lawyer interprets it.

        Motive is not above Barr’s pay grade.

        Likewise IG did not review the CIA side of it.

        But Barr can do that.

        More to come about that. IG report just a beginning/.

      2. Horowitz today – “…..we did not find evidence that the FBI sought to place confidential human sources inside the campaign or plant them inside the campaign.”

    4. https://youtu.be/Xqzu5lU7n0M

      Horowitz, on camera. He cannot rule out political motivation. He says so in this exchange.

      FBI agents stonewalled and some refused to cooperate with the investigation. They did not admit political bias. Text messages indicate otherwise.

      I highly suggest that people repeating a misleading talking point seized upon by a desperate Democrat House listen to this short clip.

  11. Inspector General Tells Senate:

    The Rudy Giuliani Leaks Probe Continues

    The Russia investigation, of course, isn’t the only thing the FBI did that raised eyebrows during the 2016 election; so too did Comey’s announcement of newly discovered Clinton emails a week and a half before the election. Clinton and others continue to blame that for her narrow loss.

    At issue here for Horowitz is Comey’s indication that part of the reason for the announcement was because of leaks from the FBI’s New York field office. Top Trump ally Rudolph W. Giuliani, who has close ties to that office, signaled before the announcement that he had been getting information about it.

    Giuliani said beforehand there was a “pretty big surprise” on the way. After the news broke, he indicated he had gotten a heads-up, only to walk back his comments.

    Without addressing Giuliani specifically, Horowitz said the investigation into such leaks is still ongoing.

    “This continues to this day,” Horowitz said. “We are investigating those contacts.”

    He was pressed on why the investigation wasn’t complete yet, and he said it was because it was so difficult to establish the content of conversations that might have included such leaks.

    Edited from: “6 Takeaways From The Michael Horowitz Hearing”

    Today’s Washington Post

    Lost beneath the Republican outrage is the strong possibility that Rudy Guiliani colluded with the FBI’s New York office to pressure James Comey’s infamous letter to Congress warning that a new investigation hovered over Hillary Clinton. Said letter was issued less than 2 weeks before the 2016 election and largely blamed for Clinton’s loss.

    No presidential candidate had ever been tagged with an FBI warning before. Therefore Democrats, even more than Republicans, can justifiably say ‘they’ were the victims of improper conduct by the FBI.

    1. Comey was the FBI Director, and made the decision to send the letter to Congress.
      Yet there is a common argument made that poor Comey was ” pressured” or forced to send that letter.
      In addition to other questions about who was calling the shots in the DOJ in 2016, there is the question of if Comey was more interested in pretending that he was the Attorney General to take responsibility for running the FBI.
      Either the buck stops with Comey, who was supposed to be the FBI Director, or we can keep hearing about how Guiliani and lower- ranking FBI officers in New York were running the show.
      Comey said that he never found out who tipped off the NY agents ( in testimony shortly before he was fired).
      He had about 6-8 months to investigate this before he was fired. Additionally, both the current FBI Director Wray and IG Horowitz have investigated the alleged leak, and over 3 years after the fact there have been no indictments, demotions, or reports from them on the alleged Guiliani- New York FBI scheme.
      I think Guiliani and others have been interview by the FBI about this matter, so if there was unauthorized leaking or insubordination on the part of junior FBI officials, nothing has been done about it.

      1. He used Wiki? Hahaha 🤷🏻‍♀️ Doesn’t he know anyone, anyplace can add or subtract to Wiki without any policing?

        1. You are incorrect… Most professors will FAIL a student’s assignment if they reference Wiki… the exception may be first year college students who still don’t know proper research skills, and a really nice professor who doesn’t mind telling students several times not to use Wiki, and the reason…

          You are a foolish man… here is some content from their Terms of Use page… sorry I can’t highlight certain texts for your apparently little brain to comprehend better. The website is on the bottom as a reference.

          “Please be aware that you are legally responsible for all of your contributions, edits, and re-use of Wikimedia content under the laws of the United States of America and other applicable laws (which may include the laws where you live or where you view or edit content). This means it is important that you use caution when posting content. In light of this responsibility, we have some rules about what you cannot post, most of which is either for your own protection or for the protection of other users like yourself. Please keep in mind that the content we host is for general informational purposes only, so if you need expert advice for a particular question (such as medical, legal, or financial issues), you should seek the help of a licensed or qualified professional. We also include other important notices and disclaimers, so please read these Terms of Use in their entirety….

          Our role is to host some of the largest collaboratively edited reference Projects in the world, which can be found here. However, we act only as a hosting service, maintaining the infrastructure and organizational framework that allows our users to build the Wikimedia Projects by contributing and editing content themselves. Because of our unique role, there are a couple of things you should be aware of when considering our relationship to you, the Projects, and the other users:

          We do not take an editorial role: Because the Wikimedia Projects are collaboratively edited, all of the content that we host is provided by users like yourself, and we do not take an editorial role. This means that we generally do not monitor or edit the content of the Project websites, and we do not take any responsibility for this content. Similarly, we do not endorse any opinions expressed via our services, and we do not represent or guarantee the truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any submitted community content. Instead, we simply provide access to the content that your fellow users have contributed and edited.

          You are responsible for your own actions: You are legally responsible for your edits and contributions on Wikimedia Projects, so for your own protection you should exercise caution and avoid contributing any content that may result in criminal or civil liability under any applicable laws. For clarity, applicable law includes at least the laws of the United States of America. Although we may not agree with such actions, we warn editors and contributors that authorities may seek to apply other country laws to you, including local laws where you live or where you view or edit content….

          3. Content We Host
          You may find some material objectionable or erroneous: Because we provide a wide array of content that is produced or gathered by fellow users, you may encounter material that you find offensive, erroneous, misleading, mislabeled, or otherwise objectionable. We therefore ask that you use common sense and proper judgment when using our services.

          Our content is for general informational purposes only: Although we host a great deal of information that pertains to professional topics, including medical, legal, or financial issues, this content is presented for general informational purposes only. It should not be taken as professional advice. Please seek independent professional counseling from someone who is licensed or qualified in the applicable area in lieu of acting on any information, opinion, or advice contained in one of the Project websites.


          Wikipedia (2019). Terms of Use. Retrieved December11, 2019 from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_usex

            1. Anyone can be a wiki editor, even a 12 year old could get away with it. You didn’t read what I sent?

    1. One more time… You are incorrect in calling him Psychotic. Psychosis is a clinical term, not to call people names with your laymen’s understanding of the word.

        1. Because of your reckless use of clinical words and name calling with words that are not correct, unless you just are a professional and enjoy saying stupid things.

          1. CMR,
            Maybe Benson has a point. He’s establishing himself as the premeire WikiShrink in these threads, so technically he may not consider himself to be a layman.

Comments are closed.